Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[United Muscovite Nations]

Appointing the prime minister yes, but executive veto and the power to dissolve parliament were outlawed in 2011. As of right now, the only (consequential) European monarch who has dissolved parliament in the last 50 years is the current King of Spain, who dissolved it twice during his reign.

She can't dissolve it but she can prorogue it.

Also, I think you have your Spanish kings mixed up Felipe VI is in power. Not Juan Carlos I. Unless Felipe VI has dissolved Parliament twice in 4 years of reign.

Yes, that's my mistake, I got the names mixed up.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Appointing the prime minister yes, but executive veto and the power to dissolve parliament were outlawed in 2011. As of right now, the only (consequential) European monarch who has dissolved parliament in the last 50 years is the current King of Spain, who dissolved it twice during his reign.

So you telling me that scene where Charles III dissolves parliament can't happen anymore?

The scene isn't so much wrong as it is mistaken. It mistakes the idea of a King sacking his ministers with dissolving parliament. The monarch can sack ministers, such as the Prime Minister or Minister of Defense, but they can't sack all of parliament.

[The Parkus Empire]

Not unless you are also excluding unmarried parents, divorced parents, and those who receive state help (including tax credits) for their kids.

Of course!

Bonald?

*progress crashes*

[Yulenburg]

So you telling me that scene where Charles III dissolves parliament can't happen anymore?

The scene isn't so much wrong as it is mistaken. It mistakes the idea of a King sacking his ministers with dissolving parliament. The monarch can sack ministers, such as the Prime Minister or Minister of Defense, but they can't sack all of parliament.

I wonder if it was inspired by the scene in the First Churchills where King Charles II dissolves Parliament. Now there was a British King who was actually a good politician.

In that case the dissolution of Parliament led to the King's personal rule, as Charles II didn't call another Parliament, and was basically his own Prime Minister.

Now a days, a dissolution of Parliament always results in a new election. I do believe Her Britannic Majesty does still call Parliament, which means she could possibly refuse to do so, if she wanted a constitutional crisis.

Dissolving Parliament does essentially sack Parliament, as all the MPs are no longer MPs, and the Commons must be reelected. I find it odd that they outlawed it, because it is the norm that the head of state in Parliamentary government has this power. Especially as I have said before, their most prominent role is in the case of a hung parliament. In this case, the head of state's job is to put pressure on the parties to form a government, and to decide if a new election is to be called.

[Isilanka]

It's worth noticing that the few times a French president dissolved the Parliament it didn't go well for him.

That being said, the French president is probably the closest we'll ever get to a "republican monarch".

[Frievolk]

It's worth noticing that the few times a French president dissolved the Parliament it didn't go well for him.

That being said, the French president is probably the closest we'll ever get to a "republican monarch".

Does Napoleon really count as a monarch? I mean, Empires aren't necessarily monarchic if you think about it.

[Yulenburg]

It's worth noticing that the few times a French president dissolved the Parliament it didn't go well for him.

That being said, the French president is probably the closest we'll ever get to a "republican monarch".

It all depends on how you define republic and monarch. If the deciding factor is how much effect the head of state rules has, then presidential systems, like in North and South America are much more monarchial, than the semi-presidential system of the French.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The scene isn't so much wrong as it is mistaken. It mistakes the idea of a King sacking his ministers with dissolving parliament. The monarch can sack ministers, such as the Prime Minister or Minister of Defense, but they can't sack all of parliament.

I wonder if it was inspired by the scene in the First Churchills where King Charles II dissolves Parliament. Now there was a British King who was actually a good politician.

In that case the dissolution of Parliament led to the King's personal rule, as Charles II didn't call another Parliament, and was basically his own Prime Minister.

Now a days, a dissolution of Parliament always results in a new election. I do believe Her Britannic Majesty does still call Parliament, which means she could possibly refuse to do so, if she wanted a constitutional crisis.

Dissolving Parliament does essentially sack Parliament, as all the MPs are no longer MPs, and the Commons must be reelected. I find it odd that they outlawed it, because it is the norm that the head of state in Parliamentary government has this power. Especially as I have said before, their most prominent role is in the case of a hung parliament. In this case, the head of state's job is to put pressure on the parties to form a government, and to decide if a new election is to be called.

That's not the issue though. Since 2011, a law was passed that takes away the crown's right to dissolve parliament altogether.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I wonder if it was inspired by the scene in the First Churchills where King Charles II dissolves Parliament. Now there was a British King who was actually a good politician.

In that case the dissolution of Parliament led to the King's personal rule, as Charles II didn't call another Parliament, and was basically his own Prime Minister.

