Is monarchy a good form of government?

[The New Sea Territory]

...who likes free speech, freedom of the press, not starving to death...

Agreed, the bourgeois-liberal republic was a great step forward from the feudal monarchy.

Pretty much everyone, barring monarchists, agree with the French Revolution.

[Britanno]

Lol nope we aren't. Though we receive £200,000,000 in tax from the royal family, which alone isn't good reason for their existence as other rich people also pay a lot in tax, we lose out on roughly £250,000,000 from inheritance tax exemptions, loss of yield through inflexibility on royal estates, servicing the royal debt and generally paying for the royals to prance about and be royal.

Nice job missing out tourism.

[Old Tyrannia]

The Reign of Terror and the French Revolutionary Wars weren't much of an improvement if you ask me. I suppose if you're a militaristic anticlerical republican...

...who likes free speech, freedom of the press, not starving to death...

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Republicans: So nice and reasonable they wish for the death of elderly ladies out of spite.

You people are absolute gifts to the monarchist movement.

People whose power is based on some watery tart throwing a sword at them deserve to be removed from power. If they resist, then death is likely inevitable.

All right there, now I know what movie you got your ideology from.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

...who likes free speech, freedom of the press, not starving to death...

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

It did, it also did the world a great service in drowning the priests and other parasites.

[Old Tyrannia]

Republicans: So nice and reasonable they wish for the death of elderly ladies out of spite.

You people are absolute gifts to the monarchist movement.

People whose power is based on some watery tart throwing a sword at them deserve to be removed from power. If they resist, then death is likely inevitable.

Personally I tend to reject the idea that killing people who you disagree with is an acceptable way to bring about change. As George Orwell put it, "There is something wrong with a regime that requires a pyramid of corpses every few years."

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

It did, it also did the world a great service in drowning the priests and other parasites.

Well, that last part's not prejudiced at all.

[Old Tyrannia]

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

It did, it also did the world a great service in drowning the priests and other parasites.

Fortunately, most people in the world don't consider drowning religious leaders a noble aim in and of itself.

[The UK in Exile]

People whose power is based on some watery tart throwing a sword at them deserve to be removed from power. If they resist, then death is likely inevitable.

Personally I tend to reject the idea that killing people who you disagree with is an acceptable way to bring about change. As George Orwell put it, "There is something wrong with a regime that requires a pyramid of corpses every few years."

Its an effective way. wether its acceptable depends on wether its for the better or not.

[Reinstadt]

Supreme Monarchy- Not a fan.

Constitutional Monarchy- favourable, it gave Britain years of stability in the 19th century when revolutions and revolts sprang across Europe.

Elective Monarchy- PUT THIS INTO EFFECT NOW.

[The New Sea Territory]

People whose power is based on some watery tart throwing a sword at them deserve to be removed from power. If they resist, then death is likely inevitable.

Personally I tend to reject the idea that killing people who you disagree with is an acceptable way to bring about change. As George Orwell put it, "There is something wrong with a regime that requires a pyramid of corpses every few years."

...this isn't a "I disagree with you" matter. This is that monarchism is the fundamental oppression of the majority of a nation. Those people have every reason and justification to hang the king and queen publicly. And don't quote Orwell, who would be on my side in this argument as he was a Democratic Socialist.

...who likes free speech, freedom of the press, not starving to death...

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

First...."And the Monarchy did any better?"

Bullshit. There was free speech and press. Starvation happened due to the conflict.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

People whose power is based on some watery tart throwing a sword at them deserve to be removed from power. If they resist, then death is likely inevitable.

Personally I tend to reject the idea that killing people who you disagree with is an acceptable way to bring about change. As George Orwell put it, "There is something wrong with a regime that requires a pyramid of corpses every few years."

What if the person in question had it coming?

[UED]

Supreme Monarchy- Not a fan.

Constitutional Monarchy- favourable, it gave Britain years of stability in the 19th century when revolutions and revolts sprang across Europe.

Elective Monarchy- PUT THIS INTO EFFECT NOW.

Sorry for my ignorance but what is elective monarchy? Are the royal leaders elected by the populace? (like prince william vs harry?)

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It did, it also did the world a great service in drowning the priests and other parasites.

Fortunately, most people in the world don't consider drowning religious leaders a noble aim in and of itself.

You are missing an "un-" before the word "fortunately".

[The New Sea Territory]

It did, it also did the world a great service in drowning the priests and other parasites.

Fortunately, most people in the world don't consider drowning religious leaders a noble aim in and of itself.

Yes, there are reasons behind it that majority of modern day ignorant people are unaware of. The Church-State racket of the French Monarchy was, by itself, a justification to revolt.

[Conserative Morality]

The Reign of Terror and the French Revolutionary Wars weren't much of an improvement if you ask me. I suppose if you're a militaristic anticlerical republican...

Got my number, I'm afraid. I'd exclude the Reign of Terror as an improvement, but the French Revolutionary Wars gave the masses a place in government for the first time in centuries in France. People were no longer subjects, but citizens, with rights and duties that were inexorably intertwined.

The Young Turks were responsible for the Armenian Genocide, weren't they? And I really don't see how the Turkish Republic was a great improvement on the Ottoman Empire.

Wait, wait, wait, I can argue the Young Turks with you later, but if you're asking how the Turkish Republic was an improvement, I'm going to have to address this first.

