Why monarchy?

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

Why is there not I am not a monarchist option? Your like alienating 90%+ of NSG man.

This thread is primarily intended for monarchistsI think more than 10% of NSG is monarchist. At the very least, the monarchists on NSG are very influential and vociferous.

[Martean]

If we add to this that the monarchy is an institution known in Spain to be as corrupt as f*ck, even the most monarchist people I know, think the monarchy wont last more than 35 years.

Who knows? We might have some bizarre revolution tomorrow or Felipe VI might have an extraordinary reign that'll restore the monarchy's honour and prestige.

Felipe won't have an extraordinary reign, and even if it did, it would raise the popularity of the government, not the monarchy.

An institution filled up with corruption, which most of the Left rejects, (especially the left of the PSOE) which can't manage to gather support among the youth, won't last.

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

Why is there not I am not a monarchist option? Your like alienating 90%+ of NSG man.

Probably because the thread itself is more geared towards those who are in fact monarchists. It may be alienating people, but only because the thread probably isn't meant for them. Now I could be wrong on that, perhaps the OP does want to hear from those who aren't monarchists, but that's not really how he seemed to put it.

Frankly, the poll is just there to give me a vague idea of why the NSG monarchists are monarchists. While hearing the responses of republicans would be interesting it is ultimately not the purpose of this thread.

[Dalcaria]

Probably because the thread itself is more geared towards those who are in fact monarchists. It may be alienating people, but only because the thread probably isn't meant for them. Now I could be wrong on that, perhaps the OP does want to hear from those who aren't monarchists, but that's not really how he seemed to put it. I myself didn't vote for any of the options though because none of them truly embody why I'm a monarchist, or even what kind of a monarchist I am.

Frankly, the poll is just there to give me a vague idea of why the NSG monarchists are monarchists. While hearing the responses of republicans would be interesting it is ultimately not the purpose of this thread.

Well, there you go, question answered. Well, if I was to vote, my vote would be closest to the bottom option, but there is too much in that I don't necessarily agree with, hence why I can't vote on that option.

[Sebastianbourg]

Who knows? We might have some bizarre revolution tomorrow or Felipe VI might have an extraordinary reign that'll restore the monarchy's honour and prestige.

Felipe won't have an extraordinary reign, and even if it did, it would raise the popularity of the government, not the monarchy.

An institution filled up with corruption, which most of the Left rejects, (especially the left of the PSOE) which can't manage to gather support among the youth, won't last.

While unlikely there is a possibility of him restoring the monarchy's honour and prestige and therefore make the allegations of corruption a thing of the past which in turn would lead to more support from all societal groups.

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

Frankly, the poll is just there to give me a vague idea of why the NSG monarchists are monarchists. While hearing the responses of republicans would be interesting it is ultimately not the purpose of this thread.

Well, there you go, question answered. Well, if I was to vote, my vote would be closest to the bottom option, but there is too much in that I don't necessarily agree with, hence why I can't vote on that option.

I'd be inclined to add a few other options to the poll but almost 30 people have voted and I wouldn't want to reset the poll.

[Martean]

Felipe won't have an extraordinary reign, and even if it did, it would raise the popularity of the government, not the monarchy.

An institution filled up with corruption, which most of the Left rejects, (especially the left of the PSOE) which can't manage to gather support among the youth, won't last.

While unlikely there is a possibility of him restoring the monarchy's honour and prestige and therefore make the allegations of corruption a thing of the past which in turn would lead to more support from all societal groups.

How he could possibly do that? And that not taking into account the justice in Spain is SO slow that the veredict will take more than 4 years (for sure) and until then, it will continue to be in the news, harming its image.
And even supposing Cristina and Urdangarin were innocent (which they're not) it wouldn't be very useful, though. The republican cause has been gaining support for many decades now, and this even when Juan Carlos had an average mark of 7/10, corruption scandals are making the support for the republic increase more quickly, but it would also increase without them.

[Sebastianbourg]

While unlikely there is a possibility of him restoring the monarchy's honour and prestige and therefore make the allegations of corruption a thing of the past which in turn would lead to more support from all societal groups.

How he could possibly do that? And that not taking into account the justice in Spain is SO slow that the veredict will take more than 4 years (for sure) and until then, it will continue to be in the news, harming its image.
And even supposing Cristina and Urdangarin were innocent (which they're not) it wouldn't be very useful, though. The republican cause has been gaining support for many decades now, and this even when Juan Carlos had an average mark of 7/10, corruption scandals are making the support for the republic increase more quickly, but it would also increase without them.

