Monarchist discussion thread

[Old Tyrannia]

People should not be given power just because of their bloodline.

Why not?

[Aeyariss]

Well I am not a Republican, I just think that being a royalty being so much more than being above society, they exist for the people and nation.

At least the Queen pay her taxes, God bless her.

[West Aurelia]

People should not be given power just because of their bloodline.

Why not?

Because they don't deserve it. The only reason the queen is the queen is because she was born into that position, not because of hard work or because she was chosen by the people she rules.

[Valaran]

People should not be given power just because of their bloodline.

I don't know mate, blue blood is pretty cool

[Old Tyrannia]

Why not?

Because they don't deserve it. The only reason the queen is the queen is because she was born into that position, not because of hard work or because she was chosen by the people she rules.

And you believe that elected leaders "deserve" power, because they won a popularity contest? It's no real test of leadership ability to be elected. All it proves it that you can be persuasive, and persuasive people aren't always the most capable. Being head of state isn't a privilege or a reward you should have to earn. It's a duty, one that someone brought up to understand and fulfil is almost always better suited to than someone who actively seeks the position. Democracy always produces leaders of the same type- ambitious and manipulative. Hereditary succession at least has the value of giving us a head of state who never asked for power.

[Zoice]

Because they don't deserve it. The only reason the queen is the queen is because she was born into that position, not because of hard work or because she was chosen by the people she rules.

And you believe that elected leaders "deserve" power, because they won a popularity contest? It's no real test of leadership ability to be elected. All it proves it that you can be persuasive, and persuasive people aren't always the most capable. Being head of state isn't a privilege or a reward you should have to earn. It's a duty, one that someone brought up to understand and fulfil is almost always better suited to than someone who actively seeks the position. Democracy always produces leaders of the same type- ambitious and manipulative. Hereditary succession at least has the value of giving us a head of state who never asked for power.

Democracy doesn't ALWAYS produce those types of leaders, they're just pretty common. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out of the bathwater, there is a slim chance of meritocracy with democracy. Hereditary succession is just completely throwing out the idea of meritocracy and crossing fingers that maybe they won't be insane.

[Luziyca]

I am a UK-style constitutional monarchist. The Canadian monarchy is fascinating, but I support democracy. However, the monarchy gives us a sense of national identity, and distinction from the States.

[SD_Film Artists]

Why not?

Because they don't deserve it. The only reason the queen is the queen is because she was born into that position, not because of hard work or because she was chosen by the people she rules.

She still has more integrity than a politician who buys his way to power with barely-legal advertising and populist policies.

[Zoice]

Because they don't deserve it. The only reason the queen is the queen is because she was born into that position, not because of hard work or because she was chosen by the people she rules.

She still has more integrity than a politician who buys his way to power with barely-legal advertising and populist policies.

Maybe. But electoral reform are possibilities. Democracy is far from perfect, but it has mechanisms to self correct.

[SD_Film Artists]

She still has more integrity than a politician who buys his way to power with barely-legal advertising and populist policies.

Maybe. But electoral reform are possibilities. Democracy is far from perfect, but it has mechanisms to self correct.

That's the good thing about Constitutional Monarchies- we have the best of both worlds.

[Salus Maior]

It's fairly straightforward. Imperial Germany was essentially an extension of Prussia, and Prussia was indisputably the dominant state in the union of German states. Prussia had a very long tradition as a military power, and was arguably the most militarised state in Europe at the time. The Prussian state began when the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order converted to Protestantism and secularised the order's lands, forming the Duchy of Prussia. Prussia placed a high emphasis on the military because it was a relatively small state surrounded by hostile countries, and the Prussian aristocracy, including the Prussian royal family, were expected to be well trained in military matters so as to serve as an elite officer corps. That strong tradition of militarism- so strong that Prussia has been called "an army with a country"- was continued by the Prussians after they made themselves the leaders of the new German Empire, and Prussian-German leaders like Otto von Bismarck continued the tradition of close relations between the army and the government. Additionally, the German Constitution was set up in such a way that the military was effectively independent of the civilian government and the Reichstag and reported only to the monarchy, because this was regarded as a way to help keep the democratic institutions of government in check and protect the power of the Kaiser. The Japanese adopted the same system, for the same reason. Unfortunately, rather than strengthening the powers of the German and Japanese emperors, this set-up only succeeded in allowing the militaries of Germany and Japan to become virtually independent of the state, functioning as "states within the state," and gradually acquiring more and more political capital. By the time the flaws in the system became apparent, it was too late to correct them- the militaries were too powerful and wouldn't allow any reduction of their power and influence.

So, what would you say should be done in order to keep the military in check?

[Dinake]

Tradition, culture, identity. Some nation still have sentimental attachmen toward their royalty. While ceremonial some are the symbol of national unity - Thai for example. The people may hate the junta but they still revered the King.

Yeah but constitutional monarchies are still useless. Either do away with democracy and go full monarchist or just don't have a monarch. None of this middle of the road nonsense. There's no point in having a monarch if they are controlled by democratically elected leaders.