Now a days, a dissolution of Parliament always results in a new election. I do believe Her Britannic Majesty does still call Parliament, which means she could possibly refuse to do so, if she wanted a constitutional crisis.

Dissolving Parliament does essentially sack Parliament, as all the MPs are no longer MPs, and the Commons must be reelected. I find it odd that they outlawed it, because it is the norm that the head of state in Parliamentary government has this power. Especially as I have said before, their most prominent role is in the case of a hung parliament. In this case, the head of state's job is to put pressure on the parties to form a government, and to decide if a new election is to be called.

That's not the issue though. Since 2011, a law was passed that takes away the crown's right to dissolve parliament altogether.

There's a film on BBC iPlayer somewhere called "Charles III" where Queen Elizabeth II has recently died so Prince Charles becomes King, and he refuses to sign a bill regulating the media into law and thus causing a constitutional crisis (couldn't find the link though )

[Engleberg]

It's worth noticing that the few times a French president dissolved the Parliament it didn't go well for him.

That being said, the French president is probably the closest we'll ever get to a "republican monarch".

Today's monarchies are pretty much republics that want to feign a sense of a monarchy, so I wouldn't say that line.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's worth noticing that the few times a French president dissolved the Parliament it didn't go well for him.

That being said, the French president is probably the closest we'll ever get to a "republican monarch".

Today's monarchies are pretty much republics that want to feign a sense of a monarchy, so I wouldn't say that line.

That's 100% the monarch's own choice in many of them.

[Engleberg]

Today's monarchies are pretty much republics that want to feign a sense of a monarchy, so I wouldn't say that line.

That's 100% the monarch's own choice in many of them.

Which is a damn shame, honestly.

[The Parkus Empire]

That's 100% the monarch's own choice in many of them.

Which is a damn shame, honestly.

Trying to rely too exclusively on a monarch simply doesn't work. Look at the RCC, so many men laid down their lives to fight Muslims for the Pope, now you have John Paul II kissing the Koran and Francis praising the election of a Muslim for mayor of London.

[Frievolk]

That's 100% the monarch's own choice in many of them.

Which is a damn shame, honestly.

Humans are inherently lazy. Executive power is a job. You need to work. Why call for a system that makes you work if you can instead support a system that gives you the right to sit on your ass in a big palace?

[Nucego]

I wonder how many of y'all are imagining yourselves as the lord or king in this case instead of the serf or peasant that you'd most likely be under a monarchy without liberal democracy on the side, like disenfranchised workers under right-libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism supporting said systems and ideologies. Some people just can't keep their domination fantasies in the bedroom where they belong.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's worth noticing that the few times a French president dissolved the Parliament it didn't go well for him.

That being said, the French president is probably the closest we'll ever get to a "republican monarch".

Does Napoleon really count as a monarch? I mean, Empires aren't necessarily monarchic if you think about it.

Napoleon was literally crowned monarch.

[Salus Maior]

It's worth noticing that the few times a French president dissolved the Parliament it didn't go well for him.

That being said, the French president is probably the closest we'll ever get to a "republican monarch".

Does Napoleon really count as a monarch? I mean, Empires aren't necessarily monarchic if you think about it.

....How are you thinking about it?

An Emperor is most definitely a monarch.

[Genivaria]

Does Napoleon really count as a monarch? I mean, Empires aren't necessarily monarchic if you think about it.

....How are you thinking about it?

An Emperor is most definitely a monarch.

He was a monarch according to his title yes and how he set about giving his family titles but he didn't take his power from hereditary means which I think might be what's in dispute.

[The Parkus Empire]

....How are you thinking about it?

An Emperor is most definitely a monarch.

He was a monarch according to his title yes and how he set about giving his family titles but he didn't take his power from hereditary means which I think might be what's in dispute.

But his position was legally hereditary, i.e. his son would inherit the throne. The first in a line of monarchs is still a monarch.

[The Parkus Empire]

I wonder how many of y'all are imagining yourselves as the lord or king in this case instead of the serf or peasant that you'd most likely be under a monarchy without liberal democracy on the side, like disenfranchised workers under right-libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism supporting said systems and ideologies. Some people just can't keep their domination fantasies in the bedroom where they belong.

Serfs and peasants as a predominate class is something unique to peasant economies (which don't necessarily require a monarch, they just are caused by most of the population being agricultural workers).

[Canadensia]

I wonder how many of y'all are imagining yourselves as the lord or king in this case instead of the serf or peasant that you'd most likely be under a monarchy without liberal democracy on the side, like disenfranchised workers under right-libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism supporting said systems and ideologies. Some people just can't keep their domination fantasies in the bedroom where they belong.

