Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Farnhamia]

Prove it.

Finland and Iceland look pretty nice...

Both of them are shitholes.

*** Warned for trolling ***

[Vallermoore]

It depends on the monarch. Tito, whilst not formally a monarch, ruled like one and very well. But a bad one causes trouble or even civil war.

[Camelza]

Well, peasants were peasants; their treatment was the same everywhere back then. I am intrigued by the morality of the Polish-Lithuanian model itself rather than the monarchy's freedom rankings of the time, since being the most free monarchy in medieval Europe is like being the smartest chicken in the farm.
What amuses me about the Polish-Lithuanian model(as well as those models of other elective monarchies) is that while still a monarchy it doesn't have the negative effects of a hereditary monarchy; it could easily be of secular structure and it could be even considered a modern form of government, due to its democratic and stable nature.

Stability isn't a modern thing, you know. There were a number of ancient civilisations that would laugh at the idea that a government lasting a mere hundred years could be called "stable."

I do not parallel stability with longevity and nowhere did I meant stability is a modern concept, what I meant is that our modern western societies are stable and democratic in nature as were many forms of government of past times and that's why we shouldn't rule them out as obsolete.

[Laerod]

General strikes and civil disobedience have shown to be very effective against autocrats in the past, if pulled off properly.

That's a good point.

How stable could monarchies be if civil disobedience and popular movements can bring them down?

You can do the same to democracies, to be fair. Thailand is a good example where civil disobedience has utterly crippled the democratic process. However, my contentions that civil disobedience has worked against autocrats is best demonstrated by the Kapp Putsch and the August Coup.

[Winpheala]

The fact is monarchies can be good or bad. Good if you have a good ruler and bad if you have a bad one. The thing is, it's unpredictable. A democracy would be better since we could get rid of the people we don't like whereas in a monarchy you can't.

[Socialist Czechia]

The fact is monarchies can be good or bad. Good if you have a good ruler and bad if you have a bad one. The thing is, it's unpredictable. A democracy would be better since we could get rid of the people we don't like whereas in a monarchy you can't.

Yup. When people elects president who's revealed later to be total incompetent dick, you can get rid of him after 4-5 years max.
If king is born, and is total incompetent dick, you must tolerate him for whole his life, fifty years, as long as he lives.

[Laerod]

The fact is monarchies can be good or bad. Good if you have a good ruler and bad if you have a bad one. The thing is, it's unpredictable. A democracy would be better since we could get rid of the people we don't like whereas in a monarchy you can't.

Yup. When people elects president who's revealed later to be total incompetent dick, you can get rid of him after 4-5 years max.
If king is born, and is total incompetent dick, you must tolerate him for whole his life, fifty years, as long as he lives.

Bad kings have been forced to abdicate...

[Winpheala]

Yup. When people elects president who's revealed later to be total incompetent dick, you can get rid of him after 4-5 years max.
If king is born, and is total incompetent dick, you must tolerate him for whole his life, fifty years, as long as he lives.

Bad kings have been forced to abdicate...

With lots of violence and bloodshed.....

[Socialist Czechia]

Bad kings have been forced to abdicate...

With lots of violence and bloodshed.....

That is affirmative. With high possibility of royal family's extermination or long civil war. Or both.

[Laerod]

Bad kings have been forced to abdicate...

With lots of violence and bloodshed.....

Not always.

[Winpheala]

With lots of violence and bloodshed.....

Not always.

That's one in what, 50 or so cases?

[Laerod]

Not always.

That's one in what, 50 or so cases?

Considering how replacing heads of state or government is a relatively recent concept, it's not entirely honest to use examples from before when that caught on when trying to predict what a modern monarchy would be like.

[Socialist Czechia]

With lots of violence and bloodshed.....

Not always.

You can't use example of dumb dude who left throne for just some chick

What if he refused to abdicate after he would signed Anti-Comintern Pact without legal authority?
How many generals and admirals would be loyal to Prime Minister and moved against King?

[Laerod]

Not always.

You can't use example of dumb dude who left throne for just some chick :lol:

What if he refused to abdicate after he would signed Anti-Comintern Pact without legal authority?
How many generals and admirals would be loyal to Prime Minister and moved against King?

We'll never know because he did step down due to pressure, no? Besides, if he signed, it still would have required ratification.

[Socialist Czechia]

You can't use example of dumb dude who left throne for just some chick

What if he refused to abdicate after he would signed Anti-Comintern Pact without legal authority?
How many generals and admirals would be loyal to Prime Minister and moved against King?

We'll never know because he did step down due to pressure, no? Besides, if he signed, it still would have required ratification.