Are you really asking how the Turkish Republic, which quadrupled literacy rates in the country, which changed every aspect of Turkish life to suit the modern age, which instated universal suffrage and the equality of citizens of both sexes, which preached against racism and religious bigotry, which utterly transformed a country from a mostly apolitical group of monarchial subjects to an eager, politically involved population of equal citizens, which became significantly more wealthy and equal from the Empire, modernized the economy, which weathered the Great Depression significantly better than any western country, was better than the ailing, racist, theocratic, impoverished, ignorant mess that was the Ottoman Empire from the 19th century on?

Sorry. I've got an appreciation for Ataturk and his reforms.

Ha. Ha. Ha ha. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Are we laughing because there's a monarchist movement I'm unaware of in Italy, or because of the current political situation?

Not really. Most of Austria-Hungary's Slavic domains became part of the eventual Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Austria became a weak short-lived republic before becoming a para-fascist dictatorship under Engelbert Dollfuß' Fatherland Front, and was finally invaded and conquered by the Nazis. Hungary became a military dictatorship after going through a brief civil war against communist insurgents. Czechoslovakia did reasonably well, I suppose, except for the ethnic tensions between Czechs and Slovaks and being forced to give up territory to Nazi Germany and its allies before being finally conquered completely.

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia became the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Tito; one of the few communist leaders I respect. Czechoslovakia was an experiment cut short. Hungary was predominantly democratic until WW2, Horthy being a powerful executive figure, but not what I'd call a dictator. Austria I have no argument against.

No, it doesn't. I literally have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion.

Really.

You don't see how Constantine II's position rendered him vulnerable to popular discontent without redress that allow the military junta to overshadow and then oust him (Shortly being ousted themselves)?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

People whose power is based on some watery tart throwing a sword at them deserve to be removed from power. If they resist, then death is likely inevitable.

Personally I tend to reject the idea that killing people who you disagree with is an acceptable way to bring about change. As George Orwell put it, "There is something wrong with a regime that requires a pyramid of corpses every few years."

The Jacobite Rebellion, Peterloo, Wat Tyler, War of Roses...and the list goes on and on.

[Conserative Morality]

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

I think you may have a skewed view of the aftermath of the French Revolution. While hardly free in a modern sense, civil liberties were greatly expanded even under the Reign of Terror as compared to the Ancien Regime.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

I think you may have a skewed view of the aftermath of the French Revolution. While hardly free in a modern sense, civil liberties were greatly expanded even under the Reign of Terror as compared to the Ancien Regime.

Is it a good idea to mention the Napoleonic Code?

[Lavan Tiri]

I guess so. That also links into what is a "good" form of government to; as in what does a government have to do in order to be "good"? Does good governing simply mean doing "good" things? afteral there are many MANY forms of government that have done good things, some of which are monarchies. Or does it mean simply one that is able to "govern" efficiently without collapsing? if so then Monarchy is quite good at that.

In my opinion, a "good" government is one that better's it's people's life's. An efficient one is one that could not be overthrown.

What if a monarchy bettered the people's lives,hmm?

[Conserative Morality]

Personally I tend to reject the idea that killing people who you disagree with is an acceptable way to bring about change. As George Orwell put it, "There is something wrong with a regime that requires a pyramid of corpses every few years."

An odd view. I've always been of the opinion that, in the absence of the ability of one to participate in the political process, violence is the only form of redress against the government.

Naturally, one of the reasons I support republican governance is because I don't particularly like violence being the only form of redress against the government. Kind of messy, brutal, and wasteful.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I think you may have a skewed view of the aftermath of the French Revolution. While hardly free in a modern sense, civil liberties were greatly expanded even under the Reign of Terror as compared to the Ancien Regime.

Is it a good idea to mention the Napoleonic Code?

Napoleon was a monarch. His nephew was too, but his nephew was a shit monarch.

[Conserative Morality]

Is it a good idea to mention the Napoleonic Code?

While Napoleon's Empire was hardly a traditional monarchy, it may be argued that said code, despite being a result of revolutionary thought, was ultimately the product of a monarch.

In any case, Napoleon was a complex enough man that to argue over him would require a thread of its own.

[Old Tyrannia]

Personally I tend to reject the idea that killing people who you disagree with is an acceptable way to bring about change. As George Orwell put it, "There is something wrong with a regime that requires a pyramid of corpses every few years."

...this isn't a "I disagree with you" matter. This is that monarchism is the fundamental oppression of the majority of a nation. Those people have every reason and justification to hang the king and queen publicly. And don't quote Orwell, who would be on my side in this argument as he was a Democratic Socialist.

George Orwell was a man who had views I strongly disagree with. He was also a man who spent much of his life opposing extremism and working to oppose authoritarianism. I doubt he'd agree with your position that people who resist change should rightfully be killed. He was a moderate; you are a dangerous radical.

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

First...."And the Monarchy did any better?"

Well, they certainly executed far fewer people for political crimes than the Republic.

Bullshit. There was free speech and press. Starvation happened due to the conflict.

If there was free speech under the Republic, how come 16,594 political opponents of the Committee of Public Security were guillotined and a further 25,000 people summarily executed, including not just royalists but moderate revolutionaries such as the Gironidins? And I never said the starvation was deliberate, as under the USSR. Just that the Republic failed to suddenly make starvation go away. It was a famine that caused the starvation, by the way, under both the monarchy and the Republic.

[Lavan Tiri]

The Republic delivered on none of those. All it brought was war and death.

I think you may have a skewed view of the aftermath of the French Revolution. While hardly free in a modern sense, civil liberties were greatly expanded even under the Reign of Terror as compared to the Ancien Regime.

That's because when you've guillotined most of the people, you can give the others more freedom.


Its a joke.