Monarchy

[Ganonsyoni]

People who support monarchies are those who see themselves as likely being part of the ruling class and not the peasants breaking their bones and starving half the time to have their grain stolen away from the real "welfare kings and queens".

[Hectania]

Whether the Vatican is a country at all is open to debate.

The Vatican is a sovereign and internationally recognized State.

It is also, an Absolute Monarchy.

The Vatican is also a non-hereditary monarchy, but not a democratic one, either. The Vatican is weird.

[Imperial Union of America]

Apparently, if the United States made a Monarch of King George Washington, then this guy would be our King. that guy sitting in the chair. the dude standing would be heir apparent as far as i know.

Paul Emery Washington, 82.

[Runeria]

I think a Monarchy is good because [...]. Perhaps it would help fight corruption as well.

Ever heard of Spain?

But maybe countries like Spain and the Netherlands should be hesitant to eliminate their monarchies.

The Spanish monarchy was restored by a fascist dictator, and now it's just a corrupt family getting millions of our tax money for doing nothing, and still some of them are being judged for corruption. It is heavily undemocratic and isn't even good to unite the nation since Catalans and Basques hate it. So, I'll have to disagree with that and proudly say: ¡Viva la República!

A. Franco and the Nationalists did a lot of bad things. Restoring the Monarchy was not one of them.
B. They wouldn't be so corrupt and useless if you gave them an actual job to do! They're just bored, amigo! If you had a crown and no scepter you'd be on safari right now too. That, and more importantly, generations of misguided reformers eroding the sanctity of the institution are to blame for the Spanish Monarchy being such a shambles.
C. As for the Catalans and Basques, let Navarre and Aragon be their own Kingdoms.

[Dushan]

People who support monarchies are those who see themselves as likely being part of the ruling class and not the peasants breaking their bones and starving half the time to have their grain stolen away from the real "welfare kings and queens".

viewtopic.php?p=29099999#p29099999

The Vatican is a sovereign and internationally recognized State.

It is also, an Absolute Monarchy.

The Vatican is also a non-hereditary monarchy, but not a democratic one, either. The Vatican is weird.

The Electorate is limited to high ranking Members of their Order. Historically not as uncommon as it may seem.

(Image)

Apparently, if the United States made a Monarch of King George Washington, then this guy would be our King. that guy sitting in the chair. the dude standing would be heir apparent as far as i know.

Paul Emery Washington, 82.

Interesting.

Some more sources on this:
http://europe.newsweek.com/americas-los ... 2243?rm=eu
http://www.porterloring.com/memsol.cgi?user_id=1317849 (RIP)

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I'm not cool enough to NS on my phone. I end up ruining my nation by clicking the wrong thing.

Here are some different situations:

Despotic hereditary leader with little role in social life:
Oman, Saudi Arabia

benefits: political, economic, and social stability so long as the state takes care of the people's needs and doesn't treat them too cruelly.
weaknesses: they usually don't take care of the people's needs and treat their subject cruelly.

Despotic hereditary leader with a large role in social life:
Imperial Russia, Imperial Japan, Imperial Austria (these are mostly extinct)

benefits: same as above, plus they can give a degree of sanctity to governance and law that helps with corruption, political violence, etc. (obviously this has the same caveat as the above situation)
weaknesses: same as above, although they do tend to abuse their subjects less than contemporary state in the above category. Think noblesse oblige The USSR under Lenin and Stalin was demonstrably more cruel than the Romanovs had been

Figurehead with no social role
The British and other Western European Monarchies have been headed this way for a while

benefits: could maybe bring in $$$ like the British monarchy does I guess?
weaknesses: does literally nothing except get into tabloid scandals, actually serves to harm the level of political discourse and social trust because it's supposed to be a dignified institution and it isn't

Figurehead with a strong social role
this is what the British, Danish, Dutch, etc. monarchies are in theory

benefits: Enriches the social and cultural life of the nation, provides a small degree of additional political and social stability.
weaknesses: Just weak, weak, weak. Hardly worth the expense (although again, to be fair, potentially profitable).

Best of all Possible Worlds
Glorious Liechtenstein

benefits: Is able to play an active role in governance and law while still being itself subject to the law. Can draw upon public support to overrule and override deadlocked elected officials and, but is still limited in it's authority and thus ability to abuse the rights of ordinary people. Is neither impotent nor all-powerful. Additionally, provides the full culturally enriching and socially stabilizing benefits of the other categories.
weakness: virtue-signalling anti-monarchist ideologues who have drunk of the jacobin kool aid will always cry about it being medieval and barbaric because their priorities are out of wack
weanesses:

You have some very valid points here. I have a few problems though:
Despotic hereditary leader with little role in social life: Horrible conditions for subjects.
Despotic hereditary leader with a large role in social life: are going extinct because of how easy they are to replace. Money spent on the subjects could easily be spent on people that hold a lot of power, such as military generals and leaders of the countries banks. So these generals, leaders, etc replace the king with someone less charitable.
Figurehead with no social role: Even you displayed him/her as a waste.
Figurehead with a strong social role: Just weak weak weak.

