Why monarchy?

[Sebastianbourg]

All excellent examples of why constitutional monarchy is the best HoS at representing a country on the international stage.

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.

[The Cobalt Sky]

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.

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.

[Sebastianbourg]

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.

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.

[The Cobalt Sky]

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.

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.

[The Cobalt Sky]

No, I'm disagreeing with that statement. No one is inherently better than anyone else. Did I not make that clear?

Some people are inherently worse.

(An example of someone who thinks some are inherently superior to others and not all are equal)

[The Nihilistic view]

Some people are inherently worse.

(An example of someone who thinks some are inherently superior to others and not all are equal)

The Queen is superior to Tony Blair.

[The Cobalt Sky]

(An example of someone who thinks some are inherently superior to others and not all are equal)

The Queen is superior to Tony Blair.

That's your opinion. You're deciding what superiority is in this case. If you really are a nihilist you'd say good and bad don't exactly exist.

[Sebastianbourg]

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?

[Dalcaria]

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.

[Sebastianbourg]

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?

[Dalcaria]

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?

Well the first monarch him or herself would need to be straight up elected by the people, then they'd have to run a referendum that covers both a new constitution for the nation (a constitution not even the monarch may overrule) and whether people want the monarch candidate to be their monarch. If they say no, then he or she stays a regular politician and the system doesn't change. If they say yes, then he or she will become the monarch of the nation. Now, how monarchs are chosen in the future I'm still working on. I think the previous monarch could be a good judge of who could be the next monarch, but assuming there are reasons that may not work, a collaboration between parliament, all the important government and even non-government institutes in the nation, and the people themselves, could work together on deciding who is best to take up the crown next. Preferably it would be someone in the family, but if there is a better candidate outside, they may assume the throne as a sort of "Prince Regent" or something, until a more suitable heir from the family can be chosen.

[Estva]

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.

[Manisdog]

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

[Vissegaard]

I'd prefer to live in a monarchy because I wouldn't have to care about how we screw the elections every time we have them.

[Dalcaria]

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

And your opinion on monarchy isn't what this thread is about, so perhaps you can take it elsewhere.

Oh, but let me cover some of your point here.

1) Obviously you haven't researched this, but the cabinet and Prime Minister must first be looked to for advice before a monarch can act on royal prerogative, so actually, it is kind of accountable. And the "extensive" powers include being able to dissolve parliament (handy if we were dumb enough to vote in a Nazi party), though usually this requires the monarch to refuse royal assent (in which case they choose not to pass a law agreed upon by parliament, also handy if we were dumb enough to vote in Nazis), and the other "extensive" power is the royal prerogative of mercy. I'm sure there are many men and women executed in the US that wish they had had this so they could have had more time to show they were innocent.
2) In some ways the monarch might, and it's a brilliant thing if we're dumb enough to vote in Nazis (which I'm sure you must be absolutely convinced Britain is on the verge of doing).
3) Capitalism does the exact same thing, as does Communism, as does Fascism. Merit has nothing to do with those systems, money, charm, and connections do.
4) Since when has Britain (and all the Commonwealth countries might I add), Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and a number of other countries had a problem with that? This stopped being a problem for most of these nations a few decades ago. Now compare that to America, Iran, Pakistan, India in some ways, and a number of other "democratic" countries who have this issue on a daily basis.

Not sure if in your last comment you're trying to defend this by saying "at least they switched to constitutional monarchy", but really, what difference has it made? As I've told you a few times, your country has children working in the red light districts. The British Monarchy didn't do that, that was done by Indian men and Women.

Now before you go rambling off attacking British things again, do some research on the topic first, and no, your British-hating friends and family don't count. Oh, and also, try making your attacks on relevant threads. Thank you.

[Brillnuck]

I only support Elective Monarchies. A lot like the system Malaysia uses.

[Old Tyrannia]

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).

If only there were more of us. We're very much in the minority.

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.

Obscure? The most widespread and successful form of government in mankind's history is obscure? I think not.

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.

"Anachronistic" is a word used by modernists to pooh-pooh any idea that doesn't fit their new orthodoxy by implying that anything old must necessarily be outdated and therefore obsolete. It's such an annoying, pointless word. The truth is that democracy is a system with both advantages and disadvantages, like any other; the idea that all our offices should be elected and thus be "representative" of the people stems from the ideology that democracy is an inherent value we should seek to uphold, rather than a mechanism to be criticised.

Democracy gives the population of the country a say in its governance, making government more responsive to the needs of ordinary people. This is good. However, it also results in the marginalisation of minorities, in the creation of an ambitious ruling political class who are better suited to gaining power than actually exercising it, and in decisions being made with the aim of enhancing a leader's short-term popularity rather than the long-term success of the country. It also results in people making decisions which they simply lack the competence to make; hence, we end up with politicians ignoring the warnings of climatologists and ecologists in their energy and environmental policies, for example. And it leads to disunity, internal conflict and partisan politics. Democracy, therefore, is not faultless. Neither is monarchy, of course, but it has been recognised for millennia that the best form of government is mixed government; the model of constitutional monarchy is effective because democracy's flaws are balanced by non-democratic oversight; here in the United Kingdom, we have in the Queen a non-partisan Head of State who can call upon the loyalty of all Britons regardless of party lines, and has the right to advise her elected ministers based on her own long experience on the throne, which vastly outstrips that of any elected politician. We also have, in the House of Lords, a non-elected body that are not so restricted by party whips or by the fear of losing the next election, and who can therefore offer a different perspective on legislation to that of the elected lower house.

And of course, there is the sense of legitimacy; tradition and a line of descent going back almost 1,500 years confers a much more solid base for the legitimacy of government, to my mind, than the conditional support of 51% of the living population. Public opinion changes but the Crown, and thus the ultimate lawful authority, remains above public opinion. The law is supreme. And the world's monarchies are almost all traditional institutions- developed through the centuries, unique to their native country in their peculiar traditions, customs and workings. Russian autocracy could never work in the United Kingdom, and the British constitutional system likely wouldn't have worked well in 19th century Imperial Russia; but each system worked well in the context of its time and place. Russia's problems arose from the monarchy's failure to adapt to changing conditions, whilst the United Kingdom managed to do so effectively. What we have in the British monarchy is an institution uniquely crafted to work in the context of British culture, politics, history and geography. Change for the sake of change is pointless at best, tragic at worst. Above all else, monarchy is an expression of a nation's culture; China is no longer China with the Emperors gone, and the Catholic France of the Middle Ages died with the French Revolution. Those who hold all tradition and traditional culture in contempt, those who would rather the whole world conformed to their bland modernist outlook, might look upon that as a positive development; but as some who believes cultural diversity enriches the world, I mourn the loss of the great monarchies of old and long for their restorations, and the well-deserved death of the modernist beast.

[Dalcaria]

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.

All the problems Monarchy can or has made for people (including being an "affront" to the ideas of egalitarianism) can be said for communism and democracy too. Equality doesn't happen because of one system or another, it happens because the people in charge of a system run it into the ground. The reason you won't see the equality for humans you want in a Democracy is because you're just giving the powers of a monarch to 300 incompetents. The reason you won't see the equality for humans you want in a communist state is because the party (aka: the Red Bourgeoisie) can have essentially whatever they want for free, at the expense of the hard labor of the "proletariat" workers. Equality comes from the hard work of people who make it happen, and it takes leaders for that, because unfortunately, mankind collectively is incapable of working together and making it happen themselves (even on the small scale like the town I live in, anarchy could never work because nobody would be able to work together on anything. It's just impossible for people like this, and it's much the same in other places too).

[Old Tyrannia]

... 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?

Sort of. The literal translation of the Japanese "tennō" (天皇) is "Heavenly Sovereign," but that's quite a mouthful. It's accurate in that in a Western context, the title of emperor is traditionally reserved for male monarchs who are regarded as ranking above a mere king, and likewise the Japanese and Chinese emperors of old (and the Vietnamese and Koreans, at some points in history) regarded themselves as superior to kings. Interestingly, as Japan in its early days was regarded (like the rest of the world) as a tributary state by the Chinese, the rulers of Japan styled themselves as "emperors" internally and in communications with the Imperial Chinese Court, as "kings."

[The Cobalt Sky]

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?

I think human equality kind of blocks that. Maybe if they don't have power over anything. But now that I think about it, never in the US. But if you're speaking in terms of England, I don't really care.

[Janshah]

You know what argument I am missing? Cost effectiveness. I don't know where the study I read this in went, but on average when comparing presidencies and monarchs, the latter turned out cheaper to have around. Perhaps suprisingly, it works out that having someone with an art collection, a few palaces, a golden crown (all of which you typically need to buy only once, since they can stay in the family) costs less than outfitting one president after another with appropriately prestigious trappings.

And don't forget that a heriditary monarch can spend a good part of a lifetime preparing for the position of leadership, without the distractions of having to climb up to that station. A good monarch has a better chance to have a thorough understanding of a country's portfolio of dealings with other nations than a more temporary figure who has too many other things on the mind. The monarch can be a valued asset as a country's best diplomat, being both (usually) a skilled diplomat and an internationally understood valued symbol in one.


There are exceptions of course - the Britisch monarchy is quite expensive (not least because it owns so much property that maintenance and conservation alone is costing the state a small fortune, while also missing out on a lot of property taxes that would have been be paid into the Treasury if those properties were owned by anyone else), while on the side of presidents there is José Mujica of Uruguay who might well be the most personally austere head of state in recent history (in dollar value, he takes less per month for himself than I do!).

P.S. But maybe the British are getting at least a bit of extra value for all that money too, since their monarchy is largely responsible for keeping much of the tabloid industry alive..

P.P.S. And seeing how politicians in the UK are with spending and expense claims, I'm not sure if the UK can afford a politician as head of state.. their monarch might still be the more affordable option, who knows?

[-The West Coast-]

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.

[Fortschritte]

I only support Elective Monarchies. A lot like the system Malaysia uses.

Please, do explain.

[The Nihilistic view]

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.

People have long preferred others thinking for them, so a Democracy was a great and easy form of government for centuries during the Darker Ages where most of the people living under a Democracy were uneducated Industrial Workers and Working class in general. Now its nonsense with the advent of Direct Democracy and its popularity since the birth of the Athens.

[Brillnuck]

I only support Elective Monarchies. A lot like the system Malaysia uses.

Please, do explain.

Elective monarchies are monarchies, but they're not hereditary. The monarch would be elected every 5 years. There should also be a parliament so that the monarch doesn't go overboard.