Thailand is a good example. It's a chaotic country with an all-powerful military but everyone is united by their love for the King.
Advertisement
by Sebastianbourg » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:45 am
by Estado Nacional » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:46 am
by Sebastianbourg » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:48 am
by Estado Nacional » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:50 am
Sebastianbourg wrote:Hence the chaos I've described with the word chaotic.
Sebastianbourg wrote:On the BBC they interviewed members of both groups and they all said they loved the King etc.
by Estado Nacional » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:51 am
Sebastianbourg wrote:Monarchies in more-developed Western nations are better examples.
by Sebastianbourg » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:53 am
by Titanian Empire » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:00 am
by Immoren » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:03 am
Titanian Empire wrote:...and someone who can't speak English became Vice president.
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Estado Nacional » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:05 am
Titanian Empire wrote:Where I came from, a movie actor even became president and someone who can't speak English became Vice president.
by Sebastianbourg » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:05 am
by Estado Nacional » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:06 am
Sebastianbourg wrote:No, monarchies can more effectively unite the people when the countries are reasonably-stable.
by Old Tyrannia » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:08 am
Blasted Craigs wrote:The other reason this idea has soo much support IMHO, is many supporters envision themselves as either the ruler or as a noble. I think no one would support this style of government if they knew they were slotted to be a serf in a monarchy.
Sebastianbourg wrote:Immoren wrote:If difference between monarchy and dictatorship is legitimacy and/or history of house, and I've some monarchists here say that modern dictators can't be monarchs, because they lack either. But would their their descendants become legitimate monarchs if they managed to held to the throne for long enough, or are only legitimate houses those which sprung up centuries ago and no new houses families/houses can be created?
Oh, and Napoléon was a perfectly-legitimate monarch.
Immoren wrote:If difference between monarchy and dictatorship is legitimacy and/or history of house, and I've some monarchists here say that modern dictators can't be monarchs, because they lack either. But would their their descendants become legitimate monarchs if they managed to held to the throne for long enough, or are only legitimate houses those which sprung up centuries ago and no new houses families/houses can be created?
by Titanian Empire » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:10 am
by Sebastianbourg » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:11 am
by Sebastianbourg » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:12 am
by Caltarania » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:13 am
by Estado Nacional » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:13 am
Old Tyrannia wrote:Yes, a perfect example of how a monarch can keep a country together in times of great division and turmoil. Thailand would probably be in the midst of civil war by now if not for His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
by Old Tyrannia » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:13 am
by Sebastianbourg » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:15 am
Old Tyrannia wrote:I highly doubt I will ever be lucky enough to be offered a hereditary peerage, and in the highly unlikely event I were offered a life peerage at some point, I would not accept it out of principle.
by Estado Nacional » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:18 am
Sebastianbourg wrote:Have you even bothered to read this thread?
by Old Tyrannia » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:21 am
by Sebastianbourg » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:21 am
Caltarania wrote:Because I hate the term 'Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.
Sounds shitty.
by Titanian Empire » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:22 am
by Janshah » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:28 am
by The Nihilistic view » Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:01 am
Sebastianbourg wrote:Caltarania wrote:Because I hate the term 'Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.
Sounds shitty.
No, Tony Benn wanted a Commonwealth of Great Britain; he was planning on handing Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, Emotional Support Crocodile, Hidrandia, Kostane, Port Carverton, The Lone Alliance
Advertisement