I feel like Glorious Liechtenstein isn't strong enough to not degrade into any of the above categories. It has to be just perfect, it has to be right in the middle of either the figurehead power scale, the leader power scale, or in the middle between figurehead and leader to work right, which I think is stretching it.

Not to mention I don't think you made one for democracy... which was the original request.
And can you tell me how Glorious Liechtenstein is better or different than a president? It looks like if things start looking bad, than the same thing making Despotic hereditary leader with a large role in social life extinct could happen. This looks really good though.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I edited that post a few times since posting it. So if a part doesn't make sense, try refreshing and reading that part again.

[Pandeeria]

I don't want society regressing it's stages of development. So no to ceremonial Monarchs, and a serious no to Monarchs with actual power.

[Arcturus Novus]

Power should not derive from heredity. It should derive from the consent of the governed. That was established in the 17th (18th?) century. Ideally, there should be nobody governing anyone, but if we have to have a leader, I'd rather they be elected.

[Dushan]

Power should not derive from heredity. It should derive from the consent of the governed. That was established in the 17th (18th?) century. Ideally, there should be nobody governing anyone, but if we have to have a leader, I'd rather they be elected.

I can get behind that statement. How about elective Monarchy?

[The Princes of the Universe]

Power should not derive from heredity. It should derive from the consent of the governed. That was established in the 17th (18th?) century. Ideally, there should be nobody governing anyone, but if we have to have a leader, I'd rather they be elected.

"The people" are too stupid to be trusted with that. Look at the impending mess in the US (no matter who wins, everyone loses) and the sociopath in the Philippines.

[Pandeeria]

Power should not derive from heredity. It should derive from the consent of the governed. That was established in the 17th (18th?) century. Ideally, there should be nobody governing anyone, but if we have to have a leader, I'd rather they be elected.

"The people" are too stupid to be trusted with that. Look at the impending mess in the US (no matter who wins, everyone loses) and the sociopath in the Philippines.

The lies in class society, not humans themselves.

[Runeria]

I feel like Glorious Liechtenstein isn't strong enough to not degrade into any of the above categories. It has to be just perfect, it has to be right in the middle of either the figurehead power scale, the leader power scale, or in the middle between figurehead and leader to work right, which I think is stretching it.

Not to mention I don't think you made one for democracy... which was the original request.
And can you tell me how Glorious Liechtenstein is better or different than a president? It looks like if things start looking bad, than the same thing making Despotic hereditary leader with a large role in social life extinct could happen. This looks really good though.

The idea that a monarchy with a strong cultural role and a significant but constitutionally limited role as I described would be difficult to maintain is certainly valid. I won't dispute that it's a delicate balance that must be maintained to make it work. But the practical difficulty of such a system is secondary to my point. As I've stated already, what I'm arguing here is that monarchies have the potential to be of great benefit to a state/society. Certainly there are countries where the difficulty of erecting such a system would be more trouble than it's worth. One thing I'd point out is that societies that already have low levels of corruption, high levels of social trust, and an elevated level of political discourse needn't bother with royals if they don't already have em.

Now the reason I didn't include one for Democracy is, well, primarily that I forgot. But also I don't necessarily see Democracy as constituting a single category. Not all republics are necessarily "democratic, and "democracy" isn't necessarily incompatible with "monarchy". A semi-presidential system for example can potentially operate in pretty much the same way as the ideal monarchy I described. But if you get to the point where you have an indirectly-elected President who intervenes in the normal political system only in times of distress, and who acts as a figure above the mudslinging of usual partisan politics, why abolish a monarchy for that? Why get rid of an institution with deep historical roots and for which an air of sanctity comes easily?

[Runeria]

I don't want society regressing it's stages of development. So no to ceremonial Monarchs, and a serious no to Monarchs with actual power.

The idea that the histories of nations follow a natural and inevitable path of development from one system to another is the single most idiotic, contrived principle of Marxism.

Power should not derive from heredity. It should derive from the consent of the governed. That was established in the 17th (18th?) century. Ideally, there should be nobody governing anyone, but if we have to have a leader, I'd rather they be elected.

there is no inherent incompatability between Hereditary Monarchy and the principles of good government and the social contract

[The Conez Imperium]

Power should not derive from heredity. It should derive from the consent of the governed. That was established in the 17th (18th?) century. Ideally, there should be nobody governing anyone, but if we have to have a leader, I'd rather they be elected.

"The people" are too stupid to be trusted with that. Look at the impending mess in the US (no matter who wins, everyone loses) and the sociopath in the Philippines.

I thought Americans should know this considering one of their founding fathers was very scared of democracy and the implications of a people's tyranny.

