Why monarchy?

[Aveleon]

Corrected. Also, no need to be so condescending. Note the fact I said absolute.

You're still wrong. Go read up on fascism and absolutism, and then if you come back and still don't understand why those two things are not the same, I will explain it to you.

Could you explain it. I would be interested in your explanation.

[Estado Nacional]

How would a monarchy "unite" rather than someone who's been voted for by the people?

Monarchs act as non-political heads of a country. With an elected official you always divide the country along ideology and elected officials always have agendas. With a monarch they are the servant are the people and they are above political mudslinging.

People into politics generally have an agenda or ideology. I didn't think that was a problem.

[The Cobalt Sky]

You're still wrong. Go read up on fascism and absolutism, and then if you come back and still don't understand why those two things are not the same, I will explain it to you.

they seem pretty similar

"Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism"

"Absolute monarchy is a monarchical form of government in which the monarch has absolute power among his or her people."

the big differences are the hat and the rhetoric.

Exactly. But now I can't explain it to him without him thinking I just went off what you said. Whatever, I guess some people can't be helped. Anyway, in an absolute monarchy, the Monarchs have absolute control. That sounds pretty authoritarian. Which is the cornerstone of fascism. And if you're confining fascism to the Italian political party, you're technically right, but the word means more than that now. So don't split hairs.

[Aveleon]

Monarchs act as non-political heads of a country. With an elected official you always divide the country along ideology and elected officials always have agendas. With a monarch they are the servant are the people and they are above political mudslinging.

People go into politics generally have an agenda or ideology. I didn't think that was a problem.

That is a problem. The head of a nation should not divide a country they should unite it.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Monarchs act as non-political heads of a country. With an elected official you always divide the country along ideology and elected officials always have agendas. With a monarch they are the servant are the people and they are above political mudslinging.

People into politics generally have an agenda or ideology. I didn't think that was a problem.

Hey it's Estado!

[Old Tyrannia]

You're still wrong. Go read up on fascism and absolutism, and then if you come back and still don't understand why those two things are not the same, I will explain it to you.

Could you explain it. I would be interested in your explanation.

Alrighty, then. Before I go do useful things I'll educate you all.

An absolute monarchy may, in theory, be a fascist state; however, in practice there has never been a fascist absolute monarchy, although Carol II of Romania presided over a pseudo-fascist regime from 1938 to 1940. An absolute monarchy is a state in which one person, the monarch, exercises absolute power. It's a simply descriptor of a form of government. By contrast, fascism is a complete political ideology and worldview developed from revolutionary socialism, ultra-nationalism and national syndicalism in Italy in the 20th century. The principal features of fascism are:

• Nationalism: the nation is considered the ultimate political reality, and the strength of the nation- generally equated in fascist ideology with the strength of the State- is the ultimate concern of all fascists.
• Corporatism: an economic system under which workers and employers cooperate for the greater good of the State, mediated by the State.
• Totalitarianism: all aspects of life are subordinate to, and aimed at serving, the all-encompassing State. As Mussolini put it, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Inalienable rights and personal freedoms do not exist under fascism. All individuals live to serve the State.
• Militarism: all fascist states place an emphasis on martial strength. Militarism is encouraged, soldiers are portrayed as heroes and war as heroic, romantic and inevitable. Fascists reject the concept of world peace and believe war is natural and beneficial to mankind.
• Social Darwinism: the concept that all people in society, and all nations in the world, are in competition and that the strong should naturally dominate the weak. A pseudoscientific corruption of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection applied to the political sphere.

In addition to this, racial supremacism is often a component of fascist ideologies (but not always), and fascist regimes may range from fanatically religious (such as Falangism and the Romanian Iron Guard) to anti-clerical (the early Italian Fascists and factions of the NSDAP). An absolute monarch may be a fascist and rule his state according to fascist ideology- however, few have done so. Some absolutist states may exhibit some aspects of fascism. None exhibit all of them. The Russian Empire, for example, encouraged nationalism, a strong central state, and was fairly militaristic, but it was not truly totalitarian, did not subscribe to Social Darwinist theories and lacked the tripartite corporatist economic structure favoured by fascists.

