Monarchism Thread

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Do you really, though? Please tell me without copy and pasting an essay from somewhere.

Wikipedia is always right

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call Poe's Law on this one. Have a nice evening.

And why can the DPRK not be considered as a monarchy trying to unite its country again? If they conquer the rest of Korea, would they then be considered a monarchy?

Because the DPRK is a nation created through communist actions. While it is a Juche state, communism and monarchism can never mix.

Okay, now this is closer to a clear answer. The DPRK's economic system is incompatible with a monarchy? That makes sense now. Thank you.

[Engleberg]

Wikipedia is always right

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call Poe's Law on this one. Have a nice evening.

Because the DPRK is a nation created through communist actions. While it is a Juche state, communism and monarchism can never mix.

Okay, now this is closer to a clear answer. The DPRK's economic system is incompatible with a monarchy? That makes sense now. Thank you.

I apologise for not making this clearer previously.

[Kanadorika]

I support the reestablishment of the German Empire with the Hohenzollerns at the top once more. If it has to be a constitutional monarchy, so be it.

You would prefer an absolute one?

I believe it depends on the people. Russia, for example, would need to bring back the Tsar with absolute powers (or at least post 1906 authority), as Russia has always been an authoritarian nation and I see no way of this changing soon. It's simply engrained in Russian culture.

Other nations, particularly liberal democracies, could be constitutional, but the monarch still should have the power of royal prerogative.

[New Greater Netherlands]

Wikipedia is always right

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call Poe's Law on this one. Have a nice evening.

Because the DPRK is a nation created through communist actions. While it is a Juche state, communism and monarchism can never mix.

Okay, now this is closer to a clear answer. The DPRK's economic system is incompatible with a monarchy? That makes sense now. Thank you.

Are you blind? It's 3:05 AM! And you need to stop this, because everyone here disagrees with you

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call Poe's Law on this one. Have a nice evening.


Okay, now this is closer to a clear answer. The DPRK's economic system is incompatible with a monarchy? That makes sense now. Thank you.

I apologise for not making this clearer previously.

It's no problem, mate. Thank you.

So, my confusion remains: what is the difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship?

Monarchy is more tradition-based, and pretty much always has to do with bloodlines.

Dictatorships don't rely on tradition nor bloodlines, but rather is based on military control alone.

So, the Roman emperors would not be considered monarchs, but rather dictatorships? More similar to the Japanese stratocratic feudalism than a proper monarchy?

[Principality of the Raix]

Monarchy is more tradition-based, and pretty much always has to do with bloodlines.

Dictatorships don't rely on tradition nor bloodlines, but rather is based on military control alone.

So, the Roman emperors would not be considered monarchs, but rather dictatorships? More similar to the Japanese stratocratic feudalism than a proper monarchy?

Yes, the Romans were known as dictators basically as they took over a republic. Basically, however many were elected. But not by the people, exception of Caesar.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call Poe's Law on this one. Have a nice evening.


Okay, now this is closer to a clear answer. The DPRK's economic system is incompatible with a monarchy? That makes sense now. Thank you.

Are you blind? It's 3:05 AM! And you need to stop this, because everyone here disagrees with you

Am I blind? No, I am not. I did not ask what time of day it was. If you are unable to debate properly because it is late, might I recommend logging off and going to sleep?

And what are they disagreeing with me about? I am not trying to hold a stance. I am simply trying to clear up my personal confusion on where the line between a dictatorship and a monarchy is. And since when does being the only one to argue one side mean I have to stop? You hold no power or sway here, so I think I'd continue.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

So, the Roman emperors would not be considered monarchs, but rather dictatorships? More similar to the Japanese stratocratic feudalism than a proper monarchy?

Yes, the Romans were known as dictators basically as they took over a republic. Basically, however many were elected. But not by the people, exception of Caesar.

Okay, but would this be just for the Principate? Or would it extend to the Dominate, too? What about its continuation in the Byzantines?

[New Greater Netherlands]

Are you blind? It's 3:05 AM! And you need to stop this, because everyone here disagrees with you

Am I blind? No, I am not. I did not ask what time of day it was. If you are unable to debate properly because it is late, might I recommend logging off and going to sleep?

And what are they disagreeing with me about? I am not trying to hold a stance. I am simply trying to clear up my personal confusion on where the line between a dictatorship and a monarchy is. And since when does being the only one to argue one side mean I have to stop? You hold no power or sway here, so I think I'd continue.

