Former King of Spain flees Spain

[Velyka-Ukrayina]

So useless, the majority of countries topping freedom indexes are monarchies.

Coincidentally they are also topping indexes in HDI, life span, education, etc... together with their neighbors which are not monarchy. Maybe monarchy isn't really a factor after all. Meanwhile, you can be indicted 37 years in prison for insulting the Thai King's dog, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a murderous dictatorship stuck on the 7th century, the Brunei monarchy wants to kill gay people in the most gruesome and torcherous way possible...

...the PRC's committing some sort of genocide against the Uighurs, the US overthrows/invades some latin american or middle eastern country's government every once in a while, and Chechnya (part of the Russian Federation) is not exactly the best place for LGBT people to live, either.

I would figure that, regardless of whether or not they're a monarchy, countries can be both good to live in and terrible to live in. It just depends on their leadership.

[SD_Film Artists]

So useless, the majority of countries topping freedom indexes are monarchies.

Coincidentally they are also topping indexes in HDI, life span, education, etc... together with their neighbors which are not monarchy. Maybe monarchy isn't really a factor after all. Meanwhile, you can be indicted 37 years in prison for insulting the Thai King's dog, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a murderous dictatorship stuck on the 7th century, the Brunei monarchy wants to kill gay people in the most gruesome and torcherous way possible...

I'm not attributing 100% of their success to the monarchy, it's just pretty rich for some people to call monarchies "backward", "outdated" etc when a lot of them are more progressive than republics, not to mention the direct benefits that the countries gain from a monarchy such as having a non-partisan head of state and being a symbol of national heritage rather than another faceless republic. I don't literally believe that the monarch is God's representative on earth, but I still admire the audacity of any country who can say that one of their citizens is 'crowned by God not by the church' rather than 'our head of state spent lots of money and won an election with good advertising and misinformation, then some other guy will come later. This is the soul of our country'.

Also Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, not constitutional.

[Novus America]

Coincidentally they are also topping indexes in HDI, life span, education, etc... together with their neighbors which are not monarchy. Maybe monarchy isn't really a factor after all. Meanwhile, you can be indicted 37 years in prison for insulting the Thai King's dog, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a murderous dictatorship stuck on the 7th century, the Brunei monarchy wants to kill gay people in the most gruesome and torcherous way possible...

I'm not attributing 100% of their success to the monarchy, it's just pretty rich for some people to call monarchies "backward", "outdated" etc when a lot of them are more progressive than republics, not to mention the direct benefits that the countries gain from a monarchy such as having a non-partisan head of state and being a symbol of national heritage rather than another faceless republic. I don't literally believe that the monarch is God's representative on earth, but I still admire the audacity of any country who can say that one of their citizens is 'crowned by God not by the church' rather than 'our head of state spent lots of money and won an election with good advertising and misinformation, then some other guy will come later. This is the soul of our country'.

Also Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, not constitutional.

The difference is that the elected leader is not the “soul” of the country. The soul of republic is the people as a whole, not any one man.

But sure some “crowned republics” (republics with a purely symbolic figurehead monarchy) and even some constitutional monarchies where the monarch has some power can work, in the right culture and constitutional framework.

Why is an audacious lie admirable though? God clearly does not crown kings. Humans crown them.
Also when the monarch only serves and is crowned with the permission of the elected parliament, they basically are elected... and we have not even gotten into elected monarchs...

Governance is not a one size fits all thing. The best system one for one place is not necessarily the best in another though and the line between a constitutional monarchy and republic is often actually quite blurred. Norway is ironically far more a republic and less a monarchy than North Korea is. Despite Norway being a monarch on paper and North Korea being a republic on paper.

[Vivolkha]

Monarchies are a scam by definition. We should bring down this criminal institution... again. For the third time. And hopefully the last one.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm not attributing 100% of their success to the monarchy, it's just pretty rich for some people to call monarchies "backward", "outdated" etc when a lot of them are more progressive than republics, not to mention the direct benefits that the countries gain from a monarchy such as having a non-partisan head of state and being a symbol of national heritage rather than another faceless republic. I don't literally believe that the monarch is God's representative on earth, but I still admire the audacity of any country who can say that one of their citizens is 'crowned by God not by the church' rather than 'our head of state spent lots of money and won an election with good advertising and misinformation, then some other guy will come later. This is the soul of our country'.

Also Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, not constitutional.

The difference is that the elected leader is not the “soul” of the country. The soul of republic is the people as a whole, not any one man.

Can "the people" transport foreign dignitaries in a golden carriage? They technically could but it wouldn't be the same. More importantly, a non-partisan head of state provides stability in times of crisis, whereas places like America just have a paper constitution which if anything just causes more arguments with how it can be perceived in different ways, so everything is "buh its unconstitutional.."

Why is an audacious lie admirable though? God clearly does not crown kings. Humans crown them.

I think it's about foundation and sovereignty; otherwise the country is just a bunch of upstarts who betrayed their parent nation.
That's not to say there aren't other things to be proud of- such as science or great feats of engineering, but as for foundation, independent republicanism is just a 'how' rather than a 'why'.

Governance is not a one size fits all thing. The best system one for one place is not necessarily the best in another

How so? Besides cultural bias.

though and the line between a constitutional monarchy and republic is often actually quite blurred. Norway is ironically far more a republic and less a monarchy than North Korea is. Despite Norway being a monarch on paper and North Korea being a republic on paper.

