Monarchs are nothing but dictators in velvet cloaks.

[Kobrania]

I don't see the point in supporting a Monarch.

1.You can't oust them if you disagree with them.
2.They historically abuse the people.

Discuss, are Monarchs a decent form of government or are they over-romanticised?

[Ashmoria]

the velvet cloaks make all the difference.

[Maurepas]

I can tell you, from experience, that a Republic is just as bad, and brings in fewer tourist dollars...

[Acadzia]

I'm glad I live in a constitutional monarchy. I get a purdy queen on my money, but she can't throw me in the stocks without due cause.

[Maurepas]

I'm glad I live in a constitutional monarchy. I get a purdy queen on my money, but she can't throw me in the stocks without due cause.

Psh, Absolute Monarchy is where its at, you know youre missing out on the Gulags,

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm glad I live in a constitutional monarchy. I get a purdy queen on my money, but she can't throw me in the stocks without due cause.

Psh, Absolute Monarchy is where its at, you know youre missing out on the Gulags,

I even got free shackles!

[Conserative Morality]

I can tell you, from experience, that a Republic is just as bad, and brings in fewer tourist dollars...

Except for the whole 'I'm better than you due to birth' part of it.

Or, to quote Mark Twain:

The institution of royalty in any form is an insult to the human race.

...

A Prince picks up grandeur, power, and a permanent holiday and gratis support by a pure accident, the accident of birth, and he stands always before the grieved eye of poverty and obscurity a monumental representative of luck. And then -- supremest value of all -- his is the only high fortune on the earth which is secure. The commercial millionaire may become a beggar; the illustrious statesman can make a vital mistake and be dropped and forgotten; the illustrious general can lose a decisive battle and with it the consideration of men; but once a Prince always a Prince -- that is to say, an imitation god, and neither hard fortune nor an infamous character nor an addled brain nor the speech of an ass can undeify him. By common consent of all the nations and all the ages the most valuable thing in this world is the homage of men, whether deserved or undeserved. It follows without doubt or question, then, that the most desirable position possible is that of a Prince. And I think it also follows that the so-called usurpations with which history is littered are the most excusable misdemeanors which men have committed. To usurp a usurpation -- that is all it amounts to, isn't it?

[Maurepas]

I can tell you, from experience, that a Republic is just as bad, and brings in fewer tourist dollars...

Except for the whole 'I'm better than you due to birth' part of it.

Or, to quote Mark Twain:

The institution of royalty in any form is an insult to the human race.

...

A Prince picks up grandeur, power, and a permanent holiday and gratis support by a pure accident, the accident of birth, and he stands always before the grieved eye of poverty and obscurity a monumental representative of luck. And then -- supremest value of all -- his is the only high fortune on the earth which is secure. The commercial millionaire may become a beggar; the illustrious statesman can make a vital mistake and be dropped and forgotten; the illustrious general can lose a decisive battle and with it the consideration of men; but once a Prince always a Prince -- that is to say, an imitation god, and neither hard fortune nor an infamous character nor an addled brain nor the speech of an ass can undeify him. By common consent of all the nations and all the ages the most valuable thing in this world is the homage of men, whether deserved or undeserved. It follows without doubt or question, then, that the most desirable position possible is that of a Prince. And I think it also follows that the so-called usurpations with which history is littered are the most excusable misdemeanors which men have committed. To usurp a usurpation -- that is all it amounts to, isn't it?

meh, Twain's tl;dr,

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

[Buffett and Colbert]

I can tell you, from experience, that a Republic is just as bad, and brings in fewer tourist dollars...

Except for the whole 'I'm better than you due to birth' part of it.

Or, to quote Mark Twain:

The institution of royalty in any form is an insult to the human race.

...

A Prince picks up grandeur, power, and a permanent holiday and gratis support by a pure accident, the accident of birth, and he stands always before the grieved eye of poverty and obscurity a monumental representative of luck. And then -- supremest value of all -- his is the only high fortune on the earth which is secure. The commercial millionaire may become a beggar; the illustrious statesman can make a vital mistake and be dropped and forgotten; the illustrious general can lose a decisive battle and with it the consideration of men; but once a Prince always a Prince -- that is to say, an imitation god, and neither hard fortune nor an infamous character nor an addled brain nor the speech of an ass can undeify him. By common consent of all the nations and all the ages the most valuable thing in this world is the homage of men, whether deserved or undeserved. It follows without doubt or question, then, that the most desirable position possible is that of a Prince. And I think it also follows that the so-called usurpations with which history is littered are the most excusable misdemeanors which men have committed. To usurp a usurpation -- that is all it amounts to, isn't it?

meh, Twain's tl;dr,

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

Like Abraham Lincoln, right?

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

So how is it that all monarchies abuse the people because of a few bad kings and queens? How about the monumental leaps in philosophy, the arts and the enlightenment in general made under absolutists like Frederick the Great? How about the fact that the royal families earned their place historically through combat, service to the people and general administrative knowhow? A king as head of state is far more dignified than a republic. For one thing, it is historically proven that it is much, much harder to corrupt an absolute king trying to maintain his realm than it is to corrupt a chamber of 500+ officials who are only in it for personal gain.

[Saxemberg]

I don't see the point in supporting a Monarch.

1.You can't oust them if you disagree with them.

You can't?

2.They historically abuse the people.

No worse than republics have.

See above, for example.

