Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[The Parkus Empire]

I say Elizabeth needs to start doing something more than she's doing if Australia is to see a monarch as anything but pointless

That is very unlikely to happen. She is not allowed to do anything but play figurehead, and as long as that continues, so will support for a Republic in Australia. Even then, Australia's support would diminish if the monarchy exercised more power too. Republic is inevitable and we deserve it. The only things stopping us are royal weddings and babies.

She and her predecessors nonchalantly signed away any ability to do more over time. The British monarchy went into major and continuous decline with the Glorious Revolution. It's degenerated, weak and worthless now.

[Minzerland II]

That is very unlikely to happen. She is not allowed to do anything but play figurehead, and as long as that continues, so will support for a Republic in Australia. Even then, Australia's support would diminish if the monarchy exercised more power too. Republic is inevitable and we deserve it. The only things stopping us are royal weddings and babies.

She and her predecessors nonchalantly signed away any ability to do more over time. The British monarchy went into major and continuous decline with the Glorious Revolution. It's degenerated, weak and worthless now.

I would actually argue that signs of its decline go as far back as Cromwell and his ilk, tbh. But, regardless, it is true that it is worthless now.

[The Parkus Empire]

She and her predecessors nonchalantly signed away any ability to do more over time. The British monarchy went into major and continuous decline with the Glorious Revolution. It's degenerated, weak and worthless now.

I would actually argue that signs of its decline go as far back as Cromwell and his ilk, tbh. But, regardless, it is true that it is worthless now.

Except Cromwell's republic ended with the Restoration and Cromwell was posthumously sentenced to death. Charles II was a good king.

[Minzerland II]

I would actually argue that signs of its decline go as far back as Cromwell and his ilk, tbh. But, regardless, it is true that it is worthless now.

Except Cromwell's republic ended with the Restoration and Cromwell was posthumously sentenced to death. Charles II was a good king.

Restoration means very little if your successor is deposed in a Glorious Revolution. Cromwell's republic was simply the precursor to the monarchy's decline and the English Parliament's increased power.

[The Parkus Empire]

Except Cromwell's republic ended with the Restoration and Cromwell was posthumously sentenced to death. Charles II was a good king.

Restoration means very little if your successor is deposed in a Glorious Revolution. Cromwell's republic was simply the precursor to the monarchy's decline and the English Parliament's increased power.

Well the regicide sort of took the blush off the rose, and even zealousl supporters of the Glorious Revolution thought that was unacceptable. And really the Glorious Revolution was not a natural follower, it was from James II being Catholic and firing every Protestant who refused to tolerate Catholicism. That was separate.

[Minzerland II]

Restoration means very little if your successor is deposed in a Glorious Revolution. Cromwell's republic was simply the precursor to the monarchy's decline and the English Parliament's increased power.

Well the regicide sort of took the blush off the rose, and even zealousl supporters of the Glorious Revolution thought that was unacceptable. And really the Glorious Revolution was not a natural follower, it was from James II being Catholic and firing every Protestant who refused to tolerate Catholicism. That was separate.

The Glorious Revolution is only a continuation in that both it and Cromwell's republic both signaled waning power of the monarchy.

[Frievolk]

A question from our more knowledgable monarchists. What is the technical difference between an Empire and a Monarchy?

[Camelone]

A question from our more knowledgable monarchists. What is the technical difference between an Empire and a Monarchy?

I perhaps may not be one of the more knowledgeable of the monarchists but I'll try my hand. A monarchy has some sort of individual at the head who claims to be the monarch, this is to include successful usurpers, while an Empire is a geopolitical entity that includes many different ethnic groups under the administration of one state. I would probably also add that an Empire, if it is worth its salt anyways, has the ability to project its power militarily but sometimes also economically. So a monarchy is a type of government while an empire is more in the realm of geopolitics and can have numerous different types of governments.

[Isilanka]

I'd say an empire doesn't necessarily have a monarch - in fact in the modern sense of the word the name "empire" has been given to democracies, like with the colonial empires. Empire is a vaguer term than monarchy, and refers more to a way of building a regime with a specific relationship to the geographical space it occupies and the people within than to a strict political construct.