Then don't tell me what to do

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Am I blind? No, I am not. I did not ask what time of day it was. If you are unable to debate properly because it is late, might I recommend logging off and going to sleep?

And what are they disagreeing with me about? I am not trying to hold a stance. I am simply trying to clear up my personal confusion on where the line between a dictatorship and a monarchy is. And since when does being the only one to argue one side mean I have to stop? You hold no power or sway here, so I think I'd continue.

Then don't tell me what to do

I'm going to go ahead and put you on my ignore list as I do not feel you are interested in actual and thought-provoking debate. Goodbye.

[Principality of the Raix]

Yes, the Romans were known as dictators basically as they took over a republic. Basically, however many were elected. But not by the people, exception of Caesar.

Okay, but would this be just for the Principate? Or would it extend to the Dominate, too? What about its continuation in the Byzantines?

The Byzantines, basically placed or claimed Monarchism. While the split of Rome and reunification was done through the action of Generals or Councilors playing General depends your view. However, they were not elected by the people to be the Caesar or King. They would basically be Dictatorships, all except for the Byzantine; Which was renamed that after the fall and they claimed more of a Theocratic Monarchy. Being highly religious and all.

Edited in: I always loved studying the roman emperors and rome itself, in general.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Okay, but would this be just for the Principate? Or would it extend to the Dominate, too? What about its continuation in the Byzantines?

The Byzantines, basically placed or claimed Monarchism. While the split of Rome and reunification was done through the action of Generals or Councilors playing General depends your view. However, they were not elected by the people to be the Caesar or King. They would basically be Dictatorships, all except for the Byzantine; Which was renamed that after the fall and they claimed more of a Theocratic Monarchy. Being highly religious and all.

Yeah. Defenders of Christianity in the East and all that jazz.

But then what about the Dominate? I can understand the Prinicipate, what with its obsession with "first among equals" and maintaining an aura of republicanism, but the Dominate grows a bit more complex to me.

[New Greater Netherlands]

Then don't tell me what to do

I'm going to go ahead and put you on my ignore list as I do not feel you are interested in actual and thought-provoking debate. Goodbye.

Shut up

[Principality of the Raix]

The Byzantines, basically placed or claimed Monarchism. While the split of Rome and reunification was done through the action of Generals or Councilors playing General depends your view. However, they were not elected by the people to be the Caesar or King. They would basically be Dictatorships, all except for the Byzantine; Which was renamed that after the fall and they claimed more of a Theocratic Monarchy. Being highly religious and all.

Yeah. Defenders of Christianity in the East and all that jazz.

But then what about the Dominate? I can understand the Prinicipate, what with its obsession with "first among equals" and maintaining an aura of republicanism, but the Dominate grows a bit more complex to me.

The Dominate was simply, Dictatorships due to the later period falling into an Anarchist era. This was during the split that I mentioned above, which required councilors to play as generals and reunite it and instill a functioning government. Though it was a Dictatorship until the fall and rise of Byzantium.

Added: While earlier years of rome was simple, they elected a King from the persons merit on the battlefield. The more you fought as a councilor on the field of battle like caesar, the more wealthy rome became and the bigger your contribution and the more assured you would be voted as King basically. For a limited time.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Yeah. Defenders of Christianity in the East and all that jazz.

But then what about the Dominate? I can understand the Prinicipate, what with its obsession with "first among equals" and maintaining an aura of republicanism, but the Dominate grows a bit more complex to me.

The Dominate was simply, Dictatorships due to the later period falling into an Anarchist era. This was during the split that I mentioned above, which required councilors to play as generals and reunite it and instill a functioning government. Though it was a Dictatorship until the fall and rise of Byzantium.

What about the Kings of Rome? Would they not be considered kings? They were elected.

[Principality of the Raix]

The Dominate was simply, Dictatorships due to the later period falling into an Anarchist era. This was during the split that I mentioned above, which required councilors to play as generals and reunite it and instill a functioning government. Though it was a Dictatorship until the fall and rise of Byzantium.

What about the Kings of Rome? Would they not be considered kings? They were elected.

Nowadays, we would probably see them more as Prime Ministers. However, back then they would be considered Kings. Unless, like Caesar did and took over; Which made them a Dictator, if they overstayed their position. The reason Caesar is different, is cause the people wanted him over the republic.

Added in: Or maybe Presidents? Prime Ministers or Presidents like the 21st century Republics have through election.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

What about the Kings of Rome? Would they not be considered kings? They were elected.

