by The Austrians and Slovenes » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:31 pm
by Nortrom » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:09 pm
by Estado Nacional » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:15 pm
by Archeuland and Baughistan » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:19 pm
by The Austrians and Slovenes » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:20 pm
Nortrom wrote:Welcome to NationStates, Austrians and Slovenes.
I'm not a Monarchist but my opinion on it is that it's generally unneeded nowadays. Theoretically, a Monarch can be a valuable asset for a nation. They can unite the people, give a face to the nation and be a good representative of the nation's culture and principles. The can also be a part of more specific jobs such as an ambassador or even an active politician.
The problem nowadays is that nations aren't as homogenous as they used to be. And a Monarchy can't function properly when there are hundreds of different beliefs within the nation. A Monarch represents a religion, a culture and perhaps even a way of living. They will have to promote their beliefs and principles, that's their job after all. Why would a diverse country choose to have a powerful Monarch when there are other systems that are more suitable for the job?
by The Austrians and Slovenes » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:21 pm
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Democracy divides more often than not. Monarchies unite.
Except in the case of civil wars...everyone deals with those.
by Salandriagado » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:31 pm
by Sebastianbourg » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:35 pm
Salandriagado wrote:A modern western monarch is (I'll use the UK as an example throughout this post), in a very literal sense, a "living constitution". They (along with the house of Lords) perform the same basic role as the constitution in the US: a barrier against the government doing anything too completely insane, whilst being better able to adapt to the needs of the time than a written document.
by Salandriagado » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:46 pm
Sebastianbourg wrote:Salandriagado wrote:A modern western monarch is (I'll use the UK as an example throughout this post), in a very literal sense, a "living constitution". They (along with the house of Lords) perform the same basic role as the constitution in the US: a barrier against the government doing anything too completely insane, whilst being better able to adapt to the needs of the time than a written document.
It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.
by The Austrians and Slovenes » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:48 pm
Salandriagado wrote:Sebastianbourg wrote:It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.
They aren't, though. They have precisely the amount of power that they need to have: they can't (practically) interfere with normal day to day stuff, but if it was something crazy extreme, they can step in and stop it, and have a decent shot at coming out on top. The extreme risks in doing this serve to prevent it from being used when it's not an actual emergency "stop this or we're fucked" kind of thing.
by Sebastianbourg » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:49 pm
Salandriagado wrote:Sebastianbourg wrote:It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.
They aren't, though. They have precisely the amount of power that they need to have: they can't (practically) interfere with normal day to day stuff, but if it was something crazy extreme, they can step in and stop it, and have a decent shot at coming out on top. The extreme risks in doing this serve to prevent it from being used when it's not an actual emergency "stop this or we're fucked" kind of thing.
by Valaran » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:52 pm
Sebastianbourg wrote:It can be argued however, that the Queen and the House of Lords (or the future Senate if Labour has its way) are powerless in front of the power of the House of Commons.
Salandriagado wrote:They aren't, though. They have precisely the amount of power that they need to have: they can't (practically) interfere with normal day to day stuff, but if it was something crazy extreme, they can step in and stop it, and have a decent shot at coming out on top. The extreme risks in doing this serve to prevent it from being used when it's not an actual emergency "stop this or we're fucked" kind of thing.
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Northern European Senates remnants » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:58 pm
by Dinake » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:01 pm
Northern European Senates remnants wrote:My nation is a constitutional Monarchy, it's where I have a figure head but they aren't an absolute monarchy where they rule everything. We have a monarchy simply because it Unites and gives the people someone to look up to, because everyone needs a leader. We also have it because it's democratic and civilians rule the country not the tsar. So really it's also because of the tradition it's quite hard to get rid of culture that has been around for centuries, and I guess that's the same for real life countries. And they look cool in their attire.
by Lalaki » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:07 pm
by Sebastianbourg » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:15 pm
Manisdog wrote:You must have been seeing the Pro-Britain lobby, my friend it is because they are taught that way and fed that crap since school, also it is illegal to hold republican views over there
by The Austrians and Slovenes » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:17 pm
Lalaki wrote:I come from a country with a strong republican tradition. What I find is that Americans tend to be united based on national identity and common ideals instead of a monarch.
Ultimately it is up to the nation and its culture whether or not there should be a monarchy. I would prefer that the US remains a republic (as we don't have a tradition of kings/queens and don't really need one for unity), but I am happy if another country decides differently.
by Murkwood » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:19 pm
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:Democracy divides more often than not. Monarchies unite.
Except in the case of civil wars...everyone deals with those.
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by NERVUN » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:22 pm
The Austrians and Slovenes wrote:Lalaki wrote:I come from a country with a strong republican tradition. What I find is that Americans tend to be united based on national identity and common ideals instead of a monarch.
Ultimately it is up to the nation and its culture whether or not there should be a monarchy. I would prefer that the US remains a republic (as we don't have a tradition of kings/queens and don't really need one for unity), but I am happy if another country decides differently.
America is divided between the conservatives and the so-called liberals. The monarchy provides a uniting figure beyond politics that the US doesn't have.
by Manisdog » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:23 pm
Sebastianbourg wrote:Manisdog wrote:You must have been seeing the Pro-Britain lobby, my friend it is because they are taught that way and fed that crap since school, also it is illegal to hold republican views over there
Here comes NSG's resident Anglophobe, Manisdog! FYI Manisdog, while it is technically treason to call for the abolition of the monarchy no-one has been tried for treason because of holding republican views since the mid-19th century. Yes, that law should be repealed but it's not like we throw all republicans in jail at Her Majesty's pleasure.
by The Union of the West » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:28 pm
Lalaki wrote:I come from a country with a strong republican tradition. What I find is that Americans tend to be united based on national identity and common ideals instead of a monarch.
Ultimately it is up to the nation and its culture whether or not there should be a monarchy. I would prefer that the US remains a republic (as we don't have a tradition of kings/queens and don't really need one for unity), but I am happy if another country decides differently.
by Fortschritte » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:31 pm
by The Cobalt Sky » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:31 pm
The Austrians and Slovenes wrote: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).
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. 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.
I know there is no thread ownership in the NSG but I wouldn't like this thread to simply criticize or praise monarchies blindly; I want to know why NSG's monarchist are in fact monarchists. The arguments for a republic are quite repetitive and obvious so unless you've got an argument for a republic which you think will be unknown to the majority I'd recommend you don't post.
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:33 pm
The Austrians and Slovenes wrote: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).
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. 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.
I know there is no thread ownership in the NSG but I wouldn't like this thread to simply criticize or praise monarchies blindly; I want to know why NSG's monarchist are in fact monarchists. The arguments for a republic are quite repetitive and obvious so unless you've got an argument for a republic which you think will be unknown to the majority I'd recommend you don't post.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Atrito, Bali Kingdom, Czechostan, Dimetrodon Empire, Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Pasong Tirad, Perishna, Shearoa, Sublime Ottoman State 1800 RP, Vanuzgard
Advertisement