Why monarchy?

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

I've been a lurker on this forum for a while and somehow I've managed to resit the urge to register and post. I've noticed there's a large number of monarchists (along with people with other eccentric political opinions).

When one looks-up 'benefits of monarchy' on Google one will be surprised at how many websites seem to have articles dedicated to this relatively-obscure subject. They all tell us the same thing; monarchies unite the people with the personification of the nation (the monarch) which is independent of politics and may cost less than ceremonial presidencies while serving as permanent (or long-term) ambassadors of the country and its people. Generally, I tend to sympathise with monarchies just because of possibly-anachronistic sentimentalism (and not because of the reasons presented above) but I'd like to know what the monarchist members and denizens of NSG have to say on why they support the aforementioned system of government.

I know there is no thread ownership in the NSG but I wouldn't like this thread to simply criticize or praise monarchies blindly; I want to know why NSG's monarchist are in fact monarchists. The arguments for a republic are quite repetitive and obvious so unless you've got an argument for a republic which you think will be unknown to the majority I'd recommend you don't post.

[Nortrom]

Welcome to NationStates, Austrians and Slovenes.

I'm not a Monarchist but my opinion on it is that it's generally unneeded nowadays. Theoretically, a Monarch can be a valuable asset for a nation. They can unite the people, give a face to the nation and be a good representative of the nation's culture and principles. The can also be a part of more specific jobs such as an ambassador or even an active politician.

The problem nowadays is that nations aren't as homogenous as they used to be. And a Monarchy can't function properly when there are hundreds of different beliefs within the nation. A Monarch represents a religion, a culture and perhaps even a way of living. They will have to promote their beliefs and principles, that's their job after all. Why would a diverse country choose to have a powerful Monarch when there are other systems that are more suitable for the job?

[Estado Nacional]

Because tradition, unity, prestige and inumerous other fluid concepts.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Democracy divides more often than not. Monarchies unite.

Except in the case of civil wars...everyone deals with those.

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

Welcome to NationStates, Austrians and Slovenes.

I'm not a Monarchist but my opinion on it is that it's generally unneeded nowadays. Theoretically, a Monarch can be a valuable asset for a nation. They can unite the people, give a face to the nation and be a good representative of the nation's culture and principles. The can also be a part of more specific jobs such as an ambassador or even an active politician.

The problem nowadays is that nations aren't as homogenous as they used to be. And a Monarchy can't function properly when there are hundreds of different beliefs within the nation. A Monarch represents a religion, a culture and perhaps even a way of living. They will have to promote their beliefs and principles, that's their job after all. Why would a diverse country choose to have a powerful Monarch when there are other systems that are more suitable for the job?

Thank you, Nortrom.

I am sure monarchs can adapt to their country's changing society. I do not think the remaining monarchs of the world actually represent the country's original religion, culture or way of life (with the exception of the Middle Eastern absolute monarchies and Swaziland). While it could be argued the UK's monarchy represents the Anglican religion this is more a technicality than anything else. Lastly, I think I'm mainly referring to constitutional monarchies where the monarch retains little to no power (hence the comparison with ceremonial presidencies).

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

Democracy divides more often than not. Monarchies unite.

Except in the case of civil wars...everyone deals with those.

While democracy at times affects a country negatively autocracy hasn't really worked out (the system is simply not sustainable). In any case, I was referring to constitutional monarchies more than anything.

[Salandriagado]

A modern western monarch is (I'll use the UK as an example throughout this post), in a very literal sense, a "living constitution". They (along with the house of Lords) perform the same basic role as the constitution in the US: a barrier against the government doing anything too completely insane, whilst being better able to adapt to the needs of the time than a written document.

[Sebastianbourg]

A modern western monarch is (I'll use the UK as an example throughout this post), in a very literal sense, a "living constitution". They (along with the house of Lords) perform the same basic role as the constitution in the US: a barrier against the government doing anything too completely insane, whilst being better able to adapt to the needs of the time than a written document.

It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.

[Salandriagado]

A modern western monarch is (I'll use the UK as an example throughout this post), in a very literal sense, a "living constitution". They (along with the house of Lords) perform the same basic role as the constitution in the US: a barrier against the government doing anything too completely insane, whilst being better able to adapt to the needs of the time than a written document.

It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.

They aren't, though. They have precisely the amount of power that they need to have: they can't (practically) interfere with normal day to day stuff, but if it was something crazy extreme, they can step in and stop it, and have a decent shot at coming out on top. The extreme risks in doing this serve to prevent it from being used when it's not an actual emergency "stop this or we're fucked" kind of thing.