Nowadays, we would probably see them more as Prime Ministers. However, back then they would be considered Kings. Unless, like Caesar did and took over; Which made them a Dictator, if they overstayed their position. The reason Caesar is different, is cause the people wanted him over the republic.

Added in: Or maybe Presidents? Prime Ministers or Presidents like the 21st century Republics have through election.

I'd probably view the early kings as an elected dictator or tyrant (in this word's original meaning) more than a Prime Minister. They served for life and were generally unyoked in their powers.

[Principality of the Raix]

Nowadays, we would probably see them more as Prime Ministers. However, back then they would be considered Kings. Unless, like Caesar did and took over; Which made them a Dictator, if they overstayed their position. The reason Caesar is different, is cause the people wanted him over the republic.

Added in: Or maybe Presidents? Prime Ministers or Presidents like the 21st century Republics have through election.

I'd probably view the early kings as an elected dictator or tyrant (in this word's original meaning) more than a Prime Minister. They served for life and were generally unyoked in their powers.

Well not for Rome, but for other places; Yes. Rome had a general code in the senate that no single man could be "king" more then like 10 yrs. Though Caesar and then his Grandson Augustus took over that Mantel entirely, to the point Rome could be claimed as a Theocracy as Augustus declared his own Grand Father a god. So Rome, itself could be generalized as many things. However, it began as a Republic and ended with Byzantine and a Theocratic Monarchy.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

I'd probably view the early kings as an elected dictator or tyrant (in this word's original meaning) more than a Prime Minister. They served for life and were generally unyoked in their powers.

Well not for Rome, but for other places; Yes. Rome had a general code in the senate that no single man could be "king" more then like 10 yrs. Though Caesar and then his Grandson Augustus took over that Mantel entirely, to the point Rome could be claimed as a Theocracy as Augustus declared his own Grand Father a god. So Rome, itself could be generalized as many things. However, it began as a Republic and ended with Byzantine and a Theocratic Monarchy.

Erm. The Roman kings ruled for an average of 35 years.

[Principality of the Raix]

Well not for Rome, but for other places; Yes. Rome had a general code in the senate that no single man could be "king" more then like 10 yrs. Though Caesar and then his Grandson Augustus took over that Mantel entirely, to the point Rome could be claimed as a Theocracy as Augustus declared his own Grand Father a god. So Rome, itself could be generalized as many things. However, it began as a Republic and ended with Byzantine and a Theocratic Monarchy.

Erm. The Roman kings ruled for an average of 35 years.

The Roman kings or Emperors, were not serving for life then. 35 years is capable for any human, young or old. Though if you are the later, you are more likely to die.

[Genivaria]

One concept that has always been odd to me is elective monarchy. What makes an elective monarchy different from any other elected dictatorship? Most traditional definitions that we are taught in schools hold monarchy as being hereditary.

Well,

1. Monarchies are not dictatorships

2. Elective monarchies are not real monarchies.

They most certainly CAN be.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Erm. The Roman kings ruled for an average of 35 years.

The Roman kings or Emperors, were not serving for life then. 35 years is capable for any human, young or old. Though if you are the later, you are more likely to die.

Wait. Are we talking about the kings or the emperors?

[Genivaria]

Hello monarchists of NS, I would like to know what you think of monarchism and why you’re monarchists? Why has monarchism been the longest and most successful form of government Humanity has had?

I am a monarchist because a Monarch would ensure continuity and stability, a leader who is sure of his or her place rather than the rich fighting for their place as in democratic nations. I think monarchism is so long-lived because it tends to be stable and allows for efficiency in government as well as a unifying figure and symbol for the people.

Why has monarchism been the longest

Because tradition and time makes for greater followers then reason does.

and most successful form of government Humanity has had?

Pfffft hahahahaha!

[Principality of the Raix]

The Roman kings or Emperors, were not serving for life then. 35 years is capable for any human, young or old. Though if you are the later, you are more likely to die.

Wait. Are we talking about the kings or the emperors?

The kings back then, and Emperors; All have the various titles and in the end, when the Kings died or served their term. It was up to the Senate, much like it was during that time after 90 B.C to appoint both.

[Genivaria]

And why can the DPRK not be considered as a monarchy trying to unite its country again? If they conquer the rest of Korea, would they then be considered a monarchy?

Because the DPRK is a nation created through communist actions. While it is a Juche state, communism and monarchism can never mix.

Functionally speaking North Korea is ironically closer to being a theocratic monarchy than anything else.