NationStates

Conserative Morality wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote: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.

Prince Philip is married to the Queen, yet not a King and of foreign birth. He's just annoyed since everyone ignores him.

The Queen has an 80% approval rating in the UK, is just as popular in the USA and well liked in many countries around the globe. And no one lines the streets cheering for some drab diplomat, but they do for the Queen. So the monarchy is very effective at increasing and improving the international opinion of the UK. And it's not like we don't have a diplomatic core, but they could never be as effective as the monarchy.

Can you provide definitions for each of the poll options?

I would be surprised if someone could give me three or four good reasons to support Monarchism. Humans should have moved past such antiquated and short sighted forms of government by now, and the fact that we haven't is slightly depressing.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Prince Philip is married to the Queen, yet not a King and of foreign birth. He's just annoyed since everyone ignores him.

Prince Phillip's stature comes purely from the monarchy. The fact that he himself isn't monarch isn't particularly relevant unless we're discounting Prince Harry et co now.

The Queen has an 80% approval rating in the UK, is just as popular in the USA and well liked in many countries around the globe. And no one lines the streets cheering for some drab diplomat, but they do for the Queen. So the monarchy is very effective at increasing and improving the international opinion of the UK.

No one lines the streets cheering for some drab diplomat because it's not a diplomat's job to be popular or famous. It's a diplomat's job to be able to negotiate, to understand the position of other entities, etc etc. Fame, if anything, makes hammering out deals harder since the focus is going to be on you personally for whatever deals you make, while being unknown means you're free to make the optimal choice regardless of how popular or unpopular it is.

And it's not like we don't have a diplomatic core, but they could never be as effective as the monarchy.

Right, that's why world hegemony revolves around the UK and not the US.

I have never gotten the appeal of a monarchy. Why does a person have the right to rule just because they were born to the right family?

I can see supporting a monarch by divine right. Any other form of monarchy is not really monarchy, but a restitution of the phasing-out of monarchy.

Hakons wrote:I have never gotten the appeal of a monarchy. Why does a person have the right to rule just because they were born to the right family?

You can't really understand it from a modernist, individualist perspective. From a pre-modernist perspective, one thought in terms of families, not of self, so it is rather a particular family which sits upon the throne, not an individual who "happens to be" from a the right family.

Spiffier wrote:I can see supporting a monarch by divine right. Any other form of monarchy is not really monarchy, but a restitution of the phasing-out of monarchy.

Divine right just isn't true though. God doesn't pick entire family lines as people fit for ruling. All humans are equal under God. Of course, I'm saying this from a Protestant point of view, and I can't speak for other branches like Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

Hakons wrote:

Spiffier wrote:I can see supporting a monarch by divine right. Any other form of monarchy is not really monarchy, but a restitution of the phasing-out of monarchy.

Divine right just isn't true though. God doesn't pick entire family lines as people fit for ruling. All humans are equal under God. Of course, I'm saying this from a Protestant point of view, and I can't speak for other branches like Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

Divine right is foolish because it assumes that there is a divine will. But I suppose that such primitive thinking as this goes hand in hand with the kind of thinking needed to convince yourself that Monarchism in general is a good idea.

Hakons wrote:

Spiffier wrote:I can see supporting a monarch by divine right. Any other form of monarchy is not really monarchy, but a restitution of the phasing-out of monarchy.

Divine right just isn't true though. God doesn't pick entire family lines as people fit for ruling. All humans are equal under God. Of course, I'm saying this from a Protestant point of view, and I can't speak for other branches like Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

Romans 13

Protestants were actually the people who pushed most strongly for divine right, in order to put the spiritual authority of the king at odds with the Pope.

Spiffier wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Divine right just isn't true though. God doesn't pick entire family lines as people fit for ruling. All humans are equal under God. Of course, I'm saying this from a Protestant point of view, and I can't speak for other branches like Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

Romans 13

Protestants were actually the people who pushed most strongly for divine right, in order to put the spiritual authority of the king at odds with the Pope.

After a quick read through, the chapter says to obey leadership that follows the word of the Lord. That makes sense, but it never said anything thing about hereditary rule.

Hakons wrote:

Spiffier wrote:Romans 13

Protestants were actually the people who pushed most strongly for divine right, in order to put the spiritual authority of the king at odds with the Pope.

After a quick read through, the chapter says to obey leadership that follows the word of the Lord. That makes sense, but it never said anything thing about hereditary rule.

After reading it myself it seems quite obvious that it says in clear terms to obey all authority for there is no authority on Earth except that authority which God has established.

Yet you can't take any specific section from the Bible that seriously as there is bound to be another section that contradicts it. For example in Acts 5:29 you are told to obey God but not men, but as has been pointed out Romans 13 tells you to obey men.