[Diopolis]

A question from our more knowledgable monarchists. What is the technical difference between an Empire and a Monarchy?

There isn't one.
An Empire is any state in which multiple nations are united, with one clearly dominant. Apartheid SA was a pretty clear recent example of an empire that was also a republic.
A monarchy is a state in which sovereignty is vested in a single person. Liechtenstein is a pretty clear example of a non-imperial monarchy.

[Salus Maior]

A question from our more knowledgable monarchists. What is the technical difference between an Empire and a Monarchy?

I perhaps may not be one of the more knowledgeable of the monarchists but I'll try my hand. A monarchy has some sort of individual at the head who claims to be the monarch, this is to include successful usurpers, while an Empire is a geopolitical entity that includes many different ethnic groups under the administration of one state. I would probably also add that an Empire, if it is worth its salt anyways, has the ability to project its power militarily but sometimes also economically. So a monarchy is a type of government while an empire is more in the realm of geopolitics and can have numerous different types of governments.

But an Empire can be a Monarchy. Like almost every Empire in history.

Russian Tsars, the British Monarchy, German/Austrian Kaisers, Roman Emperors, etc.

In fact, Empires tend to be monarchies.

[Camelone]

Yes, but the point I was trying to highlight was that empire's could be monarchical or some other form of government despite the fact that a good chunk of empire's were monarchies.

[Genivaria]

I perhaps may not be one of the more knowledgeable of the monarchists but I'll try my hand. A monarchy has some sort of individual at the head who claims to be the monarch, this is to include successful usurpers, while an Empire is a geopolitical entity that includes many different ethnic groups under the administration of one state. I would probably also add that an Empire, if it is worth its salt anyways, has the ability to project its power militarily but sometimes also economically. So a monarchy is a type of government while an empire is more in the realm of geopolitics and can have numerous different types of governments.

But an Empire can be a Monarchy. Like almost every Empire in history.

Russian Tsars, the British Monarchy, German/Austrian Kaisers, Roman Emperors, etc.

In fact, Empires tend to be monarchies.

In fairness monarchs used to be the rule instead of the exception, though if the decline of monarchy helped cause the decline of empires I don't know.

[Frievolk]

But an Empire can be a Monarchy. Like almost every Empire in history.

Russian Tsars, the British Monarchy, German/Austrian Kaisers, Roman Emperors, etc.

In fact, Empires tend to be monarchies.

In fairness monarchs used to be the rule instead of the exception, though if the decline of monarchy helped cause the decline of empires I don't know.

If we go by the "multiple ethnicities/nationalities with one specific nationality/ethnicity ruling over the rest" definition, it probably did not.

[Genivaria]

In fairness monarchs used to be the rule instead of the exception, though if the decline of monarchy helped cause the decline of empires I don't know.

If we go by the "multiple ethnicities/nationalities with one specific nationality/ethnicity ruling over the rest" definition, it probably did not.

I mean by the original definitions both the Roman and Carthaginian Republics were Empires.
That's Dan Green's theory anyway.

[Second Empire of America]

A question from our more knowledgable monarchists. What is the technical difference between an Empire and a Monarchy?

I perhaps may not be one of the more knowledgeable of the monarchists but I'll try my hand. A monarchy has some sort of individual at the head who claims to be the monarch, this is to include successful usurpers, while an Empire is a geopolitical entity that includes many different ethnic groups under the administration of one state. I would probably also add that an Empire, if it is worth its salt anyways, has the ability to project its power militarily but sometimes also economically. So a monarchy is a type of government while an empire is more in the realm of geopolitics and can have numerous different types of governments.

This is completely correct. I couldn't have said it better myself. Nobody's given out examples yet, so I suppose I should type some myself.

The best examples of Empires that are not Monarchies are modern day India and America. Both rule over large territories and populations comprising many cultures, but neither have a monarchial government. (India is a Democracy, whereas America is an Oligarchy.)

The best example of a Monarchy that isn't an Empire is Japan. It is a Constitutional Monarchy, but the vast majority of its people are ethnically Japanese, and its territory consists of only the Japanese archipelago.