There are also many examples of absolute monarchies that were far from being fascist. "Enlightened absolutism" was built on the theory that absolute monarchs were bound to govern their subjects for their subjects' own good, not the good of the State. Examples of enlightened despots include Frederick II of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia, Joseph II of Austria and Louis XVI of France (or at least, he tried to be one). These monarchs believed in classical liberal values and sought to expand their subjects' freedoms, for example by abolishing serfdom (Joseph II did this and Louis XVI attempted it but was blocked from doing so by the aristocracy). Don Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil, is another example of a liberal and progressive monarch. He abolished slavery in Brazil, against the will of powerful landowners who eventually rebelled against him and ended the Empire, founding the Republic of Brazil. Some recent or contemporary absolute monarchies (notably Saudi Arabia and Qatar) could be described as authoritarian, but none could be categorised as being fascist. Therefore, it is clear that although not mutually exclusive, fascism and absolute monarchy are not the "same thing" except in the minds of the ignorant.

[British Prussia]

^ I'm glad you did that. I knew the reply would mean a monster post, but at least you've done it brilliantly.

[Sanctissima]

Could you explain it. I would be interested in your explanation.

Alrighty, then. Before I go do useful things I'll educate you all.

An absolute monarchy may, in theory, be a fascist state; however, in practice there has never been a fascist absolute monarchy, although Carol II of Romania presided over a pseudo-fascist regime from 1938 to 1940. An absolute monarchy is a state in which one person, the monarch, exercises absolute power. It's a simply descriptor of a form of government. By contrast, fascism is a complete political ideology and worldview developed from revolutionary socialism, ultra-nationalism and national syndicalism in Italy in the 20th century. The principal features of fascism are:

• Nationalism: the nation is considered the ultimate political reality, and the strength of the nation- generally equated in fascist ideology with the strength of the State- is the ultimate concern of all fascists.
• Corporatism: an economic system under which workers and employers cooperate for the greater good of the State, mediated by the State.
• Totalitarianism: all aspects of life are subordinate to, and aimed at serving, the all-encompassing State. As Mussolini put it, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Inalienable rights and personal freedoms do not exist under fascism. All individuals live to serve the State.
• Militarism: all fascist states place an emphasis on martial strength. Militarism is encouraged, soldiers are portrayed as heroes and war as heroic, romantic and inevitable. Fascists reject the concept of world peace and believe war is natural and beneficial to mankind.
• Social Darwinism: the concept that all people in society, and all nations in the world, are in competition and that the strong should naturally dominate the weak. A pseudoscientific corruption of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection applied to the political sphere.

In addition to this, racial supremacism is often a component of fascist ideologies (but not always), and fascist regimes may range from fanatically religious (such as Falangism and the Romanian Iron Guard) to anti-clerical (the early Italian Fascists and factions of the NSDAP). An absolute monarch may be a fascist and rule his state according to fascist ideology- however, few have done so. Some absolutist states may exhibit some aspects of fascism. None exhibit all of them. The Russian Empire, for example, encouraged nationalism, a strong central state, and was fairly militaristic, but it was not truly totalitarian, did not subscribe to Social Darwinist theories and lacked the tripartite corporatist economic structure favoured by fascists.

There are also many examples of absolute monarchies that were far from being fascist. "Enlightened absolutism" was built on the theory that absolute monarchs were bound to govern their subjects for their subjects' own good, not the good of the State. Examples of enlightened despots include Frederick II of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia, Joseph II of Austria and Louis XVI of France (or at least, he tried to be one). These monarchs believed in classical liberal values and sought to expand their subjects' freedoms, for example by abolishing serfdom (Joseph II did this and Louis XVI attempted it but was blocked from doing so by the aristocracy). Don Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil, is another example of a liberal and progressive monarch. He abolished slavery in Brazil, against the will of powerful landowners who eventually rebelled against him and ended the Empire, founding the Republic of Brazil. Some recent or contemporary absolute monarchies (notably Saudi Arabia and Qatar) could be described as authoritarian, but none could be categorised as being fascist. Therefore, it is clear that although not mutually exclusive, fascism and absolute monarchy are not the "same thing" except in the minds of the ignorant.

Interesting theory, but you're quite incorrect.

Absolutism and fascism are virtually the same thing. Granted, there are rare occasions where each form can be, "enlightened", so to speak, but they're both based on the concept of total power invested in the hands of a sole individual.

The only marginal difference being that a monarch's right to rule, so to speak, is granted to him/her by divine right, whereas a dictator's is moreso "might is right".

