Is monarchy a good form of government?

[New Acardia]

To any Monarchist how would bad monarchs be removed if this has all ready been talked about I apologize .
Thank you for your time

[Forsher]

The assertion that the function of a monarch is other than to rule is to assert that the monarchy is a theme park.

No, I think not. Why do you think it is?

To any Monarchist how would bad monarchs be removed if this has all ready been talked about I apologize .
Thank you for your time

Depends on what sort of monarchy you're talking about. Historically, force or the threat of force has usually been the solution (compare and contrast Charles I and James II*). In a modern constitutional monarchy the government would ask.

*Although, of course, much force was later used when he tried to take the throne back.

[The UK in Exile]

The assertion that the function of a monarch is other than to rule is to assert that the monarchy is a theme park.

No, I think not. Why do you think it is?

The traditional bollocks trotted out to defend the Monarchy is that its traditional, popular, brings in tourism and stable. Whats the prime example of a much loved, magically never-changing kingdom that brings in the tourism bucks?



Disneyland UK, where the Princesses are real and the weather is shit.

[Forsher]

The traditional bollocks trotted out to defend the Monarchy is that its traditional, popular, brings in tourism and stable. Whats the prime example of a much loved, magically never-changing kingdom that brings in the tourism bucks?

Disneyland UK, where the Princesses are real and the weather is shit.

Defences that people use are generally framed to show a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument and it is always on proponents of change to show that a) something is broken and b) the solution is less broken than the status quo. Republicans will continue to fail on both these counts for a long time to come. Relevance? What people say in defending monarchy is not typically reflective of the roles that the monarchy performs because these are, typically, not criticised on account of them being done well.

And as to magically never changing perhaps you shouldn't use constitutional monarchies to try and show that because, when compared to republics, history is very clear on which is the most adaptable to new situations. Clue, it's not republics.

[The New Sea Territory]

Quick question: what is the difference between monarchy and dictatorship

Nothing. One just has a traditionalist ring to it, the other might or might not.

[The UK in Exile]

The traditional bollocks trotted out to defend the Monarchy is that its traditional, popular, brings in tourism and stable. Whats the prime example of a much loved, magically never-changing kingdom that brings in the tourism bucks?

Disneyland UK, where the Princesses are real and the weather is shit.

Defences that people use are generally framed to show a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument and it is always on proponents of change to show that a) something is broken and b) the solution is less broken than the status quo. Republicans will continue to fail on both these counts for a long time to come. Relevance? What people say in defending monarchy is not typically reflective of the roles that the monarchy performs because these are, typically, not criticised on account of them being done well.

Because their role is to be theme park mascots. They excel at it. Can we please remove them from our government? Can we please not give the queen a veto over bills? Can she please not appoint the prime minister? can she please not be allowed to correspond privately and secretly with Ministers? Can we not spend millions of pounds on maintaining her and her family at public expense? They can still wear funny hats and wave.

[The New Sea Territory]

Depends on what sort of monarchy you're talking about. Historically, force or the threat of force has usually been the solution (compare and contrast Charles I and James II*). In a modern constitutional monarchy the government would ask.

*Although, of course, much force was later used when he tried to take the throne back.

So the system is based on the violent overthrow of a bad leader? This is a horribly ineffective system. Why do we have to use violence to depose a tyrant?

[Forsher]

Defences that people use are generally framed to show a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument and it is always on proponents of change to show that a) something is broken and b) the solution is less broken than the status quo. Republicans will continue to fail on both these counts for a long time to come. Relevance? What people say in defending monarchy is not typically reflective of the roles that the monarchy performs because these are, typically, not criticised on account of them being done well.

Because their role is to be theme park mascots. They excel at it. Can we please remove them from our government? Can we please not give the queen a veto over bills? Can she please not appoint the prime minister? can she please not be allowed to correspond privately and secretly with Ministers? Can we not spend millions of pounds on maintaining her and her family at public expense? They can still wear funny hats and wave.

They're not in government, until you start acknowledging that it's simply not worthwhile responding as it informs literally all your statements.

Depends on what sort of monarchy you're talking about. Historically, force or the threat of force has usually been the solution (compare and contrast Charles I and James II*). In a modern constitutional monarchy the government would ask.

*Although, of course, much force was later used when he tried to take the throne back.

So the system is based on the violent overthrow of a bad leader? This is a horribly ineffective system. Why do we have to use violence to depose a tyrant?

Because, in the cases that that applied to, the system, to the core, was terrible. Generally violence is required to depose tyrants because they are tyrants... most aren't stupid enough to leave room for other methods/willing to listen to other methods.