I happen to strongly support Empires as a form of government, though I'll still oppose individual empires if they mistreat the people under their rule. I view the collapse of Empires into Nation-States as a great tragedy, and would have preferred that the Empires granted equal status to their colonies instead of abandoning them.

[Stonok]

If the definition of empire I've seen here is correct, I wonder why historians always separate Roman history into the "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire", depending on the presence of a monarch.

[Frievolk]

If the definition of empire I've seen here is correct, I wonder why historians always separate Roman history into the "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire", depending on the presence of a monarch.

Probably because it didn't declare itself an Empire until then, though I am not sure

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If the definition of empire I've seen here is correct, I wonder why historians always separate Roman history into the "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire", depending on the presence of a monarch.

The Republic could be described as an empire, but the distinction is because the Empire was when they had an Emperor.

[Engleberg]

If the definition of empire I've seen here is correct, I wonder why historians always separate Roman history into the "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire", depending on the presence of a monarch.

The "Roman Empire" is referring towards the Roman nation after the rise of Augustus as the first Emperor of Rome.

Although Rome was already an "empire," it did not have a formal emperor but rather consuls and then dictators.

[Engleberg]

A question from our more knowledgable monarchists. What is the technical difference between an Empire and a Monarchy?

Empires are usually monarchies, although they do not have to be. An empire is a collection of different regions and cultures under one central government, which is generally under an Emperor. Monarchies can refer to any monarchistic state, such as kingdoms, duchies, principalities, etc.

One good example of a non-monarchist empire is the French Republic, which had many territories in Africa and was an empire but without a monarch.

[Uxupox]

If the definition of empire I've seen here is correct, I wonder why historians always separate Roman history into the "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire", depending on the presence of a monarch.

The "Roman Empire" is referring towards the Roman nation after the rise of Augustus as the first Emperor of Rome.

Although Rome was already an "empire," it did not have a formal emperor but rather consuls and then dictators.

An empire is defined as "an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor or other powerful sovereign or government.

I wouldn't call Rome pre-Augustus an empire to be honest. 2 consuls who either had rivalry or something akin to that could prevent the other from exerting influence on Roman society. When a Roman consul's term was finished he could be subject to trial of justice in accordance to call of the senate.

Only under either the Dictator or Augustus was the sovereign of the nation strong enough to wield unlimited power on his myrriad of nations and not be subject to limiting his trias politica powers.

[Genivaria]

A question from our more knowledgable monarchists. What is the technical difference between an Empire and a Monarchy?

Empires are usually monarchies, although they do not have to be. An empire is a collection of different regions and cultures under one central government, which is generally under an Emperor. Monarchies can refer to any monarchistic state, such as kingdoms, duchies, principalities, etc.

One good example of a non-monarchist empire is the French Republic, which had many territories in Africa and was an empire but without a monarch.

As well as the Dutch colonies.

[Frievolk]

The "Roman Empire" is referring towards the Roman nation after the rise of Augustus as the first Emperor of Rome.

Although Rome was already an "empire," it did not have a formal emperor but rather consuls and then dictators.

An empire is defined as "an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor or other powerful sovereign or government.

I wouldn't call Rome pre-Augustus an empire to be honest. 2 consuls who either had rivalry or something akin to that could prevent the other from exerting influence on Roman society. When a Roman consul's term was finished he could be subject to trial of justice in accordance to call of the senate.

Only under either the Dictator or Augustus was the sovereign of the nation strong enough to wield unlimited power on his myrriad of nations and not be subject to limiting his trias politica powers.

But they did run an aggregate of multiple peoples ruled by a powerful government. That was their entire deal.

[Uxupox]

I wouldn't call Rome pre-Augustus an empire to be honest. 2 consuls who either had rivalry or something akin to that could prevent the other from exerting influence on Roman society. When a Roman consul's term was finished he could be subject to trial of justice in accordance to call of the senate.

Only under either the Dictator or Augustus was the sovereign of the nation strong enough to wield unlimited power on his myrriad of nations and not be subject to limiting his trias politica powers.

But they did run an aggregate of multiple peoples ruled by a powerful government. That was their entire deal.

where the people outside the colonia subject to roman law however?