Take Louis XIV for example, probably the apex form of an absolute monarch. He reduced the former power divide in his country, the nobility, to a simple ceremonial role, thereby becoming the sole individual with complete and absolute power invested within his hands. Now, although culture and, ironically, the Age of Enlightenment, flourished during his Age of Absolutism, that doesn't change the fact that, when it came down to it, he was the law. Actually, on one occasion, he even said it himself "I am the State". That's precisely the same definition as a dictator.

Absolutism and fascism are virtually the same thing. The former just has a better track record.

[The Nihilistic view]

Alrighty, then. Before I go do useful things I'll educate you all.

An absolute monarchy may, in theory, be a fascist state; however, in practice there has never been a fascist absolute monarchy, although Carol II of Romania presided over a pseudo-fascist regime from 1938 to 1940. An absolute monarchy is a state in which one person, the monarch, exercises absolute power. It's a simply descriptor of a form of government. By contrast, fascism is a complete political ideology and worldview developed from revolutionary socialism, ultra-nationalism and national syndicalism in Italy in the 20th century. The principal features of fascism are:

• Nationalism: the nation is considered the ultimate political reality, and the strength of the nation- generally equated in fascist ideology with the strength of the State- is the ultimate concern of all fascists.
• Corporatism: an economic system under which workers and employers cooperate for the greater good of the State, mediated by the State.
• Totalitarianism: all aspects of life are subordinate to, and aimed at serving, the all-encompassing State. As Mussolini put it, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Inalienable rights and personal freedoms do not exist under fascism. All individuals live to serve the State.
• Militarism: all fascist states place an emphasis on martial strength. Militarism is encouraged, soldiers are portrayed as heroes and war as heroic, romantic and inevitable. Fascists reject the concept of world peace and believe war is natural and beneficial to mankind.
• Social Darwinism: the concept that all people in society, and all nations in the world, are in competition and that the strong should naturally dominate the weak. A pseudoscientific corruption of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection applied to the political sphere.

In addition to this, racial supremacism is often a component of fascist ideologies (but not always), and fascist regimes may range from fanatically religious (such as Falangism and the Romanian Iron Guard) to anti-clerical (the early Italian Fascists and factions of the NSDAP). An absolute monarch may be a fascist and rule his state according to fascist ideology- however, few have done so. Some absolutist states may exhibit some aspects of fascism. None exhibit all of them. The Russian Empire, for example, encouraged nationalism, a strong central state, and was fairly militaristic, but it was not truly totalitarian, did not subscribe to Social Darwinist theories and lacked the tripartite corporatist economic structure favoured by fascists.

There are also many examples of absolute monarchies that were far from being fascist. "Enlightened absolutism" was built on the theory that absolute monarchs were bound to govern their subjects for their subjects' own good, not the good of the State. Examples of enlightened despots include Frederick II of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia, Joseph II of Austria and Louis XVI of France (or at least, he tried to be one). These monarchs believed in classical liberal values and sought to expand their subjects' freedoms, for example by abolishing serfdom (Joseph II did this and Louis XVI attempted it but was blocked from doing so by the aristocracy). Don Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil, is another example of a liberal and progressive monarch. He abolished slavery in Brazil, against the will of powerful landowners who eventually rebelled against him and ended the Empire, founding the Republic of Brazil. Some recent or contemporary absolute monarchies (notably Saudi Arabia and Qatar) could be described as authoritarian, but none could be categorised as being fascist. Therefore, it is clear that although not mutually exclusive, fascism and absolute monarchy are not the "same thing" except in the minds of the ignorant.

Interesting theory, but you're quite incorrect.

Absolutism and fascism are virtually the same thing. Granted, there are rare occasions where each form can be, "enlightened", so to speak, but they're both based on the concept of total power invested in the hands of a sole individual.

The only marginal difference being that a monarch's right to rule, so to speak, is granted to him/her by divine right, whereas a dictator's is moreso "might is right".

Take Louis XIV for example, probably the apex form of an absolute monarch. He reduced the former power divide in his country, the nobility, to a simple ceremonial role, thereby becoming the sole individual with complete and absolute power invested within his hands. Now, although culture and, ironically, the Age of Enlightenment, flourished during his Age of Absolutism, that doesn't change the fact that, when it came down to it, he was the law. Actually, on one occasion, he even said it himself "I am the State". That's precisely the same definition as a dictator.