As I've said previously, it is unlikely but entirely-possible that Felipe reigns for a considerable period of time a redeems the monarchy. How would the republican cause grow if the monarchy became a widely-respected institution once-again? In any case, let's agree to disagree because we're just going back-and-forth with the same argument.

[Martean]

How he could possibly do that? And that not taking into account the justice in Spain is SO slow that the veredict will take more than 4 years (for sure) and until then, it will continue to be in the news, harming its image.
And even supposing Cristina and Urdangarin were innocent (which they're not) it wouldn't be very useful, though. The republican cause has been gaining support for many decades now, and this even when Juan Carlos had an average mark of 7/10, corruption scandals are making the support for the republic increase more quickly, but it would also increase without them.

As I've said previously, it is unlikely but entirely-possible that Felipe reigns for a considerable period of time a redeems the monarchy. How would the republican cause grow if the monarchy became a widely-respected institution once-again? In any case, let's agree to disagree because we're just going back-and-forth with the same argument.

The monarchy will mever become a a widely-respected institution once again, but at least it could have a 5 or 5.5, which, it's not too bad... but even with that, it is undenyable that the youth is by far more republican than their parents. For example, when I enter my university you have a republican flag, communists/anarchist symbols everywhere... and this happens on every single public university in Spain. I think there is just a generational gap, and it is not about restoring the honour or something, it is just ideals.

"No cambiar de reyes, si no, no tener ninguno"

[Sebastianbourg]

As I've said previously, it is unlikely but entirely-possible that Felipe reigns for a considerable period of time a redeems the monarchy. How would the republican cause grow if the monarchy became a widely-respected institution once-again? In any case, let's agree to disagree because we're just going back-and-forth with the same argument.

The monarchy will mever become a a widely-respected institution once again, but at least it could have a 5 or 5.5, which, it's not too bad... but even with that, it is undenyable that the youth is by far more republican than their parents. For example, when I enter my university you have a republican flag, communists/anarchist symbols everywhere... and this happens on every single public university in Spain. I think there is just a generational gap, and it is not about restoring the honour or something, it is just ideals.

"No cambiar de reyes, si no, no tener ninguno"

Let's agree to disagree then and leave on friendly terms.

[Blasted Craigs]

I am not a monarchist, but I believe that the reason many people defend the institution of a monarchy is due to the romanticism of it, from the plethora of fantasy novels and myths of Kings and Queens, like King Aurthur for example. People believe that the reason governments fail is due to corruption and waste, and that these problems are due to the complexities that come with having multiple layers to a government, that give a place for the disingenuous and nefarious to not only hide, but to thrive. And there is some truth to this observation.

And so they think that a good King or Queen can root out corruption, and make a country more efficient. They also think that having a good ruler will ensure they are treated fairly. And they are right. When one has a good, noble ruler that cares for their subjects, it is the best type of government. There is none better. But that is the flaw, for the government is only as good as the ruler. And most people are flawed. And most people, when offered ultimate power, become corrupted.

But the idea that rulers are for the most part good and true is something they like to believe in.

The other reason this idea has soo much support IMHO, is many supporters envision themselves as either the ruler or as a noble. I think no one would support this style of government if they knew they were slotted to be a serf in a monarchy.

[Martean]

The monarchy will mever become a a widely-respected institution once again, but at least it could have a 5 or 5.5, which, it's not too bad... but even with that, it is undenyable that the youth is by far more republican than their parents. For example, when I enter my university you have a republican flag, communists/anarchist symbols everywhere... and this happens on every single public university in Spain. I think there is just a generational gap, and it is not about restoring the honour or something, it is just ideals.

"No cambiar de reyes, si no, no tener ninguno"

Let's agree to disagree then and leave on friendly terms.

Most of the time even when I fiercely dissagre with the other person I'm on friendly terms

[Sebastianbourg]

The other reason this idea has soo much support IMHO, is many supporters envision themselves as either the ruler or as a noble. I think no one would support this style of government if they knew they were slotted to be a serf in a monarchy.

I am a monarchist and a citizen of two monarchies. Being the king would be nice but I have no aspirations of sitting on the throne.

[Sebastianbourg]

Let's agree to disagree then and leave on friendly terms.

Most of the time even when I fiercely dissagre with the other person I'm on friendly terms

That's not very common on NSG; we start getting irritated and insult each other et cetera.

[The Austrians and Slovenes]

Most of the time even when I fiercely dissagre with the other person I'm on friendly terms

That's not very common on NSG; we start getting irritated and insult each other et cetera.

I'm actually very impressed; apart from Manisdog at the beginning this thread has been very respectful and civil.

