Monarchist discussion thread

[NeuPolska]

Can the OP explain the differences between the different poll options? I get the obvious ones, but I can't seem to remember the difference between Imperial Germany's monarchy and Prussia's. I thought Prussia had an absolute monarch?

Anyhow, the monarchy isn't likely to return in places like France (the revolution was simply too bloody), but in Russia, Germany, Bulgaria, or Italy I think it could happen. I myself support a monarchy with more power than the UK's monarchy, but still limited by a constitution or laws. Where the British monarch is weaker than the parliament, my ideal monarchy would put them at about equal. Though if parliament vastly supports a certain bill, the monarch has to let it go through, but if it's pretty split, then the monarch has the ultimate power to decide which side to choose. Kind of as a stabilizing factor. If the monarch wants something to go through, some support is needed from parliament, but not the majority.

Modern republics are such a messy clump of bad choices. And if you have a good leader, they've only got a few years in office. And then it becomes more of a competition between political parties than what people actually want. Monarchies represent stability. I would support bringing the Polish monarchy back. Times are rough right now and we need ensured stability and strength. Only reason we don't have one anymore is because of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, and also because after WWI monarchies stopped being the cool thing to do.

[Engleberg]

What makes you favor the UK? I myself prefer the Prussian form of monarchism, for it seems more efficient to me.

Mostly because modern people are too used to the idea of democracy to get rid of it entirely. Giving them a little bit of say, just enough to maintain stability. The UK model, or more accurately a modified version of a Parliamentarian system, at leas gives the illusion of democracy

Ah yes, democracy always rears its head around these parts. I suppose it would be nearly impossible to reinstate the Prussian form, because it's not "democratic" enough. If you were to use the UK system, is there anything that you would particularly change about it?

[The Liberated Territories]

La Republique nous appelle!

Really, I don't understand the appeal of monarchy beyond bling.

+1

Personally, I think we have enough old farts ruling us.

[Great Feng]

Can the OP explain the differences between the different poll options? I get the obvious ones, but I can't seem to remember the difference between Imperial Germany's monarchy and Prussia's. I thought Prussia had an absolute monarch?

Anyhow, the monarchy isn't likely to return in places like France (the revolution was simply too bloody), but in Russia, Germany, Bulgaria, or Italy I think it could happen. I myself support a monarchy with more power than the UK's monarchy, but still limited by a constitution or laws. Where the British monarch is weaker than the parliament, my ideal monarchy would put them at about equal. Though if parliament vastly supports a certain bill, the monarch has to let it go through, but if it's pretty split, then the monarch has the ultimate power to decide which side to choose. Kind of as a stabilizing factor. If the monarch wants something to go through, some support is needed from parliament, but not the majority.

Modern republics are such a messy clump of bad choices. And if you have a good leader, they've only got a few years in office. And then it becomes more of a competition between political parties than what people actually want. Monarchies represent stability. I would support bringing the Polish monarchy back. Times are rough right now and we need ensured stability and strength. Only reason we don't have one anymore is because of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, and also because after WWI monarchies stopped being the cool thing to do.

You believe basically my exact same beliefs.

[Britanania]

Mostly because modern people are too used to the idea of democracy to get rid of it entirely. Giving them a little bit of say, just enough to maintain stability. The UK model, or more accurately a modified version of a Parliamentarian system, at leas gives the illusion of democracy

Ah yes, democracy always rears its head around these parts. I suppose it would be nearly impossible to reinstate the Prussian form, because it's not "democratic" enough. If you were to use the UK system, is there anything that you would particularly change about it?

Yeah, basically I would give the Crown the powers of the French Prime Minister along with the powers it already has.

[Arumdaum]

My thoughts on monarchies.

i agree with this

[NeuPolska]

You believe basically my exact same beliefs.

Then the only difference is I'm likely way more right wing, but at least if we were to live under the same monarch, we'd at least be able to agree on the style of our government.

[Great Feng]

You believe basically my exact same beliefs.

Then the only difference is I'm likely way more right wing, but at least if we were to live under the same monarch, we'd at least be able to agree on the style of our government.

True, I'm more left wing. But still Pro-Life.

[Bermon]

A legitamate Monarchy will never return to Europe without inevitable violence, destablization, and war preceeding it.

[NeuPolska]

A legitamate Monarchy will never return to Europe without inevitable violence, destablization, and war preceeding it.

Well Europe still has plenty of monarchies as it is. It's just a matter of there being a noble family wanting to rule, and people being fed up with the politics of a republic.

[Britanania]

I suppose in many ways, my ideal monarchy has more in common with Japan after the Meiji Restoration, at least at the top of the government, although ideally local leaders (read: nobles and elected officials) would be doing most of the governing.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Doesn't matter to me too much. As I've said before I admire the British monarchy a symbol of cultural unity among Commonwealth nations, so as long as it's not absolute it's fine

[Engleberg]

A legitamate Monarchy will never return to Europe without inevitable violence, destablization, and war preceeding it.

