Monarchist discussion thread

[Carinya]

I am a self-described monarchist.

I don't believe there is a single, "ideal" model of government; different countries are suited to different forms of government under different circumstances. In almost all circumstances, I feel the best form of government for a country is the traditional, indigenous system of government, and in almost all cases that is some form of monarchy.

My own preference for my own country, the United Kingdom, would be to return to executive constitutional monarchy in which the Sovereign possesses and actively exercises at least some of the powers of the executive, such as approving bills, calling elections and appointing ministers, as opposed to what we have now which is more of a ceremonial constitutional monarchy. I regard the focussing of power in the hands of the Commons over the last two centuries or so to be an alarming subversion of the ancient British constitution of Sovereign, Lords and Commons, in which each part of Parliament provides a counterbalance to the power of the others. I selected the Imperial German model on the poll, since the German Empire was an executive constitutional monarchy of the like I admire. Overall I find the constitution of the Kaiserreich to be excellent, with the exception of the relationship between the civilian government and the military. Ultimately the ambitions of the military were what brought down both the Kaiser's Germany and Imperial Japan, the constitution of which was based on that of Prussia and Germany. Generally I think all monarchies should move towards the executive constitutional model, although I feel that the monarchy should exercise more power in some cases, in less developed states where the people aren't accustomed to or ready for democratic elections.

I tend to think that democratisation and greater public involvement in politics is an inevitable trend as countries develop economically and become more affluent, as the lower classes become more literate, better educated, and wealthier, eventually leading them to seek a greater voice in the government of the state. On the whole I consider this a desirable outcome, but I am fully willing to support autocratic monarchs like HIM Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah of Iran, HM Sultan Qaboos of Oman and HIM Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia in developing countries. I also think some nations are perhaps better suited to a more centralised, autocratic style of government, such as Russia which seems to gravitate towards "strongman" type leaders. In this case I don't think a British-style parliamentary system would work well, something most Russian monarchists I know would agree with, although I still expect any future Russian restoration to retain an elected Duma and head of government.

Currently, I would consider Jordan, Liechtenstein and Bhutan to be examples of monarchies that are excellently run.

You say that the key flaw in the Kaiserreich's constitution was the relationship between the army and the civil government, which is certainly something that I'd agree with even as an anarchist. My question to you, then, would be - what were the circumstances, either in their political system, their history, or their circumstances, that led to this flaw? And that established, why couldn't they solve it within their own system?

I don't like the idea that some "nations" are better suited than others to strongman government; it smacks to me of a sort of "we can govern ourselves, but they need someone to govern them" kind of superiority complex. To my thinking, if there's something about a country in its present form that requires an autocratic system to realize, then it's a clear symptom that something is wrong with the country as an idea. "Russia" only needs to be an autocracy because there is something wrong with the dream of "Russia;" if there's no consensus, it gives rise to the question of whether they should be a single country.

As a thought experiment, I would challenge you this: could you conceive of a hypothetical system of government that maintains what you like about monarchism while at the same time eliminates both the precedence of heredity and the extension of the metaphor of country-as-family?

[Noraika]

Very sincere question for you. How much do you think you appreciation of monarchism is based on the personal aptitudes and activities of Elizabeth II?

I'm always puzzled by the monarchist admiration for Elizabeth as the be-all-end-all number 1, when for my money the single most positive monarch of the 20th century would have to be Juan Carlos - who, lest we forget, was actually offered absolute power and not only declined to take it, but was decisive in abolishing it.

A very acceptable question, and one which I shall answer with equal sincerity.

Make no mistake, I have a deepest respect and admiration for Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and I most certainly think that the British monarchy will not be the same after her reign, but I wouldn't say she's the only monarch who attracts me to monarchism - aside from the already present political benefits of the monarchical-parliamentary system. As much as I have a great fondness towards her, and not as much fondness towards His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, I would not suddenly reduce my commitment to see the crown restored over my lands if he were to become King. Her Majesty the Queen is very much an added bonus, which makes the British monarchy all the more appealing by her individual character, although my support remains both in principle and attraction to the system itself.

I also have a very fond opinion of His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I, as well as His Majesty, King Felipe VI, and I was also quite fond of the other monarchs of nations, but I will admit that, as they are the monarchs of a different heritage, which I don't necessarily feel any connection towards or feel drawn towards, as much as I do with Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, who's monarchy is directly connected to my country through history, language, and other influences. Plus there's also the admitted matter that the British crown gets more publicizing in the United States, and our close neighbors, the Canadians and several Caribbean inations, all maintain their ties to the crown, so there's more natural exposure on top of that. Plus there's also the fact that she's the monarch I'm wanting to see reinstated, so of course I'll have a bias towards her.

I hope that answered your question sufficiently. If you have any clarifying questions feel free to ask.

[NeuPolska]

Here's a question I have for some of my fellow monarchists: If there isn't a pretender to the throne or otherwise a viable choice, how would a monarch be selected?

In Poland there are no real choices, all the main families are not even in the country anymore and certainly don't seem to care what happens in Poland. Blood's been mixed around and nowadays it could become very tricky to figure out who could qualify for the title, DNA testing is expensive and on top of it the person that gets found may not be fit to rule.

[Carinya]

Very sincere question for you. How much do you think you appreciation of monarchism is based on the personal aptitudes and activities of Elizabeth II?

I'm always puzzled by the monarchist admiration for Elizabeth as the be-all-end-all number 1, when for my money the single most positive monarch of the 20th century would have to be Juan Carlos - who, lest we forget, was actually offered absolute power and not only declined to take it, but was decisive in abolishing it.

A very acceptable question, and one which I shall answer with equal sincerity.

Make no mistake, I have a deepest respect and admiration for Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and I most certainly think that the British monarchy will not be the same after her reign, but I wouldn't say she's the only monarch who attracts me to monarchism - aside from the already present political benefits of the monarchical-parliamentary system. As much as I have a great fondness towards her, and not as much fondness towards His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, I would not suddenly reduce my commitment to see the crown restored over my lands if he were to become King. Her Majesty the Queen is very much an added bonus, which makes the British monarchy all the more appealing by her individual character, although my support remains both in principle and attraction to the system itself.

I also have a very fond opinion of His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I, as well as His Majesty, King Felipe VI, and I was also quite fond of the other monarchs of nations, but I will admit that, as they are the monarchs of a different heritage, which I don't necessarily feel any connection towards or feel drawn towards, as much as I do with Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, who's monarchy is directly connected to my country through history, language, and other influences. Plus there's also the admitted matter that the British crown gets more publicizing in the United States, and our close neighbors, the Canadians and several Caribbean inations, all maintain their ties to the crown, so there's more natural exposure on top of that. Plus there's also the fact that she's the monarch I'm wanting to see reinstated, so of course I'll have a bias towards her.

I hope that answered your question sufficiently. If you have any clarifying questions feel free to ask.

I appreciate your answer very much, as well as the fact that you would naturally feel a stronger connection to Elizabeth than to Juan Carlos - I imagine there's written a thousand times as much in English about Elizabeth as there is about Juan Carlos, and English is the only language I can be sure you speak. But if I may, I would like to answer a further question.

Disregarding your personal connection or lack thereof to either one, and assuming the role of an impartial observer (inasmuch as that's ever possible), which of the two would you say is a better monarch, and why? And how would you define a good or better monarch?

I mean, my favorite baseball team is the Marlins, but I don't deny for an instant that the Redbirds are an infinitely stronger team.

[USS Monitor]

So perhaps, should us Liberal Monarchists align ourselves with our idealogical opposites to bring back Monarchism?

How about no.

Monarchy is cool, but it's not valuable enough to justify supporting right-wingers.

[Noraika]

I appreciate your answer very much, as well as the fact that you would naturally feel a stronger connection to Elizabeth than to Juan Carlos - I imagine there's written a thousand times as much in English about Elizabeth as there is about Juan Carlos, and English is the only language I can be sure you speak. But if I may, I would like to answer a further question.

Disregarding your personal connection or lack thereof to either one, and assuming the role of an impartial observer (inasmuch as that's ever possible), which of the two would you say is a better monarch, and why? And how would you define a good or better monarch?

I mean, my favorite baseball team is the Marlins, but I don't deny for an instant that the Redbirds are an infinitely stronger team.

Both would be noteworthy in their own way, in my opinion.

In origin, His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I is better, for he had absolute power in his hands, and did not allow it to corrupt him. He's the exception to the rule that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. He put the people first ahead of his own interests, and did not let power and greed cloud his judgement. He is a testament to democratic values. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II rose to the thrown in turbulent times, but it was not to the same.

In reign, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is better, in that she is the exemplification of what it means to be a monarch. She has carried out her duties faithfully to the people, and has ruled with dignity, neutrality, and is all but a mother figure to the people she rules over. His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I's reign has been marred by scandals within the monarchy, and ended with his own abdication in scandal.

[Tamsien]

Malay style Monarchist, preferably Negri Sembilan/Minangkabau style. That is to say, elective constitutional monarchy.

But I'm not vocal about it. More of a tradition and pride thing that I keep under a low profile. Admiration, really.

[Carinya]

I appreciate your answer very much, as well as the fact that you would naturally feel a stronger connection to Elizabeth than to Juan Carlos - I imagine there's written a thousand times as much in English about Elizabeth as there is about Juan Carlos, and English is the only language I can be sure you speak. But if I may, I would like to answer a further question.

Disregarding your personal connection or lack thereof to either one, and assuming the role of an impartial observer (inasmuch as that's ever possible), which of the two would you say is a better monarch, and why? And how would you define a good or better monarch?

I mean, my favorite baseball team is the Marlins, but I don't deny for an instant that the Redbirds are an infinitely stronger team.

Both would be noteworthy in their own way, in my opinion.

In origin, His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I is better, for he had absolute power in his hands, and did not allow it to corrupt him. He's the exception to the rule that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. He put the people first ahead of his own interests, and did not let power and greed cloud his judgement. He is a testament to democratic values. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II rose to the thrown in turbulent times, but it was not to the same.

In reign, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is better, in that she is the exemplification of what it means to be a monarch. She has carried out her duties faithfully to the people, and has ruled with dignity, neutrality, and is all but a mother figure to the people she rules over. His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I's reign has been marred by scandals within the monarchy, and ended with his own abdication in scandal.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I find myself supportive of your analysis and can certainly accept that it is an internally consistent one. For myself, I'm a bigger fan of Juan Carlos than I think you are (which should be obvious from the fact that I introduced him to the discussion). If I may attempt to put your conclusions into metaphor, I think we might agree that if being a king were equivalent to the 500m hurdles, Juan Carlos has both cleared taller hurdles and tripped over more of them; Elizabeth has cleared her hurdles more adroitly, but they haven't been as intimidating as his were. Then again, I'm a sucker for that sort of story.

