Monarchs are nothing but dictators in velvet cloaks.

[Sorgan]

No matter what form of government, you'll always have some form of dictatorship. Well, besides Anarchy but sooner or later some guy with a gun and some followers take power.

[UNIverseVERSE]

<snip> (and also the worst of the lot, interestingly enough) <snip>

This is simply a result of the fact that really large scale abuses require modern, mechanised society. You can't orchestrate them otherwise. As a result, they've only become possible in the last hundred years or so, coincidentally after monarchy essentially fell out of favour among those same states.

Execpt in the U.K of course. We don't have any constitution.

Wrong.

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

I know what you mean in the essence I have a story too sad to tell

But no punctuation marks to spare, it would seem. You poor wretch, you.

I shall tell you the story but no comments My parish priest wanted to have a new parochial house built instead of living with the retired parish priest right so we offered him parish land own by the parish council but he said no and wanted a new house built,and so he did and it cost 180000 euro or pounds cant remember now thats greed.We the parisheners had to pay for it and it was complained about and now we still owe 90000

Sorry I was so late I was at mass ironic eh

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

As an Irish Patriot I hate the British Soldiers and Monarchs for their torturous and horrible ways,but love the ways of the royalty,I have a book with the whole royal heritage of Britain and England,Scotland.I love the concept of royalty and would prefer that the dirty Dermot Mac Murrough had not been a dirty little sleeveen and brought the Normans here even though some of my friends are Norman descendants,I would have prefered the Irish Chieftaincy System to be still in place.

From the US, right?

Nope Irish Patriot=Irish

[Greed and Death]

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?

Depends on which monarch you talking about.
In many cases the nobility could oust them.

[Maurepas]

But, anyway, thats why you have Constitutional Protections, so you dont have to go outside the system to check their power...

Execpt in the U.K of course. We don't have any constitution.

Formally, but i hear tell you have a document on hand just for that occurrence, called the Magna Carta, IIRC...

Which even we 'merikans use as a basis for our laws...

[Saxemberg]

And democratically elected presidents are just dictators who managed to con a majority of the voters into picking them. Your point?

Except they don't have absolute powers, and they are accountable to the electorate; you can vote out the President at the next election, but you can't vote out the monarchy.

Meh, you cant vote out his or her Corporate backers, so, again, it makes little difference...

As far as voting out Monarchies, something about Oliver Cromwell springs to mind...

How, in any way, can launching a violent coup d'etat and executing a monarch be construed as "[voting] out"?

As aforementioned, a leader is only "accountable" when the political system makes it so; if you have to step outside the system to make the leader accountable for their actions - such as revolting or assassinating him/her - then he/she is not accountable.

I was under the impression Parliament had something to do with it...

But, anyway, thats why you have Constitutional Protections, so you dont have to go outside the system to check their power...

Actually, the right of revolution is a constitutional protection, under certain constitutions. It's built into the system, rather than outside it.

Take New Hampshire's, for example:

Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

In other words: "If this constitution ever stops working, it is the right of the people to tear it up, and replace it with something else."

Furthermore, someone like John Locke would argue that the right of rebellion is implicit in any social contract: it's the sanction for breaking that contract. The people have a right to rebel against their government if and when their government first rebels against them.

If war is the final argument of kings, then revolution is the final argument of peoples. Arguing that revolution is somehow "outside" of a country's political system is like arguing that war is "outside" of the system of international relations.

[Nadkor]

But, anyway, thats why you have Constitutional Protections, so you dont have to go outside the system to check their power...

Execpt in the U.K of course. We don't have any constitution.

Yeah, we do.

Well, either we have a constitution or my future career as a constitutional lawyer is going to have to come to a premature end.

And I won't bother going to that constitutional law exam.

[Nadkor]

But, anyway, thats why you have Constitutional Protections, so you dont have to go outside the system to check their power...

Execpt in the U.K of course. We don't have any constitution.

Formally, but i hear tell you have a document on hand just for that occurrence, called the Magna Carta, IIRC...

Which even we 'merikans use as a basis for our laws...

Magna Carta is of no relevance to anything these days. There are three provisions still in force; one guaranteeing the freedom of the English church, one guaranteeing the ancient liberties of the city of London, and one guaranteeing due process.

The first two are completely irrelevant, and the third is well established in many other ways.

Symbolically it's important, but it is of no importance in a legal sense.

[Maurepas]

But, anyway, thats why you have Constitutional Protections, so you dont have to go outside the system to check their power...

Execpt in the U.K of course. We don't have any constitution.

