Monarchs are nothing but dictators in velvet cloaks.

[North Suran]

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

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

You can't?

The threat of revolution does not make a monarch accountable to the people.

By that logic, Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR were both accountable regimes, because their citizens could have theoretically overthrown the government at any time. If you have to move outside of the political structure of a country to make its leader accountable, then they aren't accountable.

[Fassitude]

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.

[North Suran]

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.

[Fassitude]

Except they don't have absolute powers

Nor do most monarchs. In fact, most have virtually no powers at all.

[Milks Empire]

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

Jackson doesn't count. He was a filthy rich upper-crust slave owner by the time he first ran against J.Q. Adams.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

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

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

You can't?

The threat of revolution does not make a monarch accountable to the people.

By that logic, Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR were both accountable regimes, because their citizens could have theoretically overthrown the government at any time. If you have to move outside of the political structure of a country to make its leader accountable, then they aren't accountable.

The "revolutionaries" were merely delusional, anti-aristocratic animals, wildly throwing the blame for every problem on whichever nobleman or royal family was closest to them. They weren't trying to right wrongs in France any more than the leading Ayatollists were trying to right wrongs in Iran. In the end, they simply replaced one reasonable monarch with a delusional, administratively inept one bent on plunging the world into war after war to achieve his goals.

[Maurepas]

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...

[Maurepas]

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

Jackson doesn't count. He was a filthy rich upper-crust slave owner by the time he first ran against J.Q. Adams.

True, I was thinking more along the lines of during the War of 1812...Suppose Lincoln's all we've got from the lower end...

[Abdju]

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?

There are various types of monarchical systems, so to say they are overall a good form of government is impossible. It depends upon factors such as the degree of power vested in the monarch, how the rules of secession are determined and the overarching ideology attached to the throne. The Emperor of Japan in the 21st century is more than a little different King of Saudi Arabia in the 21st century, and both are different to the Achaemenid Kings of Persia.

None, however, are "dictators in velvet cloaks". A dictator, in the modern, general understanding of the term is someone who has absolute and also totally arbitrary power. Monarchies, of whatever nature, have customary rights and responsibility attached to the throne. The Saudi royal family, for example, never acts on a major issue without ensuring they have reached a agreement/compromise with the ulema and major tribal leaders, and cannot publicly act in a way contrary to the interests of the Islamic religion (spin doctoring helps here, as is the case with any kind of ruler).

All monarchs generally have to act within the cultural/traditional framework of their nation, and contravening this inevitably leads to a collapse of legitimacy, and would bring about an end of their dynasty, if not the throne itself. As such a monarch can hardly ever, in practice, act in the totally arbitrary way in which a war lord or dictator-president is often able to. The role is restricted heavily by precedent and tradition, and the more absolute his power, the more this tends to be the case.

As for traditionally abusing "the people", this is not a very sound argument. Virtually all of the greatest achievements of mankind have been made under the rule of monarchs. Some have been made other the rule of other kinds of rulers. Similarly, some of the worst acts in mankind history have been made under the ruler of monarchs, and some (and also the worst of the lot, interestingly enough) have been made under other kinds of rulers.

Monarchy has advantages in ensuring a generally more consistent, more far sighted, less knee-jerk, less populist government that is more responsive to actual situations, and also provides a more stable and lasting social structure. Depending on the ideology and national structure it can also be a strong force for maintaining national cohesion in an ethically or religiously divided society, and give the country greater influence diplomatically by being able to build long term personal relationships between rulers. In a religiously homogenous society a monarch may also carry greater influence and hold greater legitimacy in the eyes of his people than another kind of ruler.

In my view, parliaments, presidents, generals and dictator-presidents are more likely to risk the lives of "The People" than most, but not all, monarchs.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

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?

There are various types of monarchical systems, so to say they are overall a good form of government is impossible. It depends upon factors such as the degree of power vested in the monarch, how the rules of secession are determined and the overarching ideology attached to the throne. The Emperor of Japan in the 21st century is more than a little different King of Saudi Arabia in the 21st century, and both are different to the Achaemenid Kings of Persia.