[Buffett and Colbert]

So how is it that all monarchies abuse the people because of a few bad kings and queens? How about the monumental leaps in philosophy, the arts and the enlightenment in general made under absolutists like Frederick the Great? How about the fact that the royal families earned their place historically through combat, service to the people and general administrative knowhow? A king as head of state is far more dignified than a republic. For one thing, it is historically proven that it is much, much harder to corrupt an absolute king trying to maintain his realm than it is to corrupt a chamber of 500+ officials who are only in it for personal gain.

Those monumental leaps were not a product of a monarchy. Just the fact that that specific ruler didn't try to squash much of freedom of expression (well, sorta anyway ).

[Maurepas]

I can tell you, from experience, that a Republic is just as bad, and brings in fewer tourist dollars...

Except for the whole 'I'm better than you due to birth' part of it.

Or, to quote Mark Twain:

The institution of royalty in any form is an insult to the human race.

...

A Prince picks up grandeur, power, and a permanent holiday and gratis support by a pure accident, the accident of birth, and he stands always before the grieved eye of poverty and obscurity a monumental representative of luck. And then -- supremest value of all -- his is the only high fortune on the earth which is secure. The commercial millionaire may become a beggar; the illustrious statesman can make a vital mistake and be dropped and forgotten; the illustrious general can lose a decisive battle and with it the consideration of men; but once a Prince always a Prince -- that is to say, an imitation god, and neither hard fortune nor an infamous character nor an addled brain nor the speech of an ass can undeify him. By common consent of all the nations and all the ages the most valuable thing in this world is the homage of men, whether deserved or undeserved. It follows without doubt or question, then, that the most desirable position possible is that of a Prince. And I think it also follows that the so-called usurpations with which history is littered are the most excusable misdemeanors which men have committed. To usurp a usurpation -- that is all it amounts to, isn't it?

meh, Twain's tl;dr,

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

Like Abraham Lincoln, right?

I did say most, the only ones i can think of, off the top of my head that werent were him and Jackson...

Both of whom were known to abuse their power anyway...Although one significantly worse than the other...

[Ifreann]

But dude. Velvet cloak. Velvet cloak

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

So how is it that all monarchies abuse the people because of a few bad kings and queens? How about the monumental leaps in philosophy, the arts and the enlightenment in general made under absolutists like Frederick the Great? How about the fact that the royal families earned their place historically through combat, service to the people and general administrative knowhow? A king as head of state is far more dignified than a republic. For one thing, it is historically proven that it is much, much harder to corrupt an absolute king trying to maintain his realm than it is to corrupt a chamber of 500+ officials who are only in it for personal gain.

Those monumental leaps were not a product of a monarchy. Just the fact that that specific ruler didn't try to squash much of freedom of expression (well, sorta anyway ).

You can't discredit a system and claim the system had no bearing on the fact that the monarchs of the era would not have made such important decisions had they been disallowed their powers as head of state, and the fact of the matter is that a good king produces far more dramatic results than the best republic.

[Dumb Ideologies]

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

Huh...all Americans are middle-class, right?

It's only in Britain where one can talk of an upper and lower class. In America, everyone is precisely equal in terms of their opportunities. The American Dream came true years ago.

Anyone who says otherwise is a rabble-rousing Commie, and probably voted for the terrorist candidate.

[Conserative Morality]

meh, Twain's tl;dr,

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

Erm, yes, it does. Presidents are elected, or at the least, appointed. Kings and Queens are born into the purple. Presidents must have some manner of skill. Royalty need none.

[Blotting]

What kind of monarchs are we talking about? There's a big difference between the Queen of the UK and the rulers of Saudi Arabia, just as there is a big difference between the President of the United States and the President of Sudan.

[Maurepas]

meh, Twain's tl;dr,

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

Erm, yes, it does. Presidents are elected, or at the least, appointed. Kings and Queens are born into the purple. Presidents must have some manner of skill. Royalty need none.

Yeah, thats what they told me about George Bush...

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah, thats what they told me about George Bush...

I never said they needed to be smart.

[Leach Islands]

As a Monarchist my view will be rather Biased but i shall state them anyway.

1.) The main problems with Democracy is that nothing gets done quickly, people do not get much power over who leads them anyway. If you don't like the person you have voted in, you simply cannot "out" them. You will have to contact HIS government to arrange another election, then it has to be voted on. Too long in my opinion.
2.) If you look back in history, some Monarchs are cruel to their people i admit. But in most cases the Monarchy lasts longer than a Republic.
3.) Also what is to stop some nutter, after being voted in, decides to declare himself a Dictator? There will be civil peace in a Monarchy.

[Maurepas]

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

Huh...all Americans are middle-class, right?

It's only in Britain where one can talk of an upper and lower class. In America, everyone is precisely equal in terms of their opportunities. The American Dream came true years ago.

Anyone who says otherwise is a rabble-rousing Commie, and probably voted for the terrorist candidate.

I like you, youre silly,

[Fassitude]

Monarchs are nothing but dictators in velvet cloaks.

Pray tell, how is the politically impotent Swedish monarch, His Royal Highness King Carl XVI Gustav, whose duties are only ceremonial, a dictator?

[Old Tyrannia]

Leave the queen alone! She never hurt anyone!
I agree that Absolute Monarchy is little more than Dictatorship, but a Constitutional Monarchy is where it's at. A king or queen can inspire more national pride than a president ever could.

[Verzia]

Same here, they are dictators, but for some reason because of there blood they know whats best, it makes no sense! Thats why we have presidents in Verzia, they serve for life, but still, we can impeach them, and the president has little power, its the councils and senate that make up the gov. that have the real power.