Yeah, we do.

Well, either we have a constitution or my future career as a constitutional lawyer is going to have to come to a premature end.

And I won't bother going to that constitutional law exam.

IIRC it's a constitution, just not a formally written down constitution...

feel free to smite my American lack of knowledge if I's wrong,

[Abdju]

<snip> (and also the worst of the lot, interestingly enough) <snip>

This is simply a result of the fact that really large scale abuses require modern, mechanised society. You can't orchestrate them otherwise. As a result, they've only become possible in the last hundred years or so, coincidentally after monarchy essentially fell out of favour among those same states.

Really?

[Maurepas]

But, anyway, thats why you have Constitutional Protections, so you dont have to go outside the system to check their power...

Execpt in the U.K of course. We don't have any constitution.

Formally, but i hear tell you have a document on hand just for that occurrence, called the Magna Carta, IIRC...

Which even we 'merikans use as a basis for our laws...

Magna Carta is of no relevance to anything these days. There are three provisions still in force; one guaranteeing the freedom of the English church, one guaranteeing the ancient liberties of the city of London, and one guaranteeing due process.

The first two are completely irrelevant, and the third is well established in many other ways.

Symbolically it's important, but it is of no importance in a legal sense.

Hmmm...I know they brought it up here against Nixon, I think we still have it in force...

[Allrule]

The UK, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and so on would like to speak to you.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

But, anyway, thats why you have Constitutional Protections, so you dont have to go outside the system to check their power...

Execpt in the U.K of course. We don't have any constitution.

Yeah, we do.

Well, either we have a constitution or my future career as a constitutional lawyer is going to have to come to a premature end.

And I won't bother going to that constitutional law exam.

BBC news lies.
I recall hearing somebody saying that we should get a constitution, must of been mistaken.

[Alsatian Knights]

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.

There's tons of that in a republic too.

[Dyakovo]

But, anyway, thats why you have Constitutional Protections, so you dont have to go outside the system to check their power...

Execpt in the U.K of course. We don't have any constitution.

Yeah, we do.

Well, either we have a constitution or my future career as a constitutional lawyer is going to have to come to a premature end.

And I won't bother going to that constitutional law exam.

BBC news lies.
I recall hearing somebody saying that we should get a constitution, must of been mistaken.

It was probably mention of trying to/ wanting to get a written constitution...

[Moppelkatze]

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

That's because you're stupid. Consider Cromwell and top yourself.

[Malikov]

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

That's because you're stupid. Consider Cromwell and top yourself.

And the flame alerts start buzzing. As a wise Mod might say: "Attack the idea, not the poster." Myself not being one, this is only a recomendation (but one that you should probably listen to).

[Voltairian Prospects]

Dictators they may be, some were actually effective

[United Marktoria]

Monarchs are just dictators that have family heirs.

[Non Aligned States]

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?

Mark Twain ignores the semi-regular cases of Princes ending up a head shorter it seems. It's not like being a Prince makes you immune to poison, stabbings or beheadings.

[Non Aligned States]

I really can't see the benefits of living in a republic.

If you're wealthy enough, you can buy the presidency. In fact, that is what is expected. So in that sense, if you are filthy rich, it is a benefit. You can't purchase a royal lineage.

Given that practically all royal lineages originated from martial might and organizational skills, yes, you can buy a royal lineage if you're willing to make the time investment. You just need to buy a bigger and better army.

[Czardas]

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

That's because you're stupid.

Argue the post, not... yeah, you've gotten enough warnings for flaming to know the drill. See you in seventy-two hours.

[Zabum]

Given that practically all royal lineages originated from martial might and organizational skills, yes, you can buy a royal lineage if you're willing to make the time investment. You just need to buy a bigger and better army.

It works only in periods of big instability. When all is well it can be impossible to topple the monarch without massive foreign intervention. With strong empires, such as British, Russian, or the Chinese such intervention usually is not possible.

[Abdju]

I really can't see the benefits of living in a republic.

If you're wealthy enough, you can buy the presidency. In fact, that is what is expected. So in that sense, if you are filthy rich, it is a benefit. You can't purchase a royal lineage.

Given that practically all royal lineages originated from martial might and organizational skills, yes, you can buy a royal lineage if you're willing to make the time investment. You just need to buy a bigger and better army.

I cannot think of many historical cases where a totally new royal bloodline was founded by military means alone, without foreign invasion, in the midst of an otherwise normal reign (i.e. no other major national crisis). Such a move is extremely rare (nto unheard of, just extremely rare). Study history.