Since someone else mentioned Malaysia, I'd be interested in your thoughts on their system. Without going into too many details about their actual parliamentary procedures, it's enough for now to say that Malaysia has several constituent kingdoms - Perlis, Terangganu, etc. - and each one has a hereditary sultan, who is the son of the previous sultan and rules for life. However, these kings get together in something called the Conference of Rulers, and select one of their own to be a sort of super-king, called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who rules over all of the country for five years. You can even be YdPA twice - the current one started his current reign in 2011 but previously was the super-king from '70 to '75.

In fact, I'd like to probe your thoughts on several "gradients" of this system and see how you feel about each, but we can start with this.

[Immoren]

Here's a question I have for some of my fellow monarchists: If there isn't a pretender to the throne or otherwise a viable choice, how would a monarch be selected?

In Poland there are no real choices, all the main families are not even in the country anymore and certainly don't seem to care what happens in Poland. Blood's been mixed around and nowadays it could become very tricky to figure out who could qualify for the title, DNA testing is expensive and on top of it the person that gets found may not be fit to rule.

Elector counts vote for new monarch.*nods*

[Aeyariss]

Malay style Monarchist, preferably Negri Sembilan/Minangkabau style. That is to say, elective constitutional monarchy.

But I'm not vocal about it. More of a tradition and pride thing that I keep under a low profile. Admiration, really.

Well just like the King of Malaysia; elected among the ruling royal.

[Old Tyrannia]

I am a self-described monarchist.

I don't believe there is a single, "ideal" model of government; different countries are suited to different forms of government under different circumstances. In almost all circumstances, I feel the best form of government for a country is the traditional, indigenous system of government, and in almost all cases that is some form of monarchy.

My own preference for my own country, the United Kingdom, would be to return to executive constitutional monarchy in which the Sovereign possesses and actively exercises at least some of the powers of the executive, such as approving bills, calling elections and appointing ministers, as opposed to what we have now which is more of a ceremonial constitutional monarchy. I regard the focussing of power in the hands of the Commons over the last two centuries or so to be an alarming subversion of the ancient British constitution of Sovereign, Lords and Commons, in which each part of Parliament provides a counterbalance to the power of the others. I selected the Imperial German model on the poll, since the German Empire was an executive constitutional monarchy of the like I admire. Overall I find the constitution of the Kaiserreich to be excellent, with the exception of the relationship between the civilian government and the military. Ultimately the ambitions of the military were what brought down both the Kaiser's Germany and Imperial Japan, the constitution of which was based on that of Prussia and Germany. Generally I think all monarchies should move towards the executive constitutional model, although I feel that the monarchy should exercise more power in some cases, in less developed states where the people aren't accustomed to or ready for democratic elections.

I tend to think that democratisation and greater public involvement in politics is an inevitable trend as countries develop economically and become more affluent, as the lower classes become more literate, better educated, and wealthier, eventually leading them to seek a greater voice in the government of the state. On the whole I consider this a desirable outcome, but I am fully willing to support autocratic monarchs like HIM Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah of Iran, HM Sultan Qaboos of Oman and HIM Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia in developing countries. I also think some nations are perhaps better suited to a more centralised, autocratic style of government, such as Russia which seems to gravitate towards "strongman" type leaders. In this case I don't think a British-style parliamentary system would work well, something most Russian monarchists I know would agree with, although I still expect any future Russian restoration to retain an elected Duma and head of government.

Currently, I would consider Jordan, Liechtenstein and Bhutan to be examples of monarchies that are excellently run.

You say that the key flaw in the Kaiserreich's constitution was the relationship between the army and the civil government, which is certainly something that I'd agree with even as an anarchist. My question to you, then, would be - what were the circumstances, either in their political system, their history, or their circumstances, that led to this flaw? And that established, why couldn't they solve it within their own system?

It's fairly straightforward. Imperial Germany was essentially an extension of Prussia, and Prussia was indisputably the dominant state in the union of German states. Prussia had a very long tradition as a military power, and was arguably the most militarised state in Europe at the time. The Prussian state began when the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order converted to Protestantism and secularised the order's lands, forming the Duchy of Prussia. Prussia placed a high emphasis on the military because it was a relatively small state surrounded by hostile countries, and the Prussian aristocracy, including the Prussian royal family, were expected to be well trained in military matters so as to serve as an elite officer corps. That strong tradition of militarism- so strong that Prussia has been called "an army with a country"- was continued by the Prussians after they made themselves the leaders of the new German Empire, and Prussian-German leaders like Otto von Bismarck continued the tradition of close relations between the army and the government. Additionally, the German Constitution was set up in such a way that the military was effectively independent of the civilian government and the Reichstag and reported only to the monarchy, because this was regarded as a way to help keep the democratic institutions of government in check and protect the power of the Kaiser. The Japanese adopted the same system, for the same reason. Unfortunately, rather than strengthening the powers of the German and Japanese emperors, this set-up only succeeded in allowing the militaries of Germany and Japan to become virtually independent of the state, functioning as "states within the state," and gradually acquiring more and more political capital. By the time the flaws in the system became apparent, it was too late to correct them- the militaries were too powerful and wouldn't allow any reduction of their power and influence.