Absolutism and fascism are virtually the same thing. The former just has a better track record.

Sounds like somebody has no idea what the characteristics and ideological tenants of fascism are.

[Aveleon]

Could you explain it. I would be interested in your explanation.

Alrighty, then. Before I go do useful things I'll educate you all.

An absolute monarchy may, in theory, be a fascist state; however, in practice there has never been a fascist absolute monarchy, although Carol II of Romania presided over a pseudo-fascist regime from 1938 to 1940. An absolute monarchy is a state in which one person, the monarch, exercises absolute power. It's a simply descriptor of a form of government. By contrast, fascism is a complete political ideology and worldview developed from revolutionary socialism, ultra-nationalism and national syndicalism in Italy in the 20th century. The principal features of fascism are:

• Nationalism: the nation is considered the ultimate political reality, and the strength of the nation- generally equated in fascist ideology with the strength of the State- is the ultimate concern of all fascists.
• Corporatism: an economic system under which workers and employers cooperate for the greater good of the State, mediated by the State.
• Totalitarianism: all aspects of life are subordinate to, and aimed at serving, the all-encompassing State. As Mussolini put it, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Inalienable rights and personal freedoms do not exist under fascism. All individuals live to serve the State.
• Militarism: all fascist states place an emphasis on martial strength. Militarism is encouraged, soldiers are portrayed as heroes and war as heroic, romantic and inevitable. Fascists reject the concept of world peace and believe war is natural and beneficial to mankind.
• Social Darwinism: the concept that all people in society, and all nations in the world, are in competition and that the strong should naturally dominate the weak. A pseudoscientific corruption of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection applied to the political sphere.

In addition to this, racial supremacism is often a component of fascist ideologies (but not always), and fascist regimes may range from fanatically religious (such as Falangism and the Romanian Iron Guard) to anti-clerical (the early Italian Fascists and factions of the NSDAP). An absolute monarch may be a fascist and rule his state according to fascist ideology- however, few have done so. Some absolutist states may exhibit some aspects of fascism. None exhibit all of them. The Russian Empire, for example, encouraged nationalism, a strong central state, and was fairly militaristic, but it was not truly totalitarian, did not subscribe to Social Darwinist theories and lacked the tripartite corporatist economic structure favoured by fascists.

There are also many examples of absolute monarchies that were far from being fascist. "Enlightened absolutism" was built on the theory that absolute monarchs were bound to govern their subjects for their subjects' own good, not the good of the State. Examples of enlightened despots include Frederick II of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia, Joseph II of Austria and Louis XVI of France (or at least, he tried to be one). These monarchs believed in classical liberal values and sought to expand their subjects' freedoms, for example by abolishing serfdom (Joseph II did this and Louis XVI attempted it but was blocked from doing so by the aristocracy). Don Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil, is another example of a liberal and progressive monarch. He abolished slavery in Brazil, against the will of powerful landowners who eventually rebelled against him and ended the Empire, founding the Republic of Brazil. Some recent or contemporary absolute monarchies (notably Saudi Arabia and Qatar) could be described as authoritarian, but none could be categorised as being fascist. Therefore, it is clear that although not mutually exclusive, fascism and absolute monarchy are not the "same thing" except in the minds of the ignorant.

Thank you, that was rather interesting.

[Vissegaard]

Alrighty, then. Before I go do useful things I'll educate you all.

An absolute monarchy may, in theory, be a fascist state; however, in practice there has never been a fascist absolute monarchy, although Carol II of Romania presided over a pseudo-fascist regime from 1938 to 1940. An absolute monarchy is a state in which one person, the monarch, exercises absolute power. It's a simply descriptor of a form of government. By contrast, fascism is a complete political ideology and worldview developed from revolutionary socialism, ultra-nationalism and national syndicalism in Italy in the 20th century. The principal features of fascism are:

• Nationalism: the nation is considered the ultimate political reality, and the strength of the nation- generally equated in fascist ideology with the strength of the State- is the ultimate concern of all fascists.
• Corporatism: an economic system under which workers and employers cooperate for the greater good of the State, mediated by the State.
• Totalitarianism: all aspects of life are subordinate to, and aimed at serving, the all-encompassing State. As Mussolini put it, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Inalienable rights and personal freedoms do not exist under fascism. All individuals live to serve the State.
• Militarism: all fascist states place an emphasis on martial strength. Militarism is encouraged, soldiers are portrayed as heroes and war as heroic, romantic and inevitable. Fascists reject the concept of world peace and believe war is natural and beneficial to mankind.
• Social Darwinism: the concept that all people in society, and all nations in the world, are in competition and that the strong should naturally dominate the weak. A pseudoscientific corruption of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection applied to the political sphere.