None, however, are "dictators in velvet cloaks". A dictator, in the modern, general understanding of the term is someone who has absolute and also totally arbitrary power. Monarchies, of whatever nature, have customary rights and responsibility attached to the throne. The Saudi royal family, for example, never acts on a major issue without ensuring they have reached a agreement/compromise with the ulema and major tribal leaders, and cannot publicly act in a way contrary to the interests of the Islamic religion (spin doctoring helps here, as is the case with any kind of ruler).

All monarchs generally have to act within the cultural/traditional framework of their nation, and contravening this inevitably leads to a collapse of legitimacy, and would bring about an end of their dynasty, if not the throne itself. As such a monarch can hardly ever, in practice, act in the totally arbitrary way in which a war lord or dictator-president is often able to. The role is restricted heavily by precedent and tradition, and the more absolute his power, the more this tends to be the case.

As for traditionally abusing "the people", this is not a very sound argument. Virtually all of the greatest achievements of mankind have been made under the rule of monarchs. Some have been made other the rule of other kinds of rulers. Similarly, some of the worst acts in mankind history have been made under the ruler of monarchs, and some (and also the worst of the lot, interestingly enough) have been made under other kinds of rulers.

Monarchy has advantages in ensuring a generally more consistent, more far sighted, less knee-jerk, less populist government that is more responsive to actual situations, and also provides a more stable and lasting social structure. Depending on the ideology and national structure it can also be a strong force for maintaining national cohesion in an ethically or religiously divided society, and give the country greater influence diplomatically by being able to build long term personal relationships between rulers. In a religiously homogenous society a monarch may also carry greater influence and hold greater legitimacy in the eyes of his people than another kind of ruler.

In my view, parliaments, presidents, generals and dictator-presidents are more likely to risk the lives of "The People" than most, but not all, monarchs.

You've put my sentiments into a near-perfect wording.

[Schwabenreich]

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?

There are various types of monarchical systems, so to say they are overall a good form of government is impossible. It depends upon factors such as the degree of power vested in the monarch, how the rules of secession are determined and the overarching ideology attached to the throne. The Emperor of Japan in the 21st century is more than a little different King of Saudi Arabia in the 21st century, and both are different to the Achaemenid Kings of Persia.

None, however, are "dictators in velvet cloaks". A dictator, in the modern, general understanding of the term is someone who has absolute and also totally arbitrary power. Monarchies, of whatever nature, have customary rights and responsibility attached to the throne. The Saudi royal family, for example, never acts on a major issue without ensuring they have reached a agreement/compromise with the ulema and major tribal leaders, and cannot publicly act in a way contrary to the interests of the Islamic religion (spin doctoring helps here, as is the case with any kind of ruler).

All monarchs generally have to act within the cultural/traditional framework of their nation, and contravening this inevitably leads to a collapse of legitimacy, and would bring about an end of their dynasty, if not the throne itself. As such a monarch can hardly ever, in practice, act in the totally arbitrary way in which a war lord or dictator-president is often able to. The role is restricted heavily by precedent and tradition, and the more absolute his power, the more this tends to be the case.

As for traditionally abusing "the people", this is not a very sound argument. Virtually all of the greatest achievements of mankind have been made under the rule of monarchs. Some have been made other the rule of other kinds of rulers. Similarly, some of the worst acts in mankind history have been made under the ruler of monarchs, and some (and also the worst of the lot, interestingly enough) have been made under other kinds of rulers.

Monarchy has advantages in ensuring a generally more consistent, more far sighted, less knee-jerk, less populist government that is more responsive to actual situations, and also provides a more stable and lasting social structure. Depending on the ideology and national structure it can also be a strong force for maintaining national cohesion in an ethically or religiously divided society, and give the country greater influence diplomatically by being able to build long term personal relationships between rulers. In a religiously homogenous society a monarch may also carry greater influence and hold greater legitimacy in the eyes of his people than another kind of ruler.

In my view, parliaments, presidents, generals and dictator-presidents are more likely to risk the lives of "The People" than most, but not all, monarchs.