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.

They aren't, though. They have precisely the amount of power that they need to have: they can't (practically) interfere with normal day to day stuff, but if it was something crazy extreme, they can step in and stop it, and have a decent shot at coming out on top. The extreme risks in doing this serve to prevent it from being used when it's not an actual emergency "stop this or we're fucked" kind of thing.

+1 for monarchy! Hurrah!

[Sebastianbourg]

It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.

They aren't, though. They have precisely the amount of power that they need to have: they can't (practically) interfere with normal day to day stuff, but if it was something crazy extreme, they can step in and stop it, and have a decent shot at coming out on top. The extreme risks in doing this serve to prevent it from being used when it's not an actual emergency "stop this or we're fucked" kind of thing.

I'd never thought of it that way. It only reinforces my monarchism then.

[Valaran]

It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.

They aren't, though. They have precisely the amount of power that they need to have: they can't (practically) interfere with normal day to day stuff, but if it was something crazy extreme, they can step in and stop it, and have a decent shot at coming out on top. The extreme risks in doing this serve to prevent it from being used when it's not an actual emergency "stop this or we're fucked" kind of thing.

Well, this would be mainly the House of Lords rather than the monarch herself (it get's very legally uncertain if she decides to step in or refuse something). But I do agree with the point.

[Northern European Senates remnants]

My nation is a constitutional Monarchy, it's where I have a figure head but they aren't an absolute monarchy where they rule everything. We have a monarchy simply because it Unites and gives the people someone to look up to, because everyone needs a leader. We also have it because it's democratic and civilians rule the country not the tsar. So really it's also because of the tradition it's quite hard to get rid of culture that has been around for centuries, and I guess that's the same for real life countries. And they look cool in their attire.

[Dinake]

My nation is a constitutional Monarchy, it's where I have a figure head but they aren't an absolute monarchy where they rule everything. We have a monarchy simply because it Unites and gives the people someone to look up to, because everyone needs a leader. We also have it because it's democratic and civilians rule the country not the tsar. So really it's also because of the tradition it's quite hard to get rid of culture that has been around for centuries, and I guess that's the same for real life countries. And they look cool in their attire.

General is OOC.
Anyway, the main benefit to a monarchy is that it causes the population to be united regardless of political views or ethnicities.

[Lalaki]

I come from a country with a strong republican tradition. What I find is that Americans tend to be united based on national identity and common ideals instead of a monarch.

Ultimately it is up to the nation and its culture whether or not there should be a monarchy. I would prefer that the US remains a republic (as we don't have a tradition of kings/queens and don't really need one for unity), but I am happy if another country decides differently.

[Manisdog]

You must have been seeing the Pro-Britain lobby, my friend it is because they are taught that way and fed that crap since school, also it is illegal to hold republican views over there

[Sebastianbourg]

You must have been seeing the Pro-Britain lobby, my friend it is because they are taught that way and fed that crap since school, also it is illegal to hold republican views over there

Here comes NSG's resident Anglophobe, Manisdog! FYI Manisdog, while it is technically treason to call for the abolition of the monarchy no-one has been tried for treason because of holding republican views since the mid-19th century. Yes, that law should be repealed but it's not like we throw all republicans in jail at Her Majesty's pleasure.

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

I come from a country with a strong republican tradition. What I find is that Americans tend to be united based on national identity and common ideals instead of a monarch.

Ultimately it is up to the nation and its culture whether or not there should be a monarchy. I would prefer that the US remains a republic (as we don't have a tradition of kings/queens and don't really need one for unity), but I am happy if another country decides differently.

America is divided between the conservatives and the so-called liberals. The monarchy provides a uniting figure beyond politics that the US doesn't have.

[Murkwood]

Democracy divides more often than not. Monarchies unite.

Except in the case of civil wars...everyone deals with those.

This. Stability is one of the major benefits of constitutional monarchy, as is unity and an enhance connection to a countries heritage. Also, it gets rid of the "mob rule" mentality that democracies have, with kings being non-partisan heads of state.

Semi-Constitutional is the same, but with an added check and balance, along with more leeway for the Monarch to deal with both important and unimportant issues.

Absolute Monarchy "makes the trains run on time", as the old saying goes. Absolute Monarchies have all the previous benefits and much more. One of the allures of Absolute Monarchy is that they have all the benefits of dictatorships, like an end to gridlock and political bickering, with checks and balances. An insane dictator can do as he pleases, but an insane or evil king will face more more opposition from his court.