In addition to this, racial supremacism is often a component of fascist ideologies (but not always), and fascist regimes may range from fanatically religious (such as Falangism and the Romanian Iron Guard) to anti-clerical (the early Italian Fascists and factions of the NSDAP). An absolute monarch may be a fascist and rule his state according to fascist ideology- however, few have done so. Some absolutist states may exhibit some aspects of fascism. None exhibit all of them. The Russian Empire, for example, encouraged nationalism, a strong central state, and was fairly militaristic, but it was not truly totalitarian, did not subscribe to Social Darwinist theories and lacked the tripartite corporatist economic structure favoured by fascists.

There are also many examples of absolute monarchies that were far from being fascist. "Enlightened absolutism" was built on the theory that absolute monarchs were bound to govern their subjects for their subjects' own good, not the good of the State. Examples of enlightened despots include Frederick II of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia, Joseph II of Austria and Louis XVI of France (or at least, he tried to be one). These monarchs believed in classical liberal values and sought to expand their subjects' freedoms, for example by abolishing serfdom (Joseph II did this and Louis XVI attempted it but was blocked from doing so by the aristocracy). Don Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil, is another example of a liberal and progressive monarch. He abolished slavery in Brazil, against the will of powerful landowners who eventually rebelled against him and ended the Empire, founding the Republic of Brazil. Some recent or contemporary absolute monarchies (notably Saudi Arabia and Qatar) could be described as authoritarian, but none could be categorised as being fascist. Therefore, it is clear that although not mutually exclusive, fascism and absolute monarchy are not the "same thing" except in the minds of the ignorant.

Interesting theory, but you're quite incorrect.

Absolutism and fascism are virtually the same thing. Granted, there are rare occasions where each form can be, "enlightened", so to speak, but they're both based on the concept of total power invested in the hands of a sole individual.

The only marginal difference being that a monarch's right to rule, so to speak, is granted to him/her by divine right, whereas a dictator's is moreso "might is right".

Take Louis XIV for example, probably the apex form of an absolute monarch. He reduced the former power divide in his country, the nobility, to a simple ceremonial role, thereby becoming the sole individual with complete and absolute power invested within his hands. Now, although culture and, ironically, the Age of Enlightenment, flourished during his Age of Absolutism, that doesn't change the fact that, when it came down to it, he was the law. Actually, on one occasion, he even said it himself "I am the State". That's precisely the same definition as a dictator.

Absolutism and fascism are virtually the same thing. The former just has a better track record.

Definitely no.
Monarchy is when the individual rules over the state.
Fascism is when the state rules over the individual.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Interesting theory, but you're quite incorrect.

Absolutism and fascism are virtually the same thing. Granted, there are rare occasions where each form can be, "enlightened", so to speak, but they're both based on the concept of total power invested in the hands of a sole individual.

The only marginal difference being that a monarch's right to rule, so to speak, is granted to him/her by divine right, whereas a dictator's is moreso "might is right".

Take Louis XIV for example, probably the apex form of an absolute monarch. He reduced the former power divide in his country, the nobility, to a simple ceremonial role, thereby becoming the sole individual with complete and absolute power invested within his hands. Now, although culture and, ironically, the Age of Enlightenment, flourished during his Age of Absolutism, that doesn't change the fact that, when it came down to it, he was the law. Actually, on one occasion, he even said it himself "I am the State". That's precisely the same definition as a dictator.

Absolutism and fascism are virtually the same thing. The former just has a better track record.

Definitely no.
Monarchy is when the individual rules over the state.
Fascism is when the state rules over the individual.

Sources to those definitions?

[Vissegaard]

Definitely no.
Monarchy is when the individual rules over the state.
Fascism is when the state rules over the individual.

Sources to those definitions?

Monarchy - from ancient Greek - mon-archein translates as "one to rule".
Fascism - from ancient Latin - Fasces translates literally as "volume". This concept is neatly described by Mussolini, who uses this as a symbol for unity of the people - the State.

