Monarchists

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Mouz- It may seem like an obvious question, but what Monarchy are you in support of?

Well, it must be obvious indeed. However, given the current circumstances, I prefer saying it's hypothetical. That obvious dynasty, btw, seem totally uninterested in re-establishing themselves, in which I can't blame them.
.

[KarlXII]

.


Well, it must be obvious indeed. However, given the current circumstances, I prefer saying it's hypothetical. That obvious dynasty, btw, seem totally uninterested in re-establishing themselves, in which I can't blame them.
.

Actually, I meant what Monarchy you support (Established or wish to establish).

I assumed Turkish, but just want to be sure.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Oh, that. Well, I don't believe in nations and strongly dislike nation states. So, my ideal monarchy should be established in a broader land, with federatively or confederatively united -current- countries.
.

[KarlXII]

.
Oh, that. Well, I don't believe in nations and strongly dislike nation states. So, my ideal monarchy should be established in a broader land, with federatively or confederatively united -current- countries.
.

That's an interesting take.

The Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance has a similar position. They wish to assemble the modern nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under a common parliament with a Hapsburg as Monarch.

I think they're interesting.

[HoreTore]

That's an interesting take.

The Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance has a similar position. They wish to assemble the modern nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under a common parliament with a Hapsburg as Monarch.

I think they're interesting.

Hmmmmm.....

Wasn't white the colour of the Habsburgs? What's up with the black and yellow?

[Sarmatian]

I believe red and white was the colour of Archduchy of Austria and black and yellow denoted all lands ruled by Habsburgs later, before it was changed againwhen the country was renamed Austria-Hungary.

Considering the party, well, too imperialistic for me. They're trying to do what EU is already doing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Austrian Black and Yellow Alliance has a similar position. They wish to assemble the modern nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under a common parliament with a Hapsburg as Monarch.[/URL]

Don't make me dig up grandpa's uniform from the attic.

The European continent isn't large enough for both international dynasties and revolutionary republicanism. The Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary - we've dissolved them all before, and I'll do it again.

[KarlXII]

Don't make me dig up grandpa's uniform from the attic.

The European continent isn't large enough for both international dynasties and revolutionary republicanism. The Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary - we've dissolved them all before, and I'll do it again.

Now don't let me remind you Revolutionary Republicanism often falls to good looking and strong worded leaders, some of whom have turned those Republics into Dictatorships or Empires.

[HoreTore]

Now don't let me remind you Revolutionary Republicanism often falls to good looking and strong worded leaders, some of whom have turned those Republics into Dictatorships or Empires.

A dictator is like a monarch, but without the inbreeding. Which makes it far superior to a monarchy.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

An Absolute or Feudal Monarchy would not be adequate to a modern environment that values moveable property and money over landed estates, practical concerns above metaphysical abstractions, has no religious justification or bond with itself and its ruler, and most importantly is now in a gradual stage of being rendered into an immense uniform mass without distinct national or even dynastic identities which would justify a Monarchy at first, as opposed to a society where the prominence of landed estates suffocates the wealthy urban burgeoisie or at least keeps it in check, like the late French Absolutist Regime. It should also be mindful that no Monarchy can cope with a larger number of urban masses than rural ones, and thus the situations looks even more dim to them.

But so far, in an ideal situation, I think I would be in favour of Enlightened Despotism. Bar that a Constitutional Monarchy.

Alas, the closest we could get today to an authoritarian state would be a totalitarian regime. The difference between it and an actual Monarchy is the whole scenario of tradition and the presence of an elite aristocracy which is almost exclusively bred for the job of ruling, rather than merely relying on the sheer magnanimity of the head autocrat and accidents of destiny which might lead to a good or bad ruler. A Monarchy can have good regents and the aristocracy to act on behalf of the King when he's not fit to rule, examples being Fleury et all, thus shattering the myth that it all decisively depends on the competence of just one ruler, of which I think it deservedly goes only to Totalitarian states without similar checks and balances, or worse, to Republics where the ruling "class" is so corrupt and crooked that only heroes can save it from utter self-destruction and neglect, as tragic as it might sound.

[Meneldil]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

Either you're supporting a constitutional monarchy such as UK, which is pointless since the royals are mere figure there, or you're supporting a system that gives ultimate power to a guy, just because he was born in a given family.
Both ideas are IMO retard.

[Kralizec]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

That's an ironic statement, considering that Napoleon created his own monarchy...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Monarchies are stupid. Too bad Napoleon couldn't get rid of all of them.

Either you're supporting a constitutional monarchy such as UK, which is pointless since the royals are mere figure there, or you're supporting a system that gives ultimate power to a guy, just because he was born in a given family.
Both ideas are IMO retard.

Wasn't your second Emperor the son of your first Emperor? Sounds like a Dynastic monarchy to me.

[Ignoramus]

Either Absolute or Constitutional for me. As long as there's a balance of power between King and Parliament.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

[Beskar]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

It is not unfounded, you haven't been watching enough Disney movies or Tales of kings and princesses and knights of round table.

[lars573]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

Anyone who feels the head of state should be a mere political animal is lacking in reason.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

As if the electoral farse in the United States means your president is the result of a clear and self-conscious majority, instead of one brainwashed by the media in name of the most money filled guy. I do not want this discussion to twist in that direction, but if McCain had more funds and support from his own party base (as well as bit more electioneering skill in choosing a charismatic VP) he would have won, purely and simply, despite the history of Republican rule - it turns out that every electoral machine in your beloved states is a slave to the interests of a restrict oligarchy, not much different from other regimes except in ostensible appearances.

So, for me, it is better to hope at an "enlightened ruler" than to nurture idealistic illusions about the true essence of a democratic regime. Heh, the only advantage to a more "democratic" system, is that at least we can open our mouths, as irrelevant as it will turn out to the general state of affairs and the dominance of the few behind the curtains.

[King Henry V]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

Reason has nothing to do with it, my good sir. We monarchists are romantic beings, with music in our hearts and poetry in our souls, and we are in love with all things ancient, quaint, eccentric or quixotic. I support crowned heads precisely because there are so few of them in the world, and are dwindling each decade, just as I would love a rare flower more than a common garden one. If the whole world were ruled by kings, I should defend to my utmost that single country ruled by a republic.