I don't like the idea that some "nations" are better suited than others to strongman government; it smacks to me of a sort of "we can govern ourselves, but they need someone to govern them" kind of superiority complex. To my thinking, if there's something about a country in its present form that requires an autocratic system to realize, then it's a clear symptom that something is wrong with the country as an idea. "Russia" only needs to be an autocracy because there is something wrong with the dream of "Russia;" if there's no consensus, it gives rise to the question of whether they should be a single country.

Try telling that to a Russian. I think it's foolish to say that maybe Russia shouldn't be a single country; there's a very clear, very strong Russian national identity that is present from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. I don't see how it's in any way suggestive of a "superiority complex" on my part to say that countries other than my own may be better under their preferred indigenous system of government, rather than having the form of government I favour and which works best here in my homeland imposed upon them. I'm hardly the first person to observe that Russians seem to prefer "strongmen" type leaders- hence Putin's popularity, as well as that of historical strongman figures like Ivan IV and Josef Stalin in modern Russia. Ideally I would like Russia to adopt a liberal, constitutional monarchy, but Russia should govern itself as it pleases and most Russian monarchists I know feel that any restored Emperor or Empress of all the Russias should have at least substantially more power that Elizabeth II.

And I'm not necessarily partial to the idea of the British people "governing themselves" either, which is why I advocate a strong monarchical executive and unelected upper house to balance the Commons. I do not have a great deal of faith in the people.

As a thought experiment, I would challenge you this: could you conceive of a hypothetical system of government that maintains what you like about monarchism while at the same time eliminates both the precedence of heredity and the extension of the metaphor of country-as-family?

No.

What I like about monarchism is, in large part, the fact that monarchies are the traditional, native form of government of the vast majority of countries, having evolved naturally over time rather than being imposed from the top-down based on some abstract political theory. Any system that I were to dream up as a purely hypothetical scenario, independent of any historical tradition or precedent, would therefore by definition fail to maintain what I like about monarchy.

[Carinya]

You say that the key flaw in the Kaiserreich's constitution was the relationship between the army and the civil government, which is certainly something that I'd agree with even as an anarchist. My question to you, then, would be - what were the circumstances, either in their political system, their history, or their circumstances, that led to this flaw? And that established, why couldn't they solve it within their own system?

It's fairly straightforward. Imperial Germany was essentially an extension of Prussia, and Prussia was indisputably the dominant state in the union of German states. Prussia had a very long tradition as a military power, and was arguably the most militarised state in Europe at the time. The Prussian state began when the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order converted to Protestantism and secularised the order's lands, forming the Duchy of Prussia. Prussia placed a high emphasis on the military because it was a relatively small state surrounded by hostile countries, and the Prussian aristocracy, including the Prussian royal family, were expected to be well trained in military matters so as to serve as an elite officer corps. That strong tradition of militarism- so strong that Prussia has been called "an army with a country"- was continued by the Prussians after they made themselves the leaders of the new German Empire, and Prussian-German leaders like Otto von Bismarck continued the tradition of close relations between the army and the government. Additionally, the German Constitution was set up in such a way that the military was effectively independent of the civilian government and the Reichstag and reported only to the monarchy, because this was regarded as a way to help keep the democratic institutions of government in check and protect the power of the Kaiser. The Japanese adopted the same system, for the same reason. Unfortunately, rather than strengthening the powers of the German and Japanese emperors, this set-up only succeeded in allowing the militaries of Germany and Japan to become virtually independent of the state, functioning as "states within the state," and gradually acquiring more and more political capital. By the time the flaws in the system became apparent, it was too late to correct them- the militaries were too powerful and wouldn't allow any reduction of their power and influence.

A fair analysis.

I don't like the idea that some "nations" are better suited than others to strongman government; it smacks to me of a sort of "we can govern ourselves, but they need someone to govern them" kind of superiority complex. To my thinking, if there's something about a country in its present form that requires an autocratic system to realize, then it's a clear symptom that something is wrong with the country as an idea. "Russia" only needs to be an autocracy because there is something wrong with the dream of "Russia;" if there's no consensus, it gives rise to the question of whether they should be a single country.

Try telling that to a Russian. I think it's foolish to say that maybe Russia shouldn't be a single country; there's a very clear, very strong Russian national identity that is present from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. I don't see how it's in any way suggestive of a "superiority complex" on my part to say that countries other than my own may be better under their preferred indigenous system of government, rather than having the form of government I favour and which works best here in my homeland imposed upon them. I'm hardly the first person to observe that Russians seem to prefer "strongmen" type leaders- hence Putin's popularity, as well as that of historical strongman figures like Ivan IV and Josef Stalin in modern Russia. Ideally I would like Russia to adopt a liberal, constitutional monarchy, but Russia should govern itself as it pleases and most Russian monarchists I know feel that any restored Emperor or Empress of all the Russias should have at least substantially more power that Elizabeth II.

And I'm not necessarily partial to the idea of the British people "governing themselves" either, which is why I advocate a strong monarchical executive and unelected upper house to balance the Commons. I do not have a great deal of faith in the people.