Serfs and peasants as a predominate class is something unique to peasant economies (which don't necessarily require a monarch, they just are caused by most of the population being agricultural workers).

Not really, to be frank.

I mean, sure, serfdom is fairly unique to primitive agricultural economies, but the essence of highly hierarchical societies with minimal room for social advancement tends to result in the same basic paradigm for the lower classes, no matter the state of the economy in question. The rise of the proletariat in the cities of Europe with the spread of the Industrial Revolution is testament enough to that.

[The Parkus Empire]

Serfs and peasants as a predominate class is something unique to peasant economies (which don't necessarily require a monarch, they just are caused by most of the population being agricultural workers).

Not really, to be frank.

I mean, sure, serfdom is fairly unique to primitive agricultural economies, but the basic paradigm of highly hierarchical societies with minimal room for social advancement tends to result in the same basic paradigm for the lower classes, no matter the state of the economy in question. The rise of the proletariat in the cities of Europe with the spread of the Industrial Revolution is testament enough to that.

Except the conservatives traditionalists of that period tended to oppose the conditions of labor in that period. Benjamin Disraeli, the ultra monarchist, is a fine example. The truth is that the poor condition of serfs being on the lowest rung had to do with resources, but relatively, industrial revolution workers had it worse. Each family of serfs was obligated to render around two days a week of work on their lord's land (the work would be done by an individual representing the family, not the entire family), and the rest of the time they had to cultivate their own allotment and spend otherwise as they pleased. Serfs had no money, but the economy is not based very much on money in a peasant economy.

[Canadensia]

Not really, to be frank.

I mean, sure, serfdom is fairly unique to primitive agricultural economies, but the basic paradigm of highly hierarchical societies with minimal room for social advancement tends to result in the same basic paradigm for the lower classes, no matter the state of the economy in question. The rise of the proletariat in the cities of Europe with the spread of the Industrial Revolution is testament enough to that.

Except the conservatives traditionalists of that period tended to oppose the conditions of labor in that period. Benjamin Disraeli, the ultra monarchist, is a fine example. The truth is that the poor condition of serfs being on the lowest rung had to do with resources, but relatively, industrial revolution workers had it worse. Each family of serfs was obligated to render around two days a week of work on their lord's land (the work would be done by an individual representing the family, not the entire family), and the rest of the time they had to cultivate their own allotment and spend otherwise as they pleased. Serfs had no money, but the economy is not based very much on money in a peasant economy.

Oh I agree that lower class urbanites of the Industrial Revolution had it much worse than their peasant forefathers, but the point still stands that highly hierarchical societies tend to result in the lower classes (which inevitably compose the bulk of the population) receiving an awfully shoddy lot in life, regardless of whether or not the upper classes have some notion of noblesse oblige or sense of duty to the common man. Such conditions are almost a universal by-product of these systems, whether or not they are intended as such.

The only real exceptions are scenarios wherein the monarchy/system of nobility is substantially eroded to the point of irrelevance, with little more than symbolic value.

[Genivaria]

Not really, to be frank.

I mean, sure, serfdom is fairly unique to primitive agricultural economies, but the basic paradigm of highly hierarchical societies with minimal room for social advancement tends to result in the same basic paradigm for the lower classes, no matter the state of the economy in question. The rise of the proletariat in the cities of Europe with the spread of the Industrial Revolution is testament enough to that.

Except the conservatives traditionalists of that period tended to oppose the conditions of labor in that period. Benjamin Disraeli, the ultra monarchist, is a fine example. The truth is that the poor condition of serfs being on the lowest rung had to do with resources, but relatively, industrial revolution workers had it worse. Each family of serfs was obligated to render around two days a week of work on their lord's land (the work would be done by an individual representing the family, not the entire family), and the rest of the time they had to cultivate their own allotment and spend otherwise as they pleased. Serfs had no money, but the economy is not based very much on money in a peasant economy.

Benjamin Disraeli is a contemporary of the 1800's, serfdom in the UK was dead by the 1600's.

[The Parkus Empire]

Except the conservatives traditionalists of that period tended to oppose the conditions of labor in that period. Benjamin Disraeli, the ultra monarchist, is a fine example. The truth is that the poor condition of serfs being on the lowest rung had to do with resources, but relatively, industrial revolution workers had it worse. Each family of serfs was obligated to render around two days a week of work on their lord's land (the work would be done by an individual representing the family, not the entire family), and the rest of the time they had to cultivate their own allotment and spend otherwise as they pleased. Serfs had no money, but the economy is not based very much on money in a peasant economy.

Benjamin Disraeli is a contemporary of the 1800's, serfdom in the UK was dead by the 1600's.

Yes, but the poster was asserting that industrial revolution workers were a continuation of serfdom.