There are parallels, but I don't think it's fair for republicanism to appropriate Norway just because it has similar aspects. As for North Korea, it is a dictatorship and at best a de facto absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy.

[Greed and Death]

Monarchies are a scam by definition. We should bring down this criminal institution... again. For the third time. And hopefully the last one.

Strike down the monarchy and a strong man will rise seize power and return the monarchy to power in his will.

[Ethel mermania]

Monarchies are a scam by definition. We should bring down this criminal institution... again. For the third time. And hopefully the last one.

Strike down the monarchy and a strong man will rise seize power and return the monarchy to power in his will.

Fuck you cheddar cheese.

generalissimo francisco franco, is not dead!

[Salus Maior]

There are parallels, but I don't think it's fair for republicanism to appropriate Norway just because it has similar aspects. As for North Korea, it is a dictatorship and at best a de facto absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy.

I don't really agree with the whole dictator = monarch comparison.

So, I wouldn't consider the Kim regime to really be a monarchy.

[Salus Maior]

Monarchies are a scam by definition. We should bring down this criminal institution... again. For the third time. And hopefully the last one.

I'd argue the promises of capitalist and communist society are far more a scam.

I mean, what is monarchy not delivering on to be called a scam?

[Novus America]

The difference is that the elected leader is not the “soul” of the country. The soul of republic is the people as a whole, not any one man.

Can "the people" transport foreign dignitaries in a golden carriage? They technically could but it wouldn't be the same. More importantly, a non-partisan head of state provides stability in times of crisis, whereas places like America just have a paper constitution which if anything just causes more arguments with how it can be perceived in different ways, so everything is "buh its unconstitutional.."

Why is an audacious lie admirable though? God clearly does not crown kings. Humans crown them.

I think it's about foundation and sovereignty; otherwise the country is just a bunch of upstarts who betrayed their parent nation.
That's not to say there aren't other things to be proud of- such as science or great feats of engineering, but as for foundation, independent republicanism is just a 'how' rather than a 'why'.

Governance is not a one size fits all thing. The best system one for one place is not necessarily the best in another

How so? Besides cultural bias.

though and the line between a constitutional monarchy and republic is often actually quite blurred. Norway is ironically far more a republic and less a monarchy than North Korea is. Despite Norway being a monarch on paper and North Korea being a republic on paper.

There are parallels, but I don't think it's fair for republicanism to appropriate Norway just because it has similar aspects. As for North Korea, it is a dictatorship and at best a de facto absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy.

The people through a representative agency can provide a transport for a foreign dignitary.
Golden carriages though, fuck that. Why would we want to transport them in such a stupidly impractical manner?

And given the monarch has no power, we can have an even more non partisan equivalent. We do. The Statue of Liberty who does about as much as the standard European monarch. Republics have national personifications too.

So on Norway, Norway and France are not necessarily that different. France has Marianne, Norway has Harald. Sure one is a living person the other is not, but the perform the same basisic function. Hence why the contemporary fork of European Monarchy can be called “crowned republics” as they are basically republics with a living human symbol over a more abstract national symbol.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic

The Polish Lithuanian commonwealth is referred to in some historical sources from the time as a republic. And what about the Roman Empire? It called itself a Republic and at least in theory the emperor was elected but of course over time it evolved to be more monarchial. Prince and Emperor actually started as at least nominally republican titles you know.
Point is the name you slap on something is not the most important thing.

Everyone was just an upstart at some time. Monarchies are usually just descended from upstart warlords and coup plotters if you go back a long enough.

Although national foundation myths can have value, I fail to see why one (blatantly false narrative) is always superior to others.

How is the best system different from place to place? Obviously yes culture plays a role. A form of governance alien to a people’s culture and in opposition to it is going to earn resentment, not loyalty.
People want a government suited to their history, traditions and culture. Because if people have no cultural loyalty a government it is probably not going to be an effective one.

The government must fit the culture. Really the legitimacy of a monarchy (or lack there of) comes solely from the ability to convince enough people the monarch is legitimate. Your ability to convince people a certain monarch is legitimate varies from place to place.

Obviously the Emperor of Japan works for Japan, but would not work in the US. Japanese and US culture are indeed different, obviously.

Also in more tribal societies like Jordan, who have a religious tendency to claim legitimacy from being a descendant from Muhammad’s tribe, a tribal monarch might work better than republican symbolism, republicanism requires the country have enough abstract thinking and abstract concept of nationality.
Which varies from place to place.

One size does not fit all.

[SD_Film Artists]

There are parallels, but I don't think it's fair for republicanism to appropriate Norway just because it has similar aspects. As for North Korea, it is a dictatorship and at best a de facto absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy.

I don't really agree with the whole dictator = monarch comparison.

So, I wouldn't consider the Kim regime to really be a monarchy.

Indeed it's not a true monarchy as it doesn't have things such as a formal line of succession, it just kinda acts like one with its nepotism.

[Novus America]

There are parallels, but I don't think it's fair for republicanism to appropriate Norway just because it has similar aspects. As for North Korea, it is a dictatorship and at best a de facto absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy.

I don't really agree with the whole dictator = monarch comparison.

So, I wouldn't consider the Kim regime to really be a monarchy.

Well the point is the name you slap on a thing is just a name. A rose by any other name.
The Kim regime operates and was created in the same way as say Saudi Arabia really. Some warlord/rebel leader seized power, