NationStates

I may be completely mistaken, but I think there's a sizable portion of forumers here who are monarchists, that is to say, people who like kings, queens, emperors, empresses and various other regal individuals as heads of state. Personally, I'm not one, but I've always been interested in the subject. Out of all the political ideologies in the world, I find this one to be the most, well, quirky, but in an interesting sort of way. I mean, it's a rather archaic ideology nowadays, but it still seems to attract a fairly sizable amount of adherents.

As I said, there might be none of you out there whatsoever, and this will simply turn into a dead topic, but please, if you do happen to be a monarchist, post a reply. I'm truly interested in your ideology and what makes you think that a monarch is best suited for being a head of state.

I support the Royal Family of the UK, so I guess I'm a constitutional monarchist.

I am a constitutional monarchist as I consider it inseparable from my classical republican ideals and influences.

Sebastianbourg wrote:I am a constitutional monarchist as I consider it inseparable from my classical republican ideals and influences.

Err what, you are a monarchist and a republican?

Never understood the appeal, besides appearing as a cool relic of the past. Why elevate people to positions they don't deserve?

L Ron Cupboard wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:I am a constitutional monarchist as I consider it inseparable from my classical republican ideals and influences.

Err what, you are a monarchist and a republican?

Blasphemy! May Liam Neeson curse your offspring with gingervitis!

But I'm a republican.

Merizoc wrote:Never understood the appeal, besides appearing as a cool relic of the past. Why elevate people to positions they don't deserve?

Tradition, historical significance, tourism. They also serve as a good common unifier for the people.

Solaray wrote:

Merizoc wrote:Never understood the appeal, besides appearing as a cool relic of the past. Why elevate people to positions they don't deserve?

Tradition, historical significance, tourism. They also serve as a good common unifier for the people.

So do documents, presidents, a nation's history, etc. Investing all of that prestige in one man or one family is absurd and fairly anti-egalitarian.

Also tradition and history has been used to justify everything from treating women as second class citizens to slavery to traditional marriages to anti-miscegenation laws. So I wouldn't start out with that.

L Ron Cupboard wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:I am a constitutional monarchist as I consider it inseparable from my classical republican ideals and influences.

Err what, you are a monarchist and a republican?

Basically an advocate of a mixed government. A constitutional or semi-constitutional monarchy with a few reserve powers, powerful aristocracy of merit/technocracy/meritocracy, and a not-so-powerful democratically-elected chamber.

Classical is the key word.

I'm anti-egalitarian, so I naturally like Monarchies

La victoire en chantant

Nous ouvre la barrière.
La Liberté guide nos pas.
Et du Nord au Midi
La trompette guerrière
A sonné l'heure des combats.
Tremblez ennemis de la France
Rois ivres de sang et d'orgueil.
Le Peuple souverain s'avance,
Tyrans descendez au cercueil!

I'm incredibly anti-monarchist. Fanatically so, even.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Solaray wrote:Tradition, historical significance, tourism. They also serve as a good common unifier for the people.

So do documents, presidents, a nation's history, etc. Investing all of that prestige in one man or one family is absurd and fairly anti-egalitarian.

Also tradition and history has been used to justify everything from treating women as second class citizens to slavery to traditional marriages to anti-miscegenation laws. So I wouldn't start out with that.

Well, I'm not really trying to justify monarchies, per se. I just support them. Likely because of my Canadian bias.

I'm from the UK. I dislike the monarchy and support a Republic for the UK. I also dislike Monarchism wherever it may be.

Solaray wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
So do documents, presidents, a nation's history, etc. Investing all of that prestige in one man or one family is absurd and fairly anti-egalitarian.

Also tradition and history has been used to justify everything from treating women as second class citizens to slavery to traditional marriages to anti-miscegenation laws. So I wouldn't start out with that.

Well, I'm not really trying to justify monarchies, per se. I just support them. Likely because of my Canadian bias.

In truth, I'm indifferent. I'm fervently anti-monarchist and ardently republican. But I honestly cannot imagine the UK without a crown or at least as much as I can imagine the US with one.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Solaray wrote:Well, I'm not really trying to justify monarchies, per se. I just support them. Likely because of my Canadian bias.

In truth, I'm indifferent. I'm fervently anti-monarchist and ardently republican. But I honestly cannot imagine the UK without a crown or at least as much as I can imagine the US with one.

I'm sort of similar, in the sense that my main reason for supporting the monarchy is because it's always been there and the UK would feel so hollow without it.

Conversely, a crown in the US would be tantamount to blasphemy, given the principles of the nation.

I don't support monarchism. It's definitely a vestige from yesteryear.

That said, constitutional monarchies like the UK and Denmark are just fine.

I wouldn't support the creation of new monarchies. I am ok with the UK' s monarchy at the moment, but I don't expect it to survive long after her. The current queen of England has earned a good deal of respect, but I doubt her son's can measure up.

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:I wouldn't support the creation of new monarchies. I am ok with the UK' s monarchy at the moment, but I don't expect it to survive long after her. The current queen of England has earned a good deal of respect, but I doubt her son's can measure up.

It's safe to say as an Anarcho-Monarchist that anything goes.

Sosi wrote:

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:I wouldn't support the creation of new monarchies. I am ok with the UK' s monarchy at the moment, but I don't expect it to survive long after her. The current queen of England has earned a good deal of respect, but I doubt her son's can measure up.

It's safe to say as an Anarcho-Monarchist that anything goes.

Anarcho-Monarchism? That sounds like a rare one. Care to explain your ideology's core tenets and beliefs?

Personally, if I was starting my own little utopia somewhere on the planet, I'd never make it a monarchy and I am always a republican at heart in my ideologies.

But i do support the current British monarchy and other european constitutional monarchs for pragmatic reasons. Monarchs are effective national unifiers, in a way that other things like documents or history just don't measure up to. Monarchies (especially the British monarchy) is a great boost to income mostly due to tourism.

I'm a staunch constitutional monarchist. And, despite my irreligion, I'm proud to say God Save the Queen.

Of course, I'm merely for the preservation of existing constitutional monarchies. I'm staunchly opposed to the idea that every country should have a monarchy.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

L Ron Cupboard wrote:
Err what, you are a monarchist and a republican?

Basically an advocate of a mixed government. A constitutional or semi-constitutional monarchy with a few reserve powers, powerful aristocracy of merit/technocracy/meritocracy, and a not-so-powerful democratically-elected chamber.

Classical is the key word.

The term is new to me, it is rather confusingly named.

Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:Personally, if I was starting my own little utopia somewhere on the planet, I'd never make it a monarchy and I am always a republican at heart in my ideologies.

But i do support the current British monarchy and other european constitutional monarchs for pragmatic reasons. Monarchs are effective national unifiers, in a way that other things like documents or history just don't measure up to. Monarchies (especially the British monarchy) is a great boost to income mostly due to tourism.

This video outlines pretty much my reasoning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

Sanctissima wrote:

Sosi wrote:It's safe to say as an Anarcho-Monarchist that anything goes.

Anarcho-Monarchism? That sounds like a rare one. Care to explain your ideology's core tenets and beliefs?

When the Lady Of The Lake handed Arthur the sword Excalibur, he felt that the appropriate response upon receiving said honor was to hide his sword & say, "A leader leads best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his goals fulfilled, the people will say: we did it ourselves".

I'm not a monarchist myself, but I do understand the appeal of the ideology. I don't love the British or Danish monarchies, but I don't dislike them too too much. But that's mostly because they're both constitutional and can't do anything they like.