There's no doubt in my mind that an ethnic Russian would feel that way, but I think the situation among other various Russianized peoples - Tatars, Buryats, and the like - might be different. Even if that's not the case, I can see no rational reason why people with different political ideologies born out of different economic concerns should be shackled together purely because they speak the same language. I think in this case you're putting the cart before the horse - I don't think that Putin is popular because he is a strongman, but rather that he can be a strongman because he is so popular among a large segment of the population.

As a thought experiment, I would challenge you this: could you conceive of a hypothetical system of government that maintains what you like about monarchism while at the same time eliminates both the precedence of heredity and the extension of the metaphor of country-as-family?

No.

What I like about monarchism is, in large part, the fact that monarchies are the traditional, native form of government of the vast majority of countries, having evolved naturally over time rather than being imposed from the top-down based on some abstract political theory. Any system that I were to dream up as a purely hypothetical scenario, independent of any historical tradition or precedent, would therefore by definition fail to maintain what I like about monarchy.

That's another interesting chicken-egg inversion, and one that I'd never heard before. I imagine you'll probably be exasperated by this question, but I want to make absolutely sure I understand what you're saying - that you prefer monarchy for monarchical countries because that's the way they've always done things, that it is the way we've always done things that you prize over the specifics of the monarchical institution, and that you would not recommend it to some place that had no tradition of it - say, some place historically ruled by a non-hereditary theocracy, or an Athenian-style democracy. Is that about it?

[Dushan]

I voted for the Holy Roman Empire Style Monarchy. A universal, supranational elective Monarchy would be the ideal form of Monarchy that stands at the very top of the Empire.

The various different Vassals, States and Subjects underneath retain their autonomy while still being united within the Imperium, the Universal State.

Ideally, this is how it should be.

This might also be the traditional form of Monarchy Europe could suit, rather than the European Union. However as Old Tyrannia put it at the end of this most excellent post:

What I like about monarchism is, in large part, the fact that monarchies are the traditional, native form of government of the vast majority of countries, having evolved naturally over time rather than being imposed from the top-down based on some abstract political theory. Any system that I were to dream up as a purely hypothetical scenario, independent of any historical tradition or precedent, would therefore by definition fail to maintain what I like about monarchy.

Once Monarchy has been abolished, the tradition been ended it is difficult to restore it. And where the line to tradition has been cut by Time and History a restauration would not make a lot of sense. I do not see it happen realistically either any time soon.

[Old Tyrannia]

Try telling that to a Russian. I think it's foolish to say that maybe Russia shouldn't be a single country; there's a very clear, very strong Russian national identity that is present from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. I don't see how it's in any way suggestive of a "superiority complex" on my part to say that countries other than my own may be better under their preferred indigenous system of government, rather than having the form of government I favour and which works best here in my homeland imposed upon them. I'm hardly the first person to observe that Russians seem to prefer "strongmen" type leaders- hence Putin's popularity, as well as that of historical strongman figures like Ivan IV and Josef Stalin in modern Russia. Ideally I would like Russia to adopt a liberal, constitutional monarchy, but Russia should govern itself as it pleases and most Russian monarchists I know feel that any restored Emperor or Empress of all the Russias should have at least substantially more power that Elizabeth II.

And I'm not necessarily partial to the idea of the British people "governing themselves" either, which is why I advocate a strong monarchical executive and unelected upper house to balance the Commons. I do not have a great deal of faith in the people.

There's no doubt in my mind that an ethnic Russian would feel that way, but I think the situation among other various Russianized peoples - Tatars, Buryats, and the like - might be different. Even if that's not the case, I can see no rational reason why people with different political ideologies born out of different economic concerns should be shackled together purely because they speak the same language. I think in this case you're putting the cart before the horse - I don't think that Putin is popular because he is a strongman, but rather that he can be a strongman because he is so popular among a large segment of the population.

I'm basing my comments on what I have been told by actual Russians whom I've met over the internet. I can't claim to be an expert on Russian politics, nor do I claim that it is my place to say what the best system of government for Russia is. I was simply saying that I accept the possibility that the system I prefer in my own country is not necessarily the best system for all countries. I was using Russia as an example as it has a strong historical trend towards centralism and absolutism, but if the Russian people prefer a more constitutional and democratic system then all power to them. I would prefer, however, that Russia were under a monarchy, both because tsarism is the natural and historical form of government of the Russian state and because the more monarchies exist in the world the more secure the position of my own sovereign.

No.

What I like about monarchism is, in large part, the fact that monarchies are the traditional, native form of government of the vast majority of countries, having evolved naturally over time rather than being imposed from the top-down based on some abstract political theory. Any system that I were to dream up as a purely hypothetical scenario, independent of any historical tradition or precedent, would therefore by definition fail to maintain what I like about monarchy.

That's another interesting chicken-egg inversion, and one that I'd never heard before. I imagine you'll probably be exasperated by this question, but I want to make absolutely sure I understand what you're saying - that you prefer monarchy for monarchical countries because that's the way they've always done things, that it is the way we've always done things that you prize over the specifics of the monarchical institution, and that you would not recommend it to some place that had no tradition of it - say, some place historically ruled by a non-hereditary theocracy, or an Athenian-style democracy. Is that about it?