[NERVUN]

I come from a country with a strong republican tradition. What I find is that Americans tend to be united based on national identity and common ideals instead of a monarch.

Ultimately it is up to the nation and its culture whether or not there should be a monarchy. I would prefer that the US remains a republic (as we don't have a tradition of kings/queens and don't really need one for unity), but I am happy if another country decides differently.

America is divided between the conservatives and the so-called liberals. The monarchy provides a uniting figure beyond politics that the US doesn't have.

... You mean countries like Australia and Canada?

Oh, or Japan?

Seriously, having a monarch doesn't magically unite a country.

He or she can serve as a rallying symbol that is easier to affix to than a set of ideals or values, but it doesn't automatically happen.

[Manisdog]

You must have been seeing the Pro-Britain lobby, my friend it is because they are taught that way and fed that crap since school, also it is illegal to hold republican views over there

Here comes NSG's resident Anglophobe, Manisdog! FYI Manisdog, while it is technically treason to call for the abolition of the monarchy no-one has been tried for treason because of holding republican views since the mid-19th century. Yes, that law should be repealed but it's not like we throw all republicans in jail at Her Majesty's pleasure.

Don't you think asking to for re-appealing that law would get the ire of your overlords ?

The fact remains it is illegal

[The Union of the West]

I come from a country with a strong republican tradition. What I find is that Americans tend to be united based on national identity and common ideals instead of a monarch.

Ultimately it is up to the nation and its culture whether or not there should be a monarchy. I would prefer that the US remains a republic (as we don't have a tradition of kings/queens and don't really need one for unity), but I am happy if another country decides differently.

To be honest, if America had a tradition of monarchy, I would probably support it.

[Fortschritte]

In some cases, a constitutional monarchy can be nice. It can help create a sense of national unity and identity, and spur things like tourism.

However, absolute monarchy is an absurd, tyrannical system of governance that has been swept into the dustbin of political irrelevance.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I've been a lurker on this forum for a while and somehow I've managed to resit the urge to register and post. I've noticed there's a large number of monarchists (along with people with other eccentric political opinions).

When one looks-up 'benefits of monarchy' on Google one will be surprised at how many websites seem to have articles dedicated to this relatively-obscure subject. They all tell us the same thing; monarchies unite the people with the personification of the nation (the monarch) which is independent of politics and may cost less than ceremonial presidencies while serving as permanent (or long-term) ambassadors of the country and its people. Generally, I tend to sympathise with monarchies just because of possibly-anachronistic sentimentalism (and not because of the reasons presented above) but I'd like to know what the monarchist members and denizens of NSG have to say on why they support the aforementioned system of government.

I know there is no thread ownership in the NSG but I wouldn't like this thread to simply criticize or praise monarchies blindly; I want to know why NSG's monarchist are in fact monarchists. The arguments for a republic are quite repetitive and obvious so unless you've got an argument for a republic which you think will be unknown to the majority I'd recommend you don't post.

I've been wondering the same thing! I don't really get the idea. I always thought the idea of a permanent leader like that was kinda fascist in that no one really gets a say in who or what this person does, in that their duties, no matter how limited, Will be acted upon under their morals which probably aren't in the interests of the general republic because they'd probably see themselves as superior to everyone else (because they're a monarch)

[Infected Mushroom]

I've been a lurker on this forum for a while and somehow I've managed to resit the urge to register and post. I've noticed there's a large number of monarchists (along with people with other eccentric political opinions).

When one looks-up 'benefits of monarchy' on Google one will be surprised at how many websites seem to have articles dedicated to this relatively-obscure subject. They all tell us the same thing; monarchies unite the people with the personification of the nation (the monarch) which is independent of politics and may cost less than ceremonial presidencies while serving as permanent (or long-term) ambassadors of the country and its people. Generally, I tend to sympathise with monarchies just because of possibly-anachronistic sentimentalism (and not because of the reasons presented above) but I'd like to know what the monarchist members and denizens of NSG have to say on why they support the aforementioned system of government.

I know there is no thread ownership in the NSG but I wouldn't like this thread to simply criticize or praise monarchies blindly; I want to know why NSG's monarchist are in fact monarchists. The arguments for a republic are quite repetitive and obvious so unless you've got an argument for a republic which you think will be unknown to the majority I'd recommend you don't post.

Strong leadership, unity, and nationalism.

Its preferable to partisan politics which divide the nation and short-sighted politicians focused only on winning elections.

We could have a class of privileged individuals, born and bred with a sense of nobility and justice, trained from day one on how to govern as decisive, benevolent rulers.