[Martean]

What stops them from siding with a political party? They might not feel they're a servant of the people.

Modern constitutional monarchs ever since Victoria have not meddled in politics, if they had than it was for the best. For example Juan Carols ousted the Falangists and brought democracy back to Spain. Here a monarch is the savior of democracy.

He invented democracy, electricity and quantum mechanics... :/

Juan Carlos wouldn't have done anything without the help of Adolfo Suarez. And democracy would have come to Spain anyway, the was a huge mayority (+90%) of Spaniards who were for democracy, aganist franco or both apart from a huge leftist mayority, continuing with the Fascist regime was impossible. Juan Carlos understood this and thus, decided that the best way to have some power was to establish a flawed democracy. (Although to be fair, at that time maybe it was a good democracy, but with today's standarts it's a sh*t)

[Sanctissima]

Modern constitutional monarchs ever since Victoria have not meddled in politics, if they had than it was for the best. For example Juan Carols ousted the Falangists and brought democracy back to Spain. Here a monarch is the savior of democracy.

He invented democracy, electricity and quantum mechanics... :/

Juan Carlos wouldn't have done anything without the help of Adolfo Suarez. And democracy would have come to Spain anyway, the was a huge mayority (+90%) of Spaniards who were for democracy, aganist franco or both apart from a huge leftist mayority, continuing with the Fascist regime was impossible. Juan Carlos understood this and thus, decided that the best way to have some power was to establish a flawed democracy. (Although to be fair, at that time maybe it was a good democracy, but with today's standarts it's a sh*t)

Very true.

I wouldn't exactly call Juan Carlos a savior of democracy. Keep in mind that his influence in the Franco regime was always negligible at best. Him announcing its collapse was only ever a political gesture to jump ship at the last second.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Sources to those definitions?

Monarchy - from ancient Greek - mon-archein translates as "one to rule".
Fascism - from ancient Latin - Fasces translates literally as "volume". This concept is neatly described by Mussolini, who uses this as a symbol for unity of the people - the State.

I meant links to an actual site.

[The Lesser Spotted Chickens]

it is all about the balance of power

the power of elected officials is limited, but so it that of unelected

this is a safeguard against tyranny, elected officials only have so much power because of the power held by the un-elected. This means that a popular party could never rise to absolute power* by purely democratic means, they would have to remove the monarchy and the lords probably which would probably be difficult.**

and vice versa

I think it is dangerous to meddle with the balance

*we are talking about things like Communist and Fascist parties

**e.g. in a civil war armed forces side with who, the Queen or the PM? the moderate majority of voters may have supported the party simply to block another ideology, they may not necessarily support the parties ideology wholeheartedly,so they would be conflicted and could defect


full democracy is riddled with flaws, but so is an autocracy, you need the best of both, the Civil War and Glorious Revolution have shown this, Britain has had stable governance for hundreds of years now due to theses events. The commons having the greatest power, but the unelected bodies being able to occasionally throw a spanner in the works

[The Nihilistic view]

it is all about the balance of power

the power of elected officials is limited, but so it that of unelected

this is a safeguard against tyranny, elected officials only have so much power because of the power held by the un-elected. This means that a popular party could never rise to absolute power* by purely democratic means, they would have to remove the monarchy and the lords probably which would probably be difficult.**

and vice versa

I think it is dangerous to meddle with the balance

*we are talking about things like Communist and Fascist parties

**e.g. in a civil war armed forces side with who, the Queen or the PM? the moderate majority of voters may have supported the party simply to block another ideology, they may not necessarily support the parties ideology wholeheartedly,so they would be conflicted and could defect


full democracy is riddled with flaws, but so is an autocracy, you need the best of both, the Civil War and Glorious Revolution have shown this, Britain has had stable governance for hundreds of years now due to theses events. The commons having the greatest power, but the unelected bodies being able to occasionally throw a spanner in the works

Not always stable but from 1215 the monarch's power was not absolute so we are now nearing 800 years of some kind of constitutional monarchy to various degrees. Interestingly the Civil War and eventual downfall of the Stuarts with the Glorious revolution came about because they tried to import the idea of divine right of kings, in other words return to absolute monarchy of pre 1215. The fact the King got so much support in the Civil War is more down to support of the King because he is the King than a real belief in the divine right of kings. After all the ancestors of these same men were the ones who brought about magna carter. Obviously for most of this 800 year period the Monarch has had most of the power but after magna carter was signed people had rights against the crown so royal power was not absolute.