Essentially, yes. I can point to many advantages of the monarchical system here in the United Kingdom, but I identify these advantages from a descriptive, not prescriptive, point of view. The question I ask is not, "what are the qualities of a perfect government?" but "what are the qualities that has allowed our form of government to be so successful in the past?". I have no issue with the existence of republics in other countries if there is no historical basis for a monarchical form of government and republicanism is the indigenous tradition; in fact, I'm rather partial towards some historical republics (i.e. Venice and arguably the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which blurred the line and existed at a time when "republic" and "monarchy" were not defined in the same way as they are today, hence why it was referred to at times both as the "Kingdom of Poland" and "Most Serene Republic of Poland."). Among modern states, I would not advocate a monarchy for Switzerland (which has an unusual form of government that works very well in its specific circumstances), for example.

However, I think such cases are rare, especially among larger nations, as hereditary governance and the investment of ultimate executive authority in one individual are both trends which seem to be ubiquitous in human history. Given time I expect most democratic republics to become aristocratic or monarchical states, just as the Roman Republic did.

[Carinya]

There's no doubt in my mind that an ethnic Russian would feel that way, but I think the situation among other various Russianized peoples - Tatars, Buryats, and the like - might be different. Even if that's not the case, I can see no rational reason why people with different political ideologies born out of different economic concerns should be shackled together purely because they speak the same language. I think in this case you're putting the cart before the horse - I don't think that Putin is popular because he is a strongman, but rather that he can be a strongman because he is so popular among a large segment of the population.

I'm basing my comments on what I have been told by actual Russians whom I've met over the internet. I can't claim to be an expert on Russian politics, nor do I claim that it is my place to say what the best system of government for Russia is. I was simply saying that I accept the possibility that the system I prefer in my own country is not necessarily the best system for all countries. I was using Russia as an example as it has a strong historical trend towards centralism and absolutism, but if the Russian people prefer a more constitutional and democratic system then all power to them. I would prefer, however, that Russia were under a monarchy, both because tsarism is the natural and historical form of government of the Russian state and because the more monarchies exist in the world the more secure the position of my own sovereign.

That's another interesting chicken-egg inversion, and one that I'd never heard before. I imagine you'll probably be exasperated by this question, but I want to make absolutely sure I understand what you're saying - that you prefer monarchy for monarchical countries because that's the way they've always done things, that it is the way we've always done things that you prize over the specifics of the monarchical institution, and that you would not recommend it to some place that had no tradition of it - say, some place historically ruled by a non-hereditary theocracy, or an Athenian-style democracy. Is that about it?

Essentially, yes. I can point to many advantages of the monarchical system here in the United Kingdom, but I identify these advantages from a descriptive, not prescriptive, point of view. The question I ask is not, "what are the qualities of a perfect government?" but "what are the qualities that has allowed our form of government to be so successful in the past?". I have no issue with the existence of republics in other countries if there is no historical basis for a monarchical form of government and republicanism is the indigenous tradition; in fact, I'm rather partial towards some historical republics (i.e. Venice and arguably the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which blurred the line and existed at a time when "republic" and "monarchy" were not defined in the same way as they are today, hence why it was referred to at times both as the "Kingdom of Poland" and "Most Serene Republic of Poland."). Among modern states, I would not advocate a monarchy for Switzerland (which has an unusual form of government that works very well in its specific circumstances), for example.

However, I think such cases are rare, especially among larger nations, as hereditary governance and the investment of ultimate executive authority in one individual are both trends which seem to be ubiquitous in human history. Given time I expect most democratic republics to become aristocratic or monarchical states, just as the Roman Republic did.

You've said a lot of very interesting things, and I'm very impressed with them. This leads me of course to my next question, which will in turn probably lead to my next again and then yet another until you're tired of doing this.

My next question is: how do we distinguish a "natural evolution" in state-governance from an "artificial imposition?" After all, every government has shifted over time; new rulers write new laws or eradicate old ones. How do we distinguish a "good" natural evolution from a bad "artificial imposition," if such a thing is possible?

[Noraika]

Both would be noteworthy in their own way, in my opinion.

In origin, His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I is better, for he had absolute power in his hands, and did not allow it to corrupt him. He's the exception to the rule that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. He put the people first ahead of his own interests, and did not let power and greed cloud his judgement. He is a testament to democratic values. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II rose to the thrown in turbulent times, but it was not to the same.

In reign, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is better, in that she is the exemplification of what it means to be a monarch. She has carried out her duties faithfully to the people, and has ruled with dignity, neutrality, and is all but a mother figure to the people she rules over. His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I's reign has been marred by scandals within the monarchy, and ended with his own abdication in scandal.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I find myself supportive of your analysis and can certainly accept that it is an internally consistent one. For myself, I'm a bigger fan of Juan Carlos than I think you are (which should be obvious from the fact that I introduced him to the discussion). If I may attempt to put your conclusions into metaphor, I think we might agree that if being a king were equivalent to the 500m hurdles, Juan Carlos has both cleared taller hurdles and tripped over more of them; Elizabeth has cleared her hurdles more adroitly, but they haven't been as intimidating as his were. Then again, I'm a sucker for that sort of story.

Since someone else mentioned Malaysia, I'd be interested in your thoughts on their system. Without going into too many details about their actual parliamentary procedures, it's enough for now to say that Malaysia has several constituent kingdoms - Perlis, Terangganu, etc. - and each one has a hereditary sultan, who is the son of the previous sultan and rules for life. However, these kings get together in something called the Conference of Rulers, and select one of their own to be a sort of super-king, called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who rules over all of the country for five years. You can even be YdPA twice - the current one started his current reign in 2011 but previously was the super-king from '70 to '75.