When you get to modern constitutional monarchies you see that this is not an applicable issue. This is one of a number of reasons why any sensible person's first response to OP's like the one we've got means "Well, what sort of monarchy are we talking about?"

[The New Sea Territory]

Because, in the cases that that applied to, the system, to the core, was terrible. Generally violence is required to depose tyrants because they are tyrants... most aren't stupid enough to leave room for other methods/willing to listen to other methods.

When you get to modern constitutional monarchies you see that this is not an applicable issue. This is one of a number of reasons why any sensible person's first response to OP's like the one we've got means "Well, what sort of monarchy are we talking about?"

Perhaps we just shouldn't have a system that allows tyranny to exist in the first place? Call me idealistic, but doing something over and over again with the same result is insanity.

Constitutional Monarchies get to a point where the aren't really monarchies in anything other than name. I don't consider them to be monarchic, due to the fact that the Crown has no real power. Any sensible person should say "Why do we have a tyrannical despot/state-funded celebrities?" for absolute/constitutional monarchies respectively.

[The UK in Exile]

Because their role is to be theme park mascots. They excel at it. Can we please remove them from our government? Can we please not give the queen a veto over bills? Can she please not appoint the prime minister? can she please not be allowed to correspond privately and secretly with Ministers? Can we not spend millions of pounds on maintaining her and her family at public expense? They can still wear funny hats and wave.

They're not in government, until you start acknowledging that it's simply not worthwhile responding as it informs literally all your statements.

So the system is based on the violent overthrow of a bad leader? This is a horribly ineffective system. Why do we have to use violence to depose a tyrant?

Because, in the cases that that applied to, the system, to the core, was terrible. Generally violence is required to depose tyrants because they are tyrants... most aren't stupid enough to leave room for other methods/willing to listen to other methods.

When you get to modern constitutional monarchies you see that this is not an applicable issue. This is one of a number of reasons why any sensible person's first response to OP's like the one we've got means "Well, what sort of monarchy are we talking about?"

They are, It's the Monarchs role to appoint the PM, The Monarch Consults privately with the PM, all her correspondence with officials is exempt from FoI, she has to be consulted on all bills affecting the royal household and has a power of veto over those affecting the royal interests. It's even refered to as Her Majesties Government. HMG. HMP. HMS. HMF.

[Alyska]

No. Political power based upon heredity rather than merit is not a good idea. However, there may be something to be said for a figurehead hereditary head of state. A head of state who is popularly elected might not serve as a unifying symbol for those who voted for his or her opponent.

[The British Galactic Empire]

Is monarchy a good form of government?

Yes and no. Like everything it isn't a right or wrong situation.

In a country like the UK, where respect for political conventions is strong and where the monarchy is a symbol of national unity and cultural continuity, yes, it is a good system. I cannot honestly see a President that can unite people around it, and that symbolizes the state, like the queen currently does.

In countries without monarchist traditions, no, it isn't a good system. The idea of the United States as a monarchy is unthinkable by now (bloody traitors! ), the same with France, the same with many other countries.

For many countries it works, for many others it didn't or doesn't. It's that simple.

[Forsher]

Because, in the cases that that applied to, the system, to the core, was terrible. Generally violence is required to depose tyrants because they are tyrants... most aren't stupid enough to leave room for other methods/willing to listen to other methods.

When you get to modern constitutional monarchies you see that this is not an applicable issue. This is one of a number of reasons why any sensible person's first response to OP's like the one we've got means "Well, what sort of monarchy are we talking about?"

Perhaps we just shouldn't have a system that allows tyranny to exist in the first place? Call me idealistic, but doing something over and over again with the same result is insanity.

There is no such system. There are just those that are much better at avoiding them than others. I didn't read the first part of this thread but I'm pretty sure no-one here is advocating a return to Classical, Medieval or even Early-Modern style monarchies... which is, quite clearly, what I have been discussing in this first case.

Constitutional Monarchies get to a point where the aren't really monarchies in anything other than name. I don't consider them to be monarchic, due to the fact that the Crown has no real power. Any sensible person should say "Why do we have a tyrannical despot/state-funded celebrities?" for absolute/constitutional monarchies respectively.

Celebrities don't have to do anything relevant to the state, that's the difference.

They're not in government, until you start acknowledging that it's simply not worthwhile responding as it informs literally all your statements.



Because, in the cases that that applied to, the system, to the core, was terrible. Generally violence is required to depose tyrants because they are tyrants... most aren't stupid enough to leave room for other methods/willing to listen to other methods.

When you get to modern constitutional monarchies you see that this is not an applicable issue. This is one of a number of reasons why any sensible person's first response to OP's like the one we've got means "Well, what sort of monarchy are we talking about?"

