Well, these men have been proven idiots incapable of ruling our country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whilst the Queen has been on the throne since the 6th February 1952 and has an excellent track-record.
Advertisement
by Sebastianbourg » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:46 pm
by The Cobalt Sky » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:55 pm
Sebastianbourg wrote:The Cobalt Sky wrote:Again. Use words to explain why.
Well, these men have been proven idiots incapable of ruling our country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whilst the Queen has been on the throne since the 6th February 1952 and has an excellent track-record.
by Sebastianbourg » Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:07 pm
The Cobalt Sky wrote:Sebastianbourg wrote:Well, these men have been proven idiots incapable of ruling our country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whilst the Queen has been on the throne since the 6th February 1952 and has an excellent track-record.
That's only one monarch. But I admit I'll need to research British History again to understand who they are completely, but I'm still of the opinion that monarchism supports the idea some people are superior and some aren't, superiority being an inheritable trait, and that I wouldn't want a monarch appointed to the U.S. because there's a good chance they wouldn't represent me. I also reject this unity idea because I wouldn't want to find common ground with someone who thinks women should be subservient to men, or something else insane. If a monarch is an ambassador, as some have said, then they should have to represent everyone. Everyone, everyone. If they didn't, they would cease to be apolitical.
by The Cobalt Sky » Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:15 pm
Sebastianbourg wrote:The Cobalt Sky wrote:That's only one monarch. But I admit I'll need to research British History again to understand who they are completely, but I'm still of the opinion that monarchism supports the idea some people are superior and some aren't, superiority being an inheritable trait, and that I wouldn't want a monarch appointed to the U.S. because there's a good chance they wouldn't represent me. I also reject this unity idea because I wouldn't want to find common ground with someone who thinks women should be subservient to men, or something else insane. If a monarch is an ambassador, as some have said, then they should have to represent everyone. Everyone, everyone. If they didn't, they would cease to be apolitical.
1. As I said, I do not consider the Queen to be more valuable than me as a human being and I believe I share this with my compatriots. As I've said before in this thread, we're British citizens (as opposed to British subjects) and we only bow or curtsy to the Queen and the Royal Family out of respect since we're not forced to.
2. It's not about unifying the nation. For one moment at least freeing the people from the constant political discussions and conflicts. In short, to find common ground in order to produce some sort of societal harmony between people with different opinions and political beliefs.
3. The Queen represents around 80% of us and that's enough since most heads of state in republics would dream of having such high approval rates. While the UK's monarchy has very high approval rates monarchs of other countries have even higher approval rates; Norway's King's rule is approved by around 95% of the population.
by The Cobalt Sky » Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:17 pm
by The Nihilistic view » Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:19 pm
by The Cobalt Sky » Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:24 pm
by Sebastianbourg » Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:39 pm
The Cobalt Sky wrote:Look back on what others have said. Sorry I didn't clarify, but that isn't just to you. Also, with representation, I was speaking on the US. Not the whole world. Again, I apologize if I didn't clarify.
by Dalcaria » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:38 pm
by Sebastianbourg » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:42 pm
Dalcaria wrote:I'm not a monarchist for any of the reason you listed to vote. In fact, I was never even a monarchist until I was a staunch democrat. I loved and held the ideas and ideals of democracy very true to myself. I wanted to change the world and make it a better place, and still do. But one day I asked myself, "Robert, let's pretend you make all these wonderful laws that make the world a truly better place. What's stopping the opposition from tearing this apart once you're gone?" So I'm a monarchist not because of pomp and circumstance, or because I think they are "apolitical and unite the nation", I'm a monarchist because 300 men and women can run a country into the ground, but one good leader and laws that CANNOT be overruled by any man or woman (even the monarch) could lead a nation forward and keep it going forward. And very importantly, the leader could be chosen based on merits, not based on their ability to charm an easily duped population (at this point it's worth mentioning I feel the crown should go to whom is best choice to lead the nation, not who is "next in line").
So there you go, why I am my own special Dalcarian Brand of monarchy.
by Dalcaria » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:57 pm
Sebastianbourg wrote:Dalcaria wrote:I'm not a monarchist for any of the reason you listed to vote. In fact, I was never even a monarchist until I was a staunch democrat. I loved and held the ideas and ideals of democracy very true to myself. I wanted to change the world and make it a better place, and still do. But one day I asked myself, "Robert, let's pretend you make all these wonderful laws that make the world a truly better place. What's stopping the opposition from tearing this apart once you're gone?" So I'm a monarchist not because of pomp and circumstance, or because I think they are "apolitical and unite the nation", I'm a monarchist because 300 men and women can run a country into the ground, but one good leader and laws that CANNOT be overruled by any man or woman (even the monarch) could lead a nation forward and keep it going forward. And very importantly, the leader could be chosen based on merits, not based on their ability to charm an easily duped population (at this point it's worth mentioning I feel the crown should go to whom is best choice to lead the nation, not who is "next in line").
So there you go, why I am my own special Dalcarian Brand of monarchy.
How exactly would the monarch in this elective monarchy of yours be elected?
by Estva » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:18 pm
by Manisdog » Thu Nov 27, 2014 1:37 am
by Vissegaard » Thu Nov 27, 2014 1:55 am
by Dalcaria » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:37 am
Manisdog wrote:You know I am happy we got rid of those kings and queens for good, here is why monarchy plainly sucks
1) Royal prerogative gives extensive, unaccountable power to the executive.
2)The monarchy has real political power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.
3)The monarchy perpetuates the class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit
4) The monarchy makes it impossible to separate Church and State
It is why certain countries with a constitution monarchy, heck my ancestors fought to get rid of monarchy, good riddance
by Brillnuck » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:42 am
by Old Tyrannia » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:43 am
The Austrians and Slovenes wrote: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.
by Dalcaria » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:53 am
Estva wrote:I have personally never seen the need for a monarch, and I believe the existence of a hereditary monarch n affront to the idea of egalitarianism. This false believe that it causes stability in terms of non-partisanship is an outright lie - monarchs can and have acted based on partisan beliefs, and will be more than happy to act against the public will if they have the loyalty of the right special interest groups.
They do not "personify" the nation more than you or I. Other than being old, or if you are one of those people that believe in the divine right nonsense, they have no qualifications for the role. I cannot see how someone whom is unelected and handed power from birth can represent a country in any way.
by Old Tyrannia » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:59 am
Czechanada wrote:NERVUN wrote:... 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.
Out of curiosity, do you know if Emperor is an accurate translation of the Japanese monarch's title?
by The Cobalt Sky » Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:52 am
Sebastianbourg wrote:The Cobalt Sky wrote:Look back on what others have said. Sorry I didn't clarify, but that isn't just to you. Also, with representation, I was speaking on the US. Not the whole world. Again, I apologize if I didn't clarify.
Now, do you agree on having a monarchy if the great majority of the population supports it or does your belief in human equality not allow you to support monarchism?
by Janshah » Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:41 am
by -The West Coast- » Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:43 am
by Fortschritte » Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:54 am
Brillnuck wrote:I only support Elective Monarchies. A lot like the system Malaysia uses.
by The Nihilistic view » Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:55 am
-The West Coast- wrote:People have long preferred others thinking for them, so a Monarchy was a great and easy form of government for centuries during the Dark Ages where most of the people living under a monarch were uneducated peasants and farmers. Now its nonsense with the advent of democracy and its popularity since the birth of the United States.
by Brillnuck » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:04 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: The Archregimancy
Advertisement