[The Lotus Land]

A. Franco and the Nationalists did a lot of bad things. Restoring the Monarchy was not one of them.
B. They wouldn't be so corrupt and useless if you gave them an actual job to do! They're just bored, amigo! If you had a crown and no scepter you'd be on safari right now too. That, and more importantly, generations of misguided reformers eroding the sanctity of the institution are to blame for the Spanish Monarchy being such a shambles.
C. As for the Catalans and Basques, let Navarre and Aragon be their own Kingdoms.

Why give a public job to someone just for being born in certain family? Better abolish all nobility titles and requisition all their properties, lands and money. Then they would have an incentive to work and earn a living, like everyone else.

And I can assure you, the Basque Country and Catalonia are the most republican areas in Spain, and while they are proud of their past, they don't look to restorate their monarchies. A Republic, being the union of all its citizens, is a symbol of national unity much more in accordance with our times, like the French one.

[Pandeeria]

I don't want society regressing it's stages of development. So no to ceremonial Monarchs, and a serious no to Monarchs with actual power.

The idea that the histories of nations follow a natural and inevitable path of development from one system to another is the single most idiotic, contrived principle of Marxism.

How so? Historically the model has been extremely accurate.

[Runeria]

A. Franco and the Nationalists did a lot of bad things. Restoring the Monarchy was not one of them.
B. They wouldn't be so corrupt and useless if you gave them an actual job to do! They're just bored, amigo! If you had a crown and no scepter you'd be on safari right now too. That, and more importantly, generations of misguided reformers eroding the sanctity of the institution are to blame for the Spanish Monarchy being such a shambles.
C. As for the Catalans and Basques, let Navarre and Aragon be their own Kingdoms.

Why give a public job to someone just for being born in certain family? Better abolish all nobility titles and requisition all their properties, lands and money. Then they would have an incentive to work and earn a living, like everyone else.

And I can assure you, the Basque Country and Catalonia are the most republican areas in Spain, and while they are proud of their past, they don't look to restorate their monarchies. A Republic, being the union of all its citizens, is a symbol of national unity much more in accordance with our times, like the French one.

You can abolish their legal role if you insist (I wouldn't advise it and have already explained at length why) but taking away all their land and money is outright theft. If you seriously advocate that then I can't really take what you say about justice seriously.

And I'm aware that the majority of Basques and Catalans have bad opinions, yes. In fact, the vast majority of people have bad opinions. That's why Western Civilization is in collapse.

[Runeria]

The idea that the histories of nations follow a natural and inevitable path of development from one system to another is the single most idiotic, contrived principle of Marxism.

How so? Historically the model has been extremely accurate.

It has been exactly the opposite of accurate. The history of class warfare Marx described was so oversimplified as to render it essentially meaningless, and was based on popular imagination of what life was like in pre-modern Europe rather than evidence based historical truth (although to be fair writing in the mid-19th century he could hardly be blamed for his ignorance on that front). Furthermore, his predictions for how history would continue didn't come true at all. There was no international proletarian revolution, and the left wing revolutions that did occur were led by bloodthirsty fanatics who did very little in the interest of the people they claimed to represent. Those revolutions didn't even take place in the industrial heartlands as Marx expected, but rather in agrarian Russia and China. Marxist history is utter garbage.

[NeuPolska]

We already have a monarchist thread, but I guess this is kind of its own thing.

The idea that the histories of nations follow a natural and inevitable path of development from one system to another is the single most idiotic, contrived principle of Marxism.

How so? Historically the model has been extremely accurate.

See: Rome

[Nationalist Gold Union]

If you like absolute monarchies so much, you should move to one of these countries. I hear they're nice this time of the year.

[Nickel Empire]

It's amazing.

[NeuPolska]

Also, as a monarchist I do NOT support an American monarchy, America has never had any noble families or any tradition related to monarchism or aristocracy.

I DO support the U.K.'s monarchy, to an extent, I believe the Queen and later monarchs should have more power. Same goes with most current European monarchies.

I support bringing back the monarchy in my Ojczyzna, Poland, as well as bringing back the monarchy in all European republics, especially ones that have historically been known as monarchies.

[PaNTuXIa]

I'm somewhat neutral on this issue.

I wouldn't mind an constitutional monarchy, but an absolute monarchy seems a bit extreme.

[The Lotus Land]

You can abolish their legal role if you insist (I wouldn't advise it and have already explained at length why) but taking away all their land and money is outright theft. If you seriously advocate that then I can't really take what you say about justice seriously.

And I'm aware that the majority of Basques and Catalans have bad opinions, yes. In fact, the vast majority of people have bad opinions. That's why Western Civilization is in collapse.

Their lands and properties are paid and maintained with the people's taxes. Instead of generating profit for someone who doesn't do anything, they should be returned to its righful owners, the taxpayers. I don't see any theft here, if it isn't what the nobles do.

Those revolutions didn't even take place in the industrial heartlands as Marx expected, but rather in agrarian Russia and China. Marxist history is utter garbage.

I suggest you to read the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the manifesto