[Immoren]

If difference between monarchy and dictatorship is legitimacy and/or history of house, and I've some monarchists here say that modern dictators can't be monarchs, because they lack either. But would their their descendants become legitimate monarchs if they managed to held to the throne for long enough, or are only legitimate houses those which sprung up centuries ago and no new houses families/houses can be created?

[Sebastianbourg]

If difference between monarchy and dictatorship is legitimacy and/or history of house, and I've some monarchists here say that modern dictators can't be monarchs, because they lack either. But would their their descendants become legitimate monarchs if they managed to held to the throne for long enough, or are only legitimate houses those which sprung up centuries ago and no new houses families/houses can be created?

Well, dictators can certainly legitimise their rule (Zog in Albania for example) but whether everyone will accept this is doubtful. However, this legitimisation would almost certainly include the family renouncing their power and being relegated to a merely ceremonial role since we're mostly in favour of a constitutional monarchy.

[Dalcaria]

Well, there you go, question answered. Well, if I was to vote, my vote would be closest to the bottom option, but there is too much in that I don't necessarily agree with, hence why I can't vote on that option.

I'd be inclined to add a few other options to the poll but almost 30 people have voted and I wouldn't want to reset the poll.

Fair enough. Well, I have an obscure enough reason anyways that I might be the only one who votes for it. That said, no worries.

[Dalcaria]

If difference between monarchy and dictatorship is legitimacy and/or history of house, and I've some monarchists here say that modern dictators can't be monarchs, because they lack either. But would their their descendants become legitimate monarchs if they managed to held to the throne for long enough, or are only legitimate houses those which sprung up centuries ago and no new houses families/houses can be created?

Frankly I totally disagree with the idea that someone can't become a monarch based on "history of house", if that's implying "royal blood". There is no such thing as "royal blood", there are those who became royalty by the will of the people, or those who became royalty by fighting for that right, or those who were appointed by some kind of religious leader (in other words, the pope). The "royalty" of many nations exist because the blood line has been passed from one family to another, all leading back to someone who became royal through one of those three methods. Marriage is also one option too, but the descendents aren't royal because of of the marriage alone, they're royal because of the blood passed to them. At any rate, literally anyone could make a claim to royalty, what it requires for TRUE legitimacy is recognition, which you obtain either from the people themselves, from conquest (which probably means forcing the people to recognize you), or from someone appointing you as royalty. That's why virtually anyone today could become a monarch if they like, there's just one little word required to make that happen in most cases; a referendum. If the people support you and will vote yes on a referendum, there aren't honestly many laws that can prevent that, and even if there are, there are ways of getting around them to make it legal. And even if there is some other power that prevents all this from happening, popularity will win the day. If the people want a monarch badly enough, they will have one, or the powers that be may have an angry mob.

At any rate, I'm not into the "royal blood" idea, I feel it's the people's choice, at least for the first monarch in a line. And from there, I'd say the next people in line should be chosen by merit, not birth order.

[Sebastianbourg]

If difference between monarchy and dictatorship is legitimacy and/or history of house, and I've some monarchists here say that modern dictators can't be monarchs, because they lack either. But would their their descendants become legitimate monarchs if they managed to held to the throne for long enough, or are only legitimate houses those which sprung up centuries ago and no new houses families/houses can be created?

Oh, and Napoléon was a perfectly-legitimate monarch.

[Dukats]

Democracy brings corruption and even idiots can be politicians.If we raise a future kings since childhood how to be a strong and good ruler it would be better then spending so much money every 4 years on election advertisement.And it helps the troops morale since they are fighting for king and country.

[Sebastianbourg]

Democracy brings corruption and even idiots can be politicians.If we raise a future kings since childhood how to be a strong and good ruler it would be better then spending so much money every 4 years on election advertisement.And it helps the troops morale since they are fighting for king and country.

Remember most of us support a constitutional monarchy. Since you're Serbian I ask you the following question, would you favour the restoration of the monarchy?

[Immoren]

Sometimes I do wonder had history of Modern Independent Finland been any differ had Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse not renounced his throne due to results of WWI.

[Sebastianbourg]

Sometimes I do wonder had history of Modern Independent Finland been any differ had Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse not renounced his throne due to results of WWI.

I don't think there'd be much of a difference, really. You'd have a King instead of a President and that's about it. It would be nice (but idealistic and a bit childish on my part) if Prince Frederick received a memorial or something as the only king of an independent Finland.

[Estado Nacional]

Democracy divides more often than not. Monarchies unite.

*cough* Thailand *cough*