In fact, I'd like to probe your thoughts on several "gradients" of this system and see how you feel about each, but we can start with this.

I think that it is a manageable system to have. I'd especially think it useful for countries which have multiple monarchies within their realm which have existed up until this point. I will be honest in say that I do have a bias to a single house ruling over all the nation unopposed, since that's what I'm used to, and have lived under, with House Windsor in the Commonwealth Realms, and the Nordic monarchies, but I can entirely get behind the use of multiple monarchs under one banner where either history or culture is concerned. I can actually think that having multiple royal houses would be rather nice and interesting, but, with that said, I would prefer to have a single house with a consistent line of succession.

I definitely agree with your analogy! I couldn't have said it better myself! I'd love to discuss all these issues even more. Its nice to finally be able to discuss monarchism with other people who support it as a system of government.

[NERVUN]

Just tossing my two yen in, I rather like my adopted one, though I sometimes wish he'd stop scaring the farmers around here.

[The Nihilistic view]

To the OP's question the problem with most of Europe that does not have a monarch currently is who would become monarch. A lot of those countries have no realistic candidate that would get a lot of support. I think it is unrealistic to have any large return to monarchies as the majority form of heads of state. Eastern Europe offers the best bet, Montenegro has kind of gone halfway recently. A few other places there is decent support but overall not really going to happen.

The real point of focus for monarchists at the moment is the Spanish Royal Family. Though Felipe the new King seems to be doing a decent job of reversing the decline of it's popularity. They are at a crossroads similar to the British Royal family faced about 20 years ago. Hopefully Felipe can carry on improving things and get things right so in 20 years the monarchy will be a strong as ever in Spain. This is not passing judgement on Carlos as a bad King, I think he did some fantastic things in his time that really show what can be best about Monarchy and the mutual responsibility that should exist in my opinion between a monarch and their subjects. With everything that has gone on he was not really the King for now. I hate monarchs having to abdicate it makes me sad to see it but in the long term it might be for the best.

[NeuPolska]

I think that it is a manageable system to have. I'd especially think it useful for countries which have multiple monarchies within their realm which have existed up until this point. I will be honest in say that I do have a bias to a single house ruling over all the nation unopposed, since that's what I'm used to, and have lived under, with House Windsor in the Commonwealth Realms, and the Nordic monarchies, but I can entirely get behind the use of multiple monarchs under one banner where either history or culture is concerned. I can actually think that having multiple royal houses would be rather nice and interesting, but, with that said, I would prefer to have a single house with a consistent line of succession.

I definitely agree with your analogy! I couldn't have said it better myself! I'd love to discuss all these issues even more. Its nice to finally be able to discuss monarchism with other people who support it as a system of government.

Now see I myself also prefer having only one royal family as well. When you have more than one there's too much competition. There is going to be rivalry. The reason we're against republics is because of the constant squabbling between different political parties, usually the same two over and over. If there are multiple royal houses, it will essentially turn into the same thing, just instead of being titled a republic, it would be a monarchy. But multiple monarchs ruin the sanctity of the monarchy and therefore cannot happen. Succession gets confusing and things are ultimately worse because of it.

So I couldn't get behind the use of multiple monarchs under one banner, a single house is the only correct way to move forward.

[Carinya]

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I find myself supportive of your analysis and can certainly accept that it is an internally consistent one. For myself, I'm a bigger fan of Juan Carlos than I think you are (which should be obvious from the fact that I introduced him to the discussion). If I may attempt to put your conclusions into metaphor, I think we might agree that if being a king were equivalent to the 500m hurdles, Juan Carlos has both cleared taller hurdles and tripped over more of them; Elizabeth has cleared her hurdles more adroitly, but they haven't been as intimidating as his were. Then again, I'm a sucker for that sort of story.

Since someone else mentioned Malaysia, I'd be interested in your thoughts on their system. Without going into too many details about their actual parliamentary procedures, it's enough for now to say that Malaysia has several constituent kingdoms - Perlis, Terangganu, etc. - and each one has a hereditary sultan, who is the son of the previous sultan and rules for life. However, these kings get together in something called the Conference of Rulers, and select one of their own to be a sort of super-king, called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who rules over all of the country for five years. You can even be YdPA twice - the current one started his current reign in 2011 but previously was the super-king from '70 to '75.

In fact, I'd like to probe your thoughts on several "gradients" of this system and see how you feel about each, but we can start with this.

I think that it is a manageable system to have. I'd especially think it useful for countries which have multiple monarchies within their realm which have existed up until this point. I will be honest in say that I do have a bias to a single house ruling over all the nation unopposed, since that's what I'm used to, and have lived under, with House Windsor in the Commonwealth Realms, and the Nordic monarchies, but I can entirely get behind the use of multiple monarchs under one banner where either history or culture is concerned. I can actually think that having multiple royal houses would be rather nice and interesting, but, with that said, I would prefer to have a single house with a consistent line of succession.

I definitely agree with your analogy! I couldn't have said it better myself! I'd love to discuss all these issues even more. Its nice to finally be able to discuss monarchism with other people who support it as a system of government.

I do not believe in monarchy, personally; I am an anarchist and oppose coercive power in all its forms. My personal regard for ol' JC is deep, as he personally has done some heroic deeds, but at the same time I'd rather he stepped down completely and handed his absolute power to a republic on the lines of the one that Franco destroyed.