You've put my sentiments into a near-perfect wording.

Ditto.

[The_pantless_hero]

At least in a monarchy you know who is pulling everyone's strings.

[Nadkor]

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?

[Viperco1]

Its not the system that matters its the politician, particually considering people are to stupid to vote out corrupt ones. If the politicians good the country will be well, if their bad the the countries screwed. And with elections you just need charisma and to not get caught.

[Milks Empire]

I see nothing inherently wrong with a monarchy that isn't inherently wrong with every other form of government - the fact that humans are in charge.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I, personally, think that the ideal form of government is a constitutional monarchy where the monarch retains some actual power, although bounded by the constitution. This gives you an executive branch which doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected and can, therefore, do unpopular things. Like raise taxes, spend money on things like police, and generally act in the best interests of a country, rather than in the interest of getting re-elected and taking in lots of money from corporate bribes. I suppose that's the advantage of having an amazingly rich monarch...you can't bribe a person who already has all the money they want.

Simultaneously, congress/parliament/whatever can overrule the monarch where required. This, of course, generally only works if the legislative branch is influenced by some group other than the monarch them self. Preferably the population of the state in question, but we all know how that works out.

Of course, this is all in my ideal fantasy land where you don't get monarchs like Charles I and Paul I.

[Maurepas]

I see nothing inherently wrong with a monarchy that isn't inherently wrong with every other form of government - the fact that humans are in charge.

They can be rather tyrannous without them...

[Zabum]

All monarchs generally have to act within the cultural/traditional framework of their nation, and contravening this inevitably leads to a collapse of legitimacy, and would bring about an end of their dynasty, if not the throne itself. As such a monarch can hardly ever, in practice, act in the totally arbitrary way in which a war lord or dictator-president is often able to. The role is restricted heavily by precedent and tradition, and the more absolute his power, the more this tends to be the case.

This is actually the biggest weakness of the monarchy. People are ready to tolerate monarchs mostly because they respect traditions, but the modern society are changing so fast that traditions become obsolete before they can evolve naturally. No matter how good monarch governs, traditions that legitimize his/hers power become inconsistent with reality too fast. Sooner or later modern monarch must either give away the real power or try to freeze the social progress to prevent de-legitimization of his/hers power.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Sooner or later modern monarch must either give away the real power or try to freeze the social progress to prevent de-legitimization of his/hers power.

Which most of them have already done.

[North Suran]

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.

[Maurepas]

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...

[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?

The threat of revolution does not make a monarch accountable to the people.

I never said it does.

Kobrania said: "You can't oust a monarch if you disagree with them." That is demonstrably false. I demonstrated its falsehood.

I accept your apology for putting words in my mouth.

By that logic, Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR were both accountable regimes, because their citizens could have theoretically overthrown the government at any time. If you have to move outside of the political structure of a country to make its leader accountable, then they aren't accountable.

Considering that I never once used the word "accountable" in my post, I really have to wonder who you think you're talking to here, or what logic you think you're talking about.

Please don't use my posts as an intellectual masturbation aid. It gets them all sticky.

[Zabum]

Sooner or later modern monarch must either give away the real power or try to freeze the social progress to prevent de-legitimization of his/hers power.

Which most of them have already done.

Yes, I heard something about it.

[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?

The threat of revolution does not make a monarch accountable to the people.

By that logic, Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR were both accountable regimes, because their citizens could have theoretically overthrown the government at any time. If you have to move outside of the political structure of a country to make its leader accountable, then they aren't accountable.

The "revolutionaries" were merely delusional, anti-aristocratic animals, wildly throwing the blame for every problem on whichever nobleman or royal family was closest to them. They weren't trying to right wrongs in France any more than the leading Ayatollists were trying to right wrongs in Iran. In the end, they simply replaced one reasonable monarch with a delusional, administratively inept one bent on plunging the world into war after war to achieve his goals.

Wow. Very rarely do I encounter a post in which every single one of its assertions is obviously wrong.

That was an impressive performance, in its way.

[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.