NationStates

Estado Nacional wrote:

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Democracy divides more often than not. Monarchies unite.

*cough* Thailand *cough*

Thailand is a good example. It's a chaotic country with an all-powerful military but everyone is united by their love for the King.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Estado Nacional wrote:
*cough* Thailand *cough*

Thailand is a good example. It's a chaotic country with an all-powerful military but everyone is united by their love for the King.

Yeah, until a few months ago when people were rioting on the streets because of how politically divided the country was.

Estado Nacional wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:Thailand is a good example. It's a chaotic country with an all-powerful military but everyone is united by their love for the King.

Yeah, until a few months ago when people were rioting on the streets because of how politically divided the country was.

Hence the chaos I've described with the word chaotic. On the BBC they interviewed members of both groups and they all said they loved the King etc. Thailand isn't the best example because the monarch while loved is not very powerful in face of the military. Monarchies in more-developed Western nations are better examples.

Sebastianbourg wrote:Hence the chaos I've described with the word chaotic.

So much for having a monarch to bring stability to them, right?

Sebastianbourg wrote:On the BBC they interviewed members of both groups and they all said they loved the King etc.

That didn't stop them from rioting due to the extreme polarization Thailand suffered.

Sebastianbourg wrote:Monarchies in more-developed Western nations are better examples.

In other words; "monarchies unite the people and bring stability to the country except when they don't". I'm done here.

Estado Nacional wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:Monarchies in more-developed Western nations are better examples.

In other words; "monarchies unite the people and bring stability to the country except when they don't". I'm done here.

No, monarchies can more effectively unite the people when the countries are reasonably-stable. Thailand is a bad example because the King is virtually powerless in face of the military's overreach into politics. As NERVUN said, "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."

I am a monarchist because I see an absolute ruler as someone who creates order. Other than a living symbol of nationalism, culture and religion, having a monarch prevents a power struggle seen in democracies. In kingdoms and such, you won't see politicians wasting their time to gain more votes rather than using it to make and implement laws. Monarchs also ensure that the ruler knows politics unlike in democracy where anyone can rule. Where I came from, a movie actor even became president and someone who can't speak English became Vice president. In monarchies, there are less corruption because there can only be one corrupt, the monarch so everything is centralized. I also support Dictatorships and authoritarian governments because they seem like a monarchy.

Titanian Empire wrote:...and someone who can't speak English became Vice president.

I don't see how this relates to why monarchy is superior to republicanism.

Titanian Empire wrote:Where I came from, a movie actor even became president and someone who can't speak English became Vice president.

Where are you from? Seems like a cool place.

Estado Nacional wrote:

Titanian Empire wrote:Where I came from, a movie actor even became president and someone who can't speak English became Vice president.

Where are you from? Seems like a cool place.

America, I suspect.

Sebastianbourg wrote:No, monarchies can more effectively unite the people when the countries are reasonably-stable.

So, monarchies aren't inherently stable or unifying, therefore, they're no better than republics. Got it.

Blasted Craigs wrote: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.

This argument arises from the fact that all republicanism springs from the politics of envy. The republican hates the monarch because they can never be the monarch, and it offends the republican's sense of entitlement that there is anything upon this Earth that they simply cannot have. This is the root of all egalitarian politics, and why the upper class are rarely socialist (although the rich capitalist in a modern monarchy is as likely as anyone else to be a republican, because they are offended that there is something all the money in the world can't buy them); each class has its own peculiar vices- envy in the lower class, avarice in the upper class, hence our politics in the modern day pit envy (the Left) against greed (the Right). But because the republican cannot fathom why anyone would desire to be subservient to anyone else, and assumes that all people must share their envious mindset, they assume that anyone who called themselves a monarchist must envisage themselves as becoming royalty or nobility under the new state; after all, why would anyone support a system where they weren't on top? As such, this argument can be readily dismissed as republicans projecting their own failings onto monarchists.

I live in a monarchy with an established aristocracy. I support the Queen, I support the hereditary peerage, and I have no illusions that I will ever be raised to the peerage. The last non-royal hereditary peerage was created in 1984, for Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton- a former Prime Minister. I highly doubt I will ever be lucky enough to be offered a hereditary peerage, and in the highly unlikely event I were offered a life peerage at some point, I would not accept it out of principle. The best I can hope for is maybe a knighthood some day, if I do something really special. In short, no, I do not support monarchism because I see myself becoming a lord. Not that I wouldn't like to be a lord, but just because I can't be one doesn't mean I want everyone else to be the same as me.

Estado Nacional wrote:

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Democracy divides more often than not. Monarchies unite.

*cough* Thailand *cough*

Yes, a perfect example of how a monarch can keep a country together in times of great division and turmoil. Thailand would probably be in the midst of civil war by now if not for His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Immoren wrote: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.

No, he wasn't. Bonaparte was an usurper. A new monarchy may be created in the absence of a previous tradition (i.e. the House of Orange in the Netherlands) or if the traditions of the nation allow for a new dynasty to be founded in place of an old one (i.e. China), but while a legitimate heir to the throne yet lives, anyone who takes it upon themselves to seize the throne is, by definition, an usurper. King Louis XVIII was alive and well when Napoleon donned his imperial crown, hence Napoleon was an usurper, as were Louis-Philippe and Louis-Napoleon (Napoleon II) after him.

Immoren wrote: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?

It depends on the circumstances. Ideally a monarch would be able to claim an unbroken line of descent from the founders of the nation, like the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Emperor of Japan. But different monarchies have different rules of succession. It is possible, for instance, for a new Chinese dynasty to become legitimate after overthrowing the previous one, providing they perform the correct ceremonies and act in a proper imperial fashion to gain the Mandate of Heaven. The same is true in Vietnam. However, the Japanese Imperial House base their legitimacy on their direct descent from the first Emperor, Jimmu, and through him Amaterasu-Omikami, Goddess of the Sun. As such only someone descended from the Imperial Family may sit upon the Chrysanthemum Throne, as they must be descended from a previous Emperor to be of the divine bloodline.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Estado Nacional wrote:
Where are you from? Seems like a cool place.

America, I suspect.

I came from a former-American Colony, and I think my country is still is a colony....I'm from the Philippines.

Estado Nacional wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:No, monarchies can more effectively unite the people when the countries are reasonably-stable.

So, monarchies aren't inherently stable or uniting, therefore, they're no better than republics. Got it.

Have you even bothered to read this thread? If you haven't I'll sum it all up for you; republics can exist and can work but for certain reasons monarchies are better. These reasons are: the possibly-uniting figure of the monarch, the monarch's usually-ceremonial but nevertheless real power to prevent political catastrophes from occurring amongst other things. Of course, monarchies aren't Not Starving as an African/Latin American/Asia country for Dummies but they can work in the interests of the people for the aforementioned reasons.

Titanian Empire wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:America, I suspect.

I came from a former-American Colony, and I think my country is still is a colony....I'm from the Philippines.

Have you thought about any candidates for the Philippine throne?

Because I hate the term 'Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.

Sounds shitty.

Old Tyrannia wrote:Yes, a perfect example of how a monarch can keep a country together in times of great division and turmoil. Thailand would probably be in the midst of civil war by now if not for His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

I was talking about this. But when I googled "2014 Thai political crisis", the second result was this article about a political crisis in Lesotho, another monarchy. So all in all, it seems like monarchies aren't inherently stable or unifying like many people claimed in this thread.

Titanian Empire wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:America, I suspect.

I came from a former-American Colony, and I think my country is still is a colony....I'm from the Philippines.

Do you support a particular monarch? The Philippines have a number of pre-colonial royal houses still extant, and then there's the House of Bourbon if you were interested in personal union with Spain... I'd want Felipe VI as a King. The Bourbons are awesome.

Old Tyrannia wrote:I highly doubt I will ever be lucky enough to be offered a hereditary peerage, and in the highly unlikely event I were offered a life peerage at some point, I would not accept it out of principle.

Why would you not accept a life peerage?

Sebastianbourg wrote:Have you even bothered to read this thread?

I have. I find it a bit funny when American kids say that monarchies are inherently better than republics because the monarch will unite the country and whatever, so I decided to give them an example of a place where that didn't happen. In short, monarchies don't have the capability to prevent political crisis, and in the end, they're not inherently better than republics. Don't get me wrong, I don't think monarchy is an invalid form of government, but I think it's just as valid as republicanism.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:I highly doubt I will ever be lucky enough to be offered a hereditary peerage, and in the highly unlikely event I were offered a life peerage at some point, I would not accept it out of principle.

Why would you not accept a life peerage?

Because I oppose the existence of life peerages, and therefore it would be hypocritical for me to accept one.

Caltarania wrote:Because I hate the term 'Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.

Sounds shitty.

No, Tony Benn wanted a Commonwealth of Great Britain; he was planning on handing Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Titanian Empire wrote:
I came from a former-American Colony, and I think my country is still is a colony....I'm from the Philippines.

Have you thought about any candidates for the Philippine throne?

Yes, Former President Marcos, but too bad he's dead and was ousted by a revolt due to his dictatorship.

Considering that many nations claiming to be democracies have presidents with as much if not more absolute power than the modern monarch, it is worth asking the question of whether representative democracies/republics are not simply constitutional monarchies in which the internal power struggle over succession is peacefully institutionalized, but also unfortunately incessant.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Caltarania wrote:Because I hate the term 'Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.

Sounds shitty.

No, Tony Benn wanted a Commonwealth of Great Britain; he was planning on handing Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic.

Tony Benn was a condescending hypocritical twat.