So, since we're doing this, let's riff on it a little. Let me get your regards on the following systems:

1) The "CK2." The country is composed of regions with hereditary monarchs, one of which is also hereditarily the super-king.

2) The "Limited HRE." The country is composed of regions with hereditary monarchs, one of which is also the super-king. Upon the death of the super-king, a vote is held among the hereditary monarchs to see which of them (including the former super-king's valid heir for his own non-super-kingdom) becomes the next super-king for life.

3) The "Inverse HRE." The country is composed of regions with hereditary monarchs, and also has one super-king. Upon the death of the super-king, a vote is held among the hereditary monarchs to see who will become the next super-king for life. The hereditary monarchs cannot vote for one of their own number; it must be someone else.

4) The "Turtles On Down." As per number 2, except each of the hereditary monarchs is an elected super-king in their own right, elected by their own elite constituents. A number of further riffs on number 4 can be imagined, going down even further.

5) The "Bottom Turtles." As per number 4, except that the bottom of this matryoshka lands on genuine universal suffrage.

6) The "Semi-Democracy." As per number 2, except for the fact that on the death of the super-king, an election is held by universal suffrage to see which of the hereditary monarchs will spend the rest of their lives as the super-king.

7) The "Rotating HRE." As per number 2, except that there is no voting - lifetime super-kingship passes between the electors in a strict order of precedence that is established well ahead of time.

The "Rotating, Limited HRE." As per number 7, except that super-kingship is only held for a fixed term before it passes to the next person down the list.

9) The "Seniority HRE." As per number 2, except that there is no voting - at the death of the super-king, the super-kingship passes automatically to the eldest eligible candidate.

10) The "Landsraad." There are a number of variations on this method, but the essential element of all of them is that the people who choose the next monarch are otherwise private people, with no other authority in their own right - at the death of the super-king, the Landsraad chooses another one from among the eligible hereditary monarchs. The membership of the Landsraad could consist partially of the hereditary monarchs, or from both the eligible monarchs and their own electors, or from people elected by universal suffrage or second-order universal suffrage. It would take a list at least as long as this one to elucidate all the possibilities, but the central theme is that the choosing is essentially in the hands of people who can't choose themselves.

11) The "X With Impeachment." As per numbers 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9, except that the super-king must appear before the electors for periodic review; failing that review, they proceed as though the super-king had either died or had their term expired.

EDIT: Oh, and one more, just to make sure we've covered a lot of bases.

12) The "Qing Solution." The monarch, or super-king, has the power to leave the Crown and its institutions to anybody they want, in their will - a suffrage of one with as many candidates as there are subjects, or indeed people in the world.

[Carinya]

I think that it is a manageable system to have. I'd especially think it useful for countries which have multiple monarchies within their realm which have existed up until this point. I will be honest in say that I do have a bias to a single house ruling over all the nation unopposed, since that's what I'm used to, and have lived under, with House Windsor in the Commonwealth Realms, and the Nordic monarchies, but I can entirely get behind the use of multiple monarchs under one banner where either history or culture is concerned. I can actually think that having multiple royal houses would be rather nice and interesting, but, with that said, I would prefer to have a single house with a consistent line of succession.

I definitely agree with your analogy! I couldn't have said it better myself! I'd love to discuss all these issues even more. Its nice to finally be able to discuss monarchism with other people who support it as a system of government.

Now see I myself also prefer having only one royal family as well. When you have more than one there's too much competition. There is going to be rivalry. The reason we're against republics is because of the constant squabbling between different political parties, usually the same two over and over. If there are multiple royal houses, it will essentially turn into the same thing, just instead of being titled a republic, it would be a monarchy. But multiple monarchs ruin the sanctity of the monarchy and therefore cannot happen. Succession gets confusing and things are ultimately worse because of it.

So I couldn't get behind the use of multiple monarchs under one banner, a single house is the only correct way to move forward.

Provided you had a clear set of rules, I don't see why having multiple monarchs would ruin its sanctity.

[New confederate ramenia]

Multiple Monarchs is an oxymoron

[Noraika]

Multiple Monarchs is an oxymoron

Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates both would like to disagree with you.

[NeuPolska]

Provided you had a clear set of rules, I don't see why having multiple monarchs would ruin its sanctity.

I personally see a monarch being traditionally a sole ruler, I suppose if he or she has a wife or husband then they could be joint rulers, but that's the only way I would find it acceptable to have more than one monarch (and really only one of the spouses would be the official monarch anyway). Having rules is all fine and everything, until succession becomes an issue. Even with laws in place people will complain and it'll wind up being a power struggle. The biggest problem is if there are several monarchs ruling at one time. Despite rules, they may still disagree over policies, and it'll only destabilize the monarchy. Multiple monarchs makes the country less centralized as well, and generally decentralization is a bad thing, especially if you have trigger-happy neighbors. We wouldn't want our hypothetical monarchy being in a similar situation as Ukraine, would we?

[New confederate ramenia]

Multiple Monarchs is an oxymoron

Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates both would like to disagree with you.

The Emirs of the UAE all rule over their own Emirates, they're the only monarchs over their own emirates. The President and Prime Minister, while de facto hereditary, are legally elected positions.

You might be right about Malaysia, but I don't think they could be called "monarchs" then.