Actually, there is. Most constitutional monarchs can play politics if they need to- Britain, for example, has resolved several crises in their parliament by the intervention of the Queen.
That's not to mention that there are constitutional monarchies in which the monarch has actual power.

[Dinake]

People should not be given power just because of their bloodline.

Why not?

[Dinake]

Why not?

Because they don't deserve it. The only reason the queen is the queen is because she was born into that position, not because of hard work or because she was chosen by the people she rules.

None of us deserve anything.

[Carinya]

Because they don't deserve it. The only reason the queen is the queen is because she was born into that position, not because of hard work or because she was chosen by the people she rules.

And you believe that elected leaders "deserve" power, because they won a popularity contest? It's no real test of leadership ability to be elected. All it proves it that you can be persuasive, and persuasive people aren't always the most capable. Being head of state isn't a privilege or a reward you should have to earn. It's a duty, one that someone brought up to understand and fulfil is almost always better suited to than someone who actively seeks the position. Democracy always produces leaders of the same type- ambitious and manipulative. Hereditary succession at least has the value of giving us a head of state who never asked for power.

Does this extend, for you, to all strata of society? Is rulership unique, in that you need somebody who doesn't want it, or does it apply to all fields of human endeavor? Is medicine best practiced by those who never wanted to do it? How about instruction, or religious duties? How about the armed forces, how would you structure those?

[Old Tyrannia]

And you believe that elected leaders "deserve" power, because they won a popularity contest? It's no real test of leadership ability to be elected. All it proves it that you can be persuasive, and persuasive people aren't always the most capable. Being head of state isn't a privilege or a reward you should have to earn. It's a duty, one that someone brought up to understand and fulfil is almost always better suited to than someone who actively seeks the position. Democracy always produces leaders of the same type- ambitious and manipulative. Hereditary succession at least has the value of giving us a head of state who never asked for power.

Does this extend, for you, to all strata of society? Is rulership unique, in that you need somebody who doesn't want it, or does it apply to all fields of human endeavor? Is medicine best practiced by those who never wanted to do it? How about instruction, or religious duties? How about the armed forces, how would you structure those?

Obviously it's unique to rulership.

[Dinake]

Does this extend, for you, to all strata of society? Is rulership unique, in that you need somebody who doesn't want it, or does it apply to all fields of human endeavor? Is medicine best practiced by those who never wanted to do it? How about instruction, or religious duties? How about the armed forces, how would you structure those?

Obviously it's unique to rulership.

And it's unique for a reason: those who crave after power are not those who I(or any reasonable person, aside maybe from some weird sex stuff) would want to have power over me.

[Pope Joan]

Let's have the Clintons and Trumps set up a War of the Roses between them, and subjugate us to decades of domestic strife.

Two wannabe dynasties

It's what Murrica deserves.

[Carinya]

Does this extend, for you, to all strata of society? Is rulership unique, in that you need somebody who doesn't want it, or does it apply to all fields of human endeavor? Is medicine best practiced by those who never wanted to do it? How about instruction, or religious duties? How about the armed forces, how would you structure those?

Obviously it's unique to rulership.

Why?

[Britanania]

Let's have the Clintons and Trumps set up a War of the Roses between them, and subjugate us to decades of domestic strife.

Two wannabe dynasties

It's what Murrica deserves.

Hey, Social Darwinism says whoever come on top must be the better candiate

[Dinake]

Obviously it's unique to rulership.

Why?

Because those who crave power are usually not well suited to using it.

[Old Tyrannia]

Obviously it's unique to rulership.

Why?

Because those who are attracted by the prospect of holding power over other people are often those who are most easily corrupted by it.

[Carinya]

Why?

Because those who are attracted by the prospect of holding power over other people are often those who are most easily corrupted by it.

Then shouldn't every position of power be hereditary? Isn't that what we were discussing before?

[Jetan]

(Image)

I found this map. Personally, I'd lover to see the monarchy restored in most of Europe. I think that it is most certainly telling that, despite restoration of the monarchy not being an often discussed area of politics in Republican Europe, in places like Germany and Romania it is nearly 1 person in every 5 favoring a return of the monarchy. That isn't a significant number given the political context, and perhaps if the topic was discussed more that number might rise significantly. I do wonder what the popularity of the idea is like in Italy, Portugal, Poland, and other countries which I think would be lovely for them to restore their monarchies.

With that said, I'd much more prefer a map of Europe to look like this (monarchy and republic)
(Image)

I'm curious, who would you pick for Finland? Whoever is counted as current heir from House of Hesse, or Swedish royal, or someone else?

[Noraika]

I'm curious, who would you pick for Finland? Whoever is counted as current heir from House of Hesse, or Swedish royal, or someone else?

Personally I'm not sure. Probably House of Hesse, if it came down to it. Probably Moritz, Hereditary Prince of Hesse, but ultimately that may come down to who the people choose. Norway crowned its monarch by the people's approval of both the monarchy and the person nominated to take it, so I'd prefer that method in countries which have either long-dead houses, or no direct heir to their throwns.

Also, I'm a sucker for ceremonies, and this reminded me how grand and wonderful they can be with monarchies.