He really played with an idea of Anglo-German Pact, so who knows. Fortunately, he was seemingly obsessed more by pitiful his sexual desires. :3 (seriously, at least he could choose better looking target)

However, if he had balls to do it, that his decision is enough, I don't know what would happen next. I simply can't imagine british armed forces not loyal to the king.

At least not 1930s, with noble elites in total control of british high command and parliament.

[Neo Philippine Empire]

No but certainly better than Democracy but not better than a Republic

[The Rich Port]

Prove it.

Finland and Iceland look pretty nice...

Both of them are shitholes.

Iceland wasn't a shithole until they freed up the housing and finance markets and the bankers went fucking crazy borrowing ten goddamn times Iceland's GDP.

[Old Tyrannia]

Yes if you want colonialism and wars to occur.

Because no republic has ever been guilty of colonialism, amirite?

Not always.

That's one in what, 50 or so cases?

Would you like some more? King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy in 1946. Constantine I of Greece in 1917 and 1922. Marie-Adelaide of Luxembourg in 1919. Ferdinand I of Austria in 1848. Ahmed III of the Ottoman Empire in 1730.

Stability isn't a modern thing, you know. There were a number of ancient civilisations that would laugh at the idea that a government lasting a mere hundred years could be called "stable."

I do not parallel stability with longevity and nowhere did I meant stability is a modern concept, what I meant is that our modern western societies are stable and democratic in nature as were many forms of government of past times and that's why we shouldn't rule them out as obsolete.

I may have misunderstood you; it sounded like you were saying that stable governments were somehow rare in history.

[Poetia]

Union Jack
I'm not sure a monarchy's great
it can bring nationalist hate
"God save the queen!"
"Foreigner's unclean!"
so I guess I'm a fan of the State

[Camelza]

Yes if you want colonialism and wars to occur.

Because no republic has ever been guilty of colonialism, amirite?

That's one in what, 50 or so cases?

Would you like some more? King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy in 1946. Constantine I of Greece in 1917 and 1922. Marie-Adelaide of Luxembourg in 1919. Ferdinand I of Austria in 1848. Ahmed III of the Ottoman Empire in 1730.

I do not parallel stability with longevity and nowhere did I meant stability is a modern concept, what I meant is that our modern western societies are stable and democratic in nature as were many forms of government of past times and that's why we shouldn't rule them out as obsolete.

I may have misunderstood you; it sounded like you were saying that stable governments were somehow rare in history.

My bad, I should've phrased my post better.

[Freiheit Reich]

In nations where the population is uncivilized and people act like spoiled children then a strong king (or dictator) is useful and possibly even necessary (Iraq comes to mind, I worked with Iraqis and I could start to understand why Saddam was so harsh with them although of course he went overboard at times).

Of course, a benevolent king/dictator (with a strong but fair hand) that has common sense and is smart enough to pick intelligent advisers and listen to their ideas can be great for a nation. These leaders have existed throughout history. However, their son or grandson usually is an idiot, lazy, and/or corrupt and ruins everything.

The problem in a monarchy is you can't guarantee if the leader will be good or bad. Power will often (not always) corrupt people. This is the danger of monarchy.

[Immoren]

No but certainly better than Democracy but not better than a Republic

What

[Laerod]

No but certainly better than Democracy but not better than a Republic

What

They're probably using personalized definitions of the words that we are not party to.

[Windy Willows]

No, we live in the 21st century. Nobody should be born into the position of power, especially over a fucking country.

[Christainville]

Its good and bad, depending on how its used. If its a monarchy where the monarch WORKS, its okay, what I mean by work is supporting the nation abroad, working inside the nation with programs and what not, working on programs and charities. Its things like that, that can build a nations image and its internal pride; also it can develop companies, and future investors all over the world.

A monarch who collects a check for being born is bad, the job must be done. Yet, too many in history and currently, do nothing, that's really helpful. They are out of touch, out of line, don't represent anything but a family of spoiled old brats who cant do anything. So its a bad and good side all depending on use.

I'm curious, how many monarchs that are like the latter are there? Is it the fault of the monarchs or people in the realm? For instance Charles II was by all regards an incredibly competent monarch, yet for instance his insistence for religious tolerance was rejected by the estates of the realm.

I mean most monarchs seem to have given a go of it to the best of their ability, they certainly aren't people who seemingly twirl their moustaches laughing at the suffering of the peasants.

Exactly, some times the aristocracy outweighs the monarch. Out of all monarchies, the French have had the most wild monarch, wild at that tine what they did would seem simple to us, but amazing to them. It has to be looked at monarch by monarch because who ever is on the throne sets the model for their time.