The Isles of Lux wrote:

Hakons wrote:
After a quick read through, the chapter says to obey leadership that follows the word of the Lord. That makes sense, but it never said anything thing about hereditary rule.

After reading it myself it seems quite obvious that it says in clear terms to obey all authority for there is no authority on Earth except that authority which God has established.

" For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." A lot of monarchs held terror for those who did no wrong. Therefore, the people do not have to abide by the monarch's rule. Once again, the chapter says absolutely nothing about monarchy.

Hakons wrote:

Spiffier wrote:Romans 13

Protestants were actually the people who pushed most strongly for divine right, in order to put the spiritual authority of the king at odds with the Pope.

After a quick read through, the chapter says to obey leadership that follows the word of the Lord. That makes sense, but it never said anything thing about hereditary rule.

It says authority has divine right.

Once again, I must remind you that until modern times, people did not think in terms of self, but in terms of family. Monarchy was not thought in terms of "a new self is ruling because he happened to come from the right family", it was rather thought in terms of, "a family is ruling". People thought in terms of, "Which family should rule?" not "which self should rule"? You could say, "It is unfair this family should rule instead of another family," but to talk in terms of selves would be anachronistic.

Hakons wrote:

The Isles of Lux wrote:After reading it myself it seems quite obvious that it says in clear terms to obey all authority for there is no authority on Earth except that authority which God has established.

" For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." A lot of monarchs held terror for those who did no wrong. Therefore, the people do not have to abide by the monarch's rule. Once again, the chapter says absolutely nothing about monarchy.

According to the chapter, if the rulers hold terror for them then they did wrong. For only those who do wrong must fear rulers, as you have just pointed out in that quote. And the chapter may not invoke any specific government, but it certainly seems to say that all governments are to be obeyed, and it would be illogical to assume that it means all governments.. except hereditary ones.

But my original point was that the Bible or any other holy book is a bad basis to build your political views upon. The theory of divine right is fundamentally wrong in that it assumes that there is a divine will.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote: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.

Oh, this old argument. Where did they get this land? Did they buy it from someone? Was it given to them by God? Or did they or their ancestors perhaps come in with fire and sword and steal the land and enslave its former occupants? Hint: it's the latter. And even if this queen is particularly old and seasoned, you're still playing the genetic lottery - what if the next king is an asshole?

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Prince Philip is married to the Queen, yet not a King and of foreign birth. He's just annoyed since everyone ignores him.

The Queen has an 80% approval rating in the UK, is just as popular in the USA and well liked in many countries around the globe. And no one lines the streets cheering for some drab diplomat, but they do for the Queen. So the monarchy is very effective at increasing and improving the international opinion of the UK. And it's not like we don't have a diplomatic core, but they could never be as effective as the monarchy.

Of course the queen has a high popularity; she doesn't actually do anything to disapprove of. If she had to actually put out policies and oversee their implementation, do you think that'd last? Of course it wouldn't.

Spiffier wrote:You can't really understand it from a modernist, individualist perspective. From a pre-modernist perspective, one thought in terms of families, not of self, so it is rather a particular family which sits upon the throne, not an individual who "happens to be" from a the right family.

Now would be a grand time for some primary sources on that.

Carinya wrote:Now would be a grand time for some primary sources on that.

One has only to look at the Bible, which says that if you are baptized, your whole household is saved (Acts 16:31). In Discipline and Punish, Foucault shows that Medieval life was centered around the concept of blood, from identity, to punishment, to Holy Communion, to war--blood was the measure of all things in the same way sex and money are today. Ministerials were serfs who were elevated to aristocracy, as a family, and this wasn't due to individual merit, but the prestigious service of the serf family over generations. Individualism, as a prevailing worldview, did not start to take roots until the Enlightenment.

Spiffier wrote:

Carinya wrote:Now would be a grand time for some primary sources on that.

One has only to look at the Bible, which says that if you are baptized, your whole household is saved (Acts 16:31). In Discipline and Punish, Foucault shows that Medieval life was centered around the concept of blood, from identity, to punishment, to Holy Communion, to war--blood was the measure of all things in the same way sex and money are today. Ministerials were serfs who were elevated to aristocracy, as a family, and this wasn't due to individual merit, but the prestigious service of the serf family over generations. Individualism, as a prevailing worldview, did not start to take roots until the Enlightenment.

I haven't read either of those, and I'll take your word for what they say. But even if that's the case, I maintain it as vacuous; what ancient peoples believed is of no consequence to us in deciding what we today should do.

Carinya wrote:

Spiffier wrote:One has only to look at the Bible, which says that if you are baptized, your whole household is saved (Acts 16:31). In Discipline and Punish, Foucault shows that Medieval life was centered around the concept of blood, from identity, to punishment, to Holy Communion, to war--blood was the measure of all things in the same way sex and money are today. Ministerials were serfs who were elevated to aristocracy, as a family, and this wasn't due to individual merit, but the prestigious service of the serf family over generations. Individualism, as a prevailing worldview, did not start to take roots until the Enlightenment.

I haven't read either of those, and I'll take your word for what they say. But even if that's the case, I maintain it as vacuous; what ancient peoples believed is of no consequence to us in deciding what we today should do.

What I'm saying is that you can't see the purpose or value of it, if you don't first accept a radically different set of values and a different method of constructing identity. If you don't, then of course there's no value to it, it's like trying to sell a teetotaler on the quality of a wine.

Furthermore, I think monarchists who don't hold pre-modernist values, are not really going to wrap their heads around the soul of monarchy, and opt for ideologies of monarchy that were ultimately not about reforming monarchy, but rather about effacing it as much as possible, it's just this dissolution was a gradual process so it looks like each stage is a particular stance, but that's really not the case.

Spiffier wrote:What I'm saying is that you can't see the purpose or value of it, if you don't first accept a radically different set of values and a different method of constructing identity. If you don't, then of course there's no value to it, it's like trying to sell a teetotaler on the quality of a wine.

Furthermore, I think monarchists who don't hold pre-modernist values, are not really going to wrap their heads around the soul of monarchy, and opt for ideologies of monarchy that were ultimately not about reforming monarchy, but rather about effacing it as much as possible, it's just this dissolution was a gradual process so it looks like each stage is a particular stance, but that's really not the case.

Well, since we're doing "sell me on," what would you say are the advantages of that set of values and of that method of identity construction?

Carinya wrote:

Spiffier wrote:What I'm saying is that you can't see the purpose or value of it, if you don't first accept a radically different set of values and a different method of constructing identity. If you don't, then of course there's no value to it, it's like trying to sell a teetotaler on the quality of a wine.

Furthermore, I think monarchists who don't hold pre-modernist values, are not really going to wrap their heads around the soul of monarchy, and opt for ideologies of monarchy that were ultimately not about reforming monarchy, but rather about effacing it as much as possible, it's just this dissolution was a gradual process so it looks like each stage is a particular stance, but that's really not the case.

Well, since we're doing "sell me on," what would you say are the advantages of that set of values and of that method of identity construction?

The topic is so complex and involved that it will probably take more than you would care to invest your time or energy in, assuming you even have enough to spare (which you probably don't if you're in uni or something). Unless you're born into that way of thought, it's really only something you arrive at by reading a lot of books that force you to reevaluate your perspective. If you're interested in the topic, I would be happy to help you out with it, but if it doesn't interest you, then it's not really worth your getting involved in. I have monarchist sympathies, but it's never something I'd actively argue for, it's not a political system that will come back in the West barring some fantastic coming together of occurrences; serious monarchism as an ideology is a niche, like people who are interested in an obscure subject that no one else will ever care about.

Spiffier wrote:

Carinya wrote:Well, since we're doing "sell me on," what would you say are the advantages of that set of values and of that method of identity construction?

The topic is so complex and involved that it will probably take more than you would care to invest your time or energy in, assuming you even have enough to spare (which you probably don't if you're in uni or something). Unless you're born into that way of thought, it's really only something you arrive at by reading a lot of books that force you to reevaluate your perspective. If you're interested in the topic, I would be happy to help you out with it, but if it doesn't interest you, then it's not really worth your getting involved in. I have monarchist sympathies, but it's never something I'd actively argue for, it's not a political system that will come back in the West barring some fantastic coming together of occurrences; serious monarchism as an ideology is a niche, like people who are interested in an obscure subject that no one else will ever care about.

Fair enough. I won't lie, this isn't really my field of interest, but I appreciate the fact that it's yours.

So! Somebody who knows a lot about this is saying it's a bad idea. Next?

Dooom35796821595 wrote:There are still several monarchs in Europe, most notably Queen Elizebeth II of the United Kingdom. There is also Spain, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Luxembourg.

They've got about as much authority as a mall cop.

I'm the only vote for Saudi.

Major-Tom wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:There are still several monarchs in Europe, most notably Queen Elizebeth II of the United Kingdom. There is also Spain, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Luxembourg.

They've got about as much authority as a mall cop.

Not true. There are certainly better examples, but this is worth looking at. Monarchs still have power, it just isn't as obvious as people would think.