Well Europe still has plenty of monarchies as it is. It's just a matter of there being a noble family wanting to rule, and people being fed up with the politics of a republic.

You never know, people might eventually get tired of a republic. After a while, it does become inefficient and boring.

[Dejanic]

I support the monarchy in Britain purely because I don't want a president Cameron, or a president Corbyn. That and It's a nice little bit of history that does no harm to our society (it benefits it).

[Conserative Morality]

You never know, people might eventually get tired of a republic. After a while, it does become inefficient and boring.

As opposed to inefficient and boring monarchies?

[Great Feng]

You never know, people might eventually get tired of a republic. After a while, it does become inefficient and boring.

As opposed to inefficient and boring monarchies?

At least monarchies don't squabble over stupid things like the european and amereican republics though. Yes they do have petty squabbles, but compared to the amount of squabbles in Europe and USA today, and yes they do have squabbles in parliament, but not nearly as much.

[Dooom35796821595]

You never know, people might eventually get tired of a republic. After a while, it does become inefficient and boring.

As opposed to inefficient and boring monarchies?

The British Monarchy is very efficient and far from boring.

[Conserative Morality]

At least monarchies don't squabble over stupid things like the european and amereican republics though. Yes they do have petty squabbles, but compared to the amount of squabbles in Europe and USA today, and yes they do have squabbles in parliament, but not nearly as much.

Is this the part where I bring up how succession crises and civil war over crowns were basically national pastimes before the 20th century?

[Conserative Morality]

The British Monarchy is very efficient and far from boring.

The British monarchy is boring as hell and doesn't do jack.

I really don't care about the latest princess or prince's escapades, I don't care about their children, I don't care what music they listen to. It's as boring as every other celebrity obsession in the world.

[Dooom35796821595]

The British Monarchy is very efficient and far from boring.

The British monarchy is boring as hell and doesn't do jack.

I really don't care about the latest princess or prince's escapades, I don't care about their children, I don't care what music they listen to. It's as boring as every other celebrity obsession in the world.

They're not there to be that sort of celebrity, that's the stupid paparazzi and gossip columns not knowing their place. I'd say send them to the tower, but liberal democracy and what not.

The Monarchy does a lot, from military service to charity work and a lot of diplomacy. The queen has more Royal appointments then there are days in a year, Prince Harry is doing good work with the Invictus Games and Prince William is raising potentual future monarchs.

[Conserative Morality]

The Monarchy does a lot, from military service to charity work and a lot of diplomacy.

Token individual military service is not any great benefit. Their charity work comes only from the absurd amounts of money spent on them - essentially running tax welfare through a middleman who gets all the glory. Diplomacy is very easily handled by, you know, diplomats and government officials. Monarchs are no better at this and may very well be worse, lacking any requirements for dedicated training in such matters (see: Prince Phillip).

[Al-Portug]

very great deal of power for the monarch

Infinite power corrupts infinitely.

/notamonarchist

Power doesn't corrupt, power attracts the corruptible.

[Dooom35796821595]

The Monarchy does a lot, from military service to charity work and a lot of diplomacy.

Token individual military service is not any great benefit. Their charity work comes only from the absurd amounts of money spent on them - essentially running tax welfare through a middleman who gets all the glory. Diplomacy is very easily handled by, you know, diplomats and government officials. Monarchs are no better at this and may very well be worse, lacking any requirements for dedicated training in such matters (see: Prince Phillip).

It raises the profile of the military and inspires additional applicants.
The government actually makes a net gain, since they get about £200 million a year in land rent, money that would go back to the windsors if they were to abdicate.
The Queen has seen 12 PMs come and go and has decades of experiance, and a higher profile then any diplomat. And politicians are inheriently political and a dime a dozen.

[Conserative Morality]

Power doesn't corrupt, power attracts the corruptible.

Power doesn't attract the corruptible, power attracts the ambitious, and ambitious people *do* things. The idle are rarely perceived as corrupt.

[Conserative Morality]

It raises the profile of the military and inspires additional applicants.
The government actually makes a net gain, since they get about £200 million a year in land rent, money that would go back to the windsors if they were to abdicate.
The Queen has seen 12 PMs come and go and has decades of experiance, and a higher profile then any diplomat. And politicians are inheriently political and a dime a dozen.

Prince Phillip has seen just as many PMs come and go, having been married to Elizabeth since before she was queen, and he's still adept at putting his foot in his mouth. Diplomatic affairs are about qualification and temperament as well as experience. That's why Joe Average doesn't become a diplomat - it takes a certain kind of person. And you said politicians are inherently political, but... I don't understand the problem there? It is quite literally the job of politicians to deal with the politics of a country.