Really we need to divide it into 3 parts. Up until 1215 we had absolute monarchy. From 1215 to 1688 it was a solidly executive constitution monarchy, whilst more rights were gradually added to magna carter over the next 500 years the monarch still had most of the power. Then after the Glorious revolution we began to transition from executive constitutional monarchy to ceremonial constitutional monarchy.

It's been a long process but interesting non the less.


I also need to find out more about Anglo-Saxon England in this respect. As far as I am aware people had more rights in Anglo-Saxon England than they did after the Normans arrived and made many people serfs but I need to check it out in more detail.

[The Union of the West]

It is, aside from anarchy, the most moral form of government.

If anarchy is more moral than monarchy, why are you a monarchist instead of an anarchist?

[Vazdaria]

it is all about the balance of power

the power of elected officials is limited, but so it that of unelected

this is a safeguard against tyranny, elected officials only have so much power because of the power held by the un-elected. This means that a popular party could never rise to absolute power* by purely democratic means, they would have to remove the monarchy and the lords probably which would probably be difficult.**

and vice versa

I think it is dangerous to meddle with the balance

*we are talking about things like Communist and Fascist parties

**e.g. in a civil war armed forces side with who, the Queen or the PM? the moderate majority of voters may have supported the party simply to block another ideology, they may not necessarily support the parties ideology wholeheartedly,so they would be conflicted and could defect


full democracy is riddled with flaws, but so is an autocracy, you need the best of both, the Civil War and Glorious Revolution have shown this, Britain has had stable governance for hundreds of years now due to theses events. The commons having the greatest power, but the unelected bodies being able to occasionally throw a spanner in the works

Not always stable but from 1215 the monarch's power was not absolute so we are now nearing 800 years of some kind of constitutional monarchy to various degrees. Interestingly the Civil War and eventual downfall of the Stuarts with the Glorious revolution came about because they tried to import the idea of divine right of kings, in other words return to absolute monarchy of pre 1215. The fact the King got so much support in the Civil War is more down to support of the King because he is the King than a real belief in the divine right of kings. After all the ancestors of these same men were the ones who brought about magna carter. Obviously for most of this 800 year period the Monarch has had most of the power but after magna carter was signed people had rights against the crown so royal power was not absolute.

Really we need to divide it into 3 parts. Up until 1215 we had absolute monarchy. From 1215 to 1688 it was a solidly executive constitution monarchy, whilst more rights were gradually added to magna carter over the next 500 years the monarch still had most of the power. Then after the Glorious revolution we began to transition from executive constitutional monarchy to ceremonial constitutional monarchy.

It's been a long process but interesting non the less.


I also need to find out more about Anglo-Saxon England in this respect. As far as I am aware people had more rights in Anglo-Saxon England than they did after the Normans arrived and made many people serfs but I need to check it out in more detail.

BACK TO CONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE MONARCHY!!! If you ask me, its the best form of government! (Reactionaries for the win!)

[Sebastianbourg]

Sentimental reasons seem to apply most strongly.

Modern constitutional monarchs ever since Victoria have not meddled in politics, if they had than it was for the best. For example Juan Carols ousted the Falangists and brought democracy back to Spain. Here a monarch is the savior of democracy.

As I recall, Juan Carlos was handed power by Franco and decided not to use it. While broadly the same, it's not quite as dramatic as you seem to portray it.

But there was an attempted coup d'état in 1981 which the King helped combat.

[Estado Nacional]

People go into politics generally have an agenda or ideology. I didn't think that was a problem.

That is a problem. The head of a nation should not divide a country they should unite it.

There is such thing as an inclusive agenda, you know...furthermore, a politically active head of state isn't necessarily divise.

[Estado Nacional]

People into politics generally have an agenda or ideology. I didn't think that was a problem.

Hey it's Estado!

Yep, it really is.

[Sebastianbourg]

Hey it's Estado!

Yep, it really is.

Or is it?

[The Cobalt Sky]

That is a problem. The head of a nation should not divide a country they should unite it.

There is such thing as an inclusive agenda, you know...furthermore, a politically active head of state isn't necessarily divise.

Yeah. If every leader had to run things from the middle, political parties would be irrelevant.