They are, It's the Monarchs role to appoint the PM, The Monarch Consults privately with the PM, all her correspondence with officials is exempt from FoI, she has to be consulted on all bills affecting the royal household and has a power of veto over those affecting the royal interests. It's even refered to as Her Majesties Government. HMG. HMP. HMS. HMF.

And the maned wolf is a wolf? (clue: it's not). Just because something is in the name that doesn't mean something has a critical role in what goes on. That's not a difficult or important concept... usually... as it is very intuitive.

The monarch appoints but does not choose the PM. That choice is, literally, everything important. It's rubber stamping.

Lobbyists consult privately. Are they in government? No and no-one would try and claim so. They might argue that governments are puppets of lobbyists but that's a different matter.

That the Queen has power and that the Queen has less than mascotty roles is not the same as the monarch being in government.

[The British Galactic Empire]

Defences that people use are generally framed to show a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument and it is always on proponents of change to show that a) something is broken and b) the solution is less broken than the status quo. Republicans will continue to fail on both these counts for a long time to come. Relevance? What people say in defending monarchy is not typically reflective of the roles that the monarchy performs because these are, typically, not criticised on account of them being done well.

Because their role is to be theme park mascots. They excel at it. Can we please remove them from our government? Can we please not give the queen a veto over bills? Can she please not appoint the prime minister? can she please not be allowed to correspond privately and secretly with Ministers? Can we not spend millions of pounds on maintaining her and her family at public expense? They can still wear funny hats and wave.

Oh please...

Those aren't real powers, do you know why? the answer is parliamentary sovereignty

Imagine she vetoes a bill. Parliament simply passes a law decreeing that laws no longer need royal assent.

She refuses to appoint a PM? Then parliament simply makes a law stating that the PM does not need to be appointed by the queen.

And what if the dissolves parliament? She lost that power recently with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act...only parliament can dissolve itself.

Now....the money. You do know that a president will cost money don't you? You also know that a HEAD OF STATE always costs money, so that argument is populist rubbish.

In addition to all that, the crown actually makes a profit since crown lands are managed by parliament. And yes, if the monarchy was abolished the lands would have to be returned, it's their lawful property even if the regime changes.

[The New Sea Territory]

Perhaps we just shouldn't have a system that allows tyranny to exist in the first place? Call me idealistic, but doing something over and over again with the same result is insanity.

There is no such system. There are just those that are much better at avoiding them than others. I didn't read the first part of this thread but I'm pretty sure no-one here is advocating a return to Classical, Medieval or even Early-Modern style monarchies... which is, quite clearly, what I have been discussing in this first case.

The monarchist system as no nonviolent counter to tyrants. If you aren't talking about absolute monarchies, you really aren't talking about monarchy.

Constitutional Monarchies get to a point where the aren't really monarchies in anything other than name. I don't consider them to be monarchic, due to the fact that the Crown has no real power. Any sensible person should say "Why do we have a tyrannical despot/state-funded celebrities?" for absolute/constitutional monarchies respectively.

Celebrities don't have to do anything relevant to the state, that's the difference.

I don't care what power they have. They are state-funded celebrities. I don't want tax dollars funding someone based off their idiotic name. They are famous for being famous, because they're great-great-great granddaddy oppressed the majority of the population in an authoritarian manner.

[Forsher]

There is no such system. There are just those that are much better at avoiding them than others. I didn't read the first part of this thread but I'm pretty sure no-one here is advocating a return to Classical, Medieval or even Early-Modern style monarchies... which is, quite clearly, what I have been discussing in this first case.

The monarchist system as no nonviolent counter to tyrants. If you aren't talking about absolute monarchies, you really aren't talking about monarchy.

That's not true but whatever.

Celebrities don't have to do anything relevant to the state, that's the difference.

I don't care what power they have. They are state-funded celebrities. I don't want tax dollars funding someone based off their idiotic name. They are famous for being famous, because they're great-great-great granddaddy oppressed the majority of the population in an authoritarian manner.

No, they're not. You want to separate the persons from the role to present them as celebrities to argue, simultaneously, that they're not powerful. It doesn't work like that. You can't criticise them as being celebrities while being the one taking them out of the role (roles that celebrities do not have). It's inane and idiotic, as are most republican arguments.

[The New Sea Territory]

That's not true but whatever.

It kind of is. A Constitutional Monarchy is a Monarchy like the Soviet Union was Communist, North Korea is a democracy and pop punk is punk rock. It's Monarchy in name only. So, it in reality is not a monarchy.

No, they're not. You want to separate the persons from the role to present them as celebrities to argue, simultaneously, that they're not powerful. It doesn't work like that. You can't criticise them as being celebrities while being the one taking them out of the role (roles that celebrities do not have). It's inane and idiotic, as are most republican arguments.

Yeah, it is a valid argument. Why don't we not have a fucking royal family in the first place? I'm also not a republican.

[Britannic Realms]

Yes. Although I don't really like today's system. We should go back to the 18th century system, with a strong, but not absolute, monarch.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes. Although I don't really like today's system. We should go back to the 18th century system, with a strong, but not absolute, monarch.

Why do you dislike freedom? Do you have any logical right to rule for said strong monarch? Did he become King of the Britons because the Lady of the Lake threw a sword at him?

[Unibot III]

Yes, because clearly the birth lottery is the best method for choosing a nation's leadership.

[Forsher]

That's not true but whatever.

It kind of is. A Constitutional Monarchy is a Monarchy like the Soviet Union was Communist, North Korea is a democracy and pop punk is punk rock. It's Monarchy in name only. So, it in reality is not a monarchy.

Your conclusion is the same as your premise. That's not an argument, that's not an explanation.

A country with a monarch is a monarchy. That's how it is. You either like or lump it. You're going to have to lump it because you don't seem to like it.

No, they're not. You want to separate the persons from the role to present them as celebrities to argue, simultaneously, that they're not powerful. It doesn't work like that. You can't criticise them as being celebrities while being the one taking them out of the role (roles that celebrities do not have). It's inane and idiotic, as are most republican arguments.

Yeah, it is a valid argument. Why don't we not have a fucking royal family in the first place? I'm also not a republican.

It's not a valid argument because it isn't argument. You cannot argue that monarchs are celebrities "famous for being famous", honestly, whilst simultaneously rejecting the idea that they actually have stuff to do.

The reason why the royal family exists is because way backs in the mists of time people decided that the easiest way of ensuring some sort of passing from one rule to the next was to limit the candidates into a pool. This was then further refined by linking that pool and the passing of rule to families. At this stage power was very much backed by having actual tangible power as well. It's obviously not a perfect system (look at things like the Anarchy or the Wars of the Roses) but it was, to them (i.e. the elites), preferable to the system at the time.

Why does the Royal Family still exist, though when the likes of the Bourbons don't have power any more? Essentially because great-great-great granddaddy was put in a position where they couldn't oppress anyone on the basis that they were no longer ruling. The Royal Family is still around to reign because the system and their ancestors and them have consistently and constantly been able to adapt and change as the world around them does. The ones that couldn't (Charles I, James II etc.) ran into a lot of problems and unlike the likes of John didn't exist in an era where the monarch had the sort of ability to ignore that.

The Queen, Charles and William are famous because a) of who their parents were and b) they themselves are able to do what they're meant to (which is represent the state... plus whatever other specific functions they have or jobs but usually those don't bring them fame). If they were bad at those jobs they'd be infamous (and, perhaps, Charles and Prince Phillip are a little infamous in a mostly harmless elderly family member way).

Regardless of whether or not you are, you're using a republican argument with implicit republican conclusions. It could be used to argue for different things but, in your conversation with me, you have not closed these off. For reference, if you oppose monarchy you're a republican: it's literally that simple.

Yes. Although I don't really like today's system. We should go back to the 18th century system, with a strong, but not absolute, monarch.

Why do you dislike freedom? Do you have any logical right to rule for said strong monarch? Did he become King of the Britons because the Lady of the Lake threw a sword at him?

Typically King Arthur had to go to the Lady of the Lake. Excalibur was thrown back to her by Sir Bedevere (I believe) post some of that familial infighting alluded to before.

Yes. Although I don't really like today's system. We should go back to the 18th century system, with a strong, but not absolute, monarch.

No, we shouldn't. We're much better off for a system where the people do the ruling and the monarch does the apolitical reigning.

Edit: make that the French Bourbons... I didn't realise that the Bourbons were more widespread than France.

[Stovokor]

Yes. Very good.

I agree, monarchic penis waving contests are lovely.

[Britannic Realms]

Yes. Although I don't really like today's system. We should go back to the 18th century system, with a strong, but not absolute, monarch.

Why do you dislike freedom? Do you have any logical right to rule for said strong monarch? Did he become King of the Britons because the Lady of the Lake threw a sword at him?

I don't. I want an elected Parliament with a Monarch strong enough to stop stupid legislation from becoming law. I wholeheartedly believe in the divine right of monarchs to rule their countries, that's my justification.

[Corumm]

Why would anyone want rich, pampered inbreds ruling over them

[Saiwania]

I'm all for monarchy if that is what the people of a nation want.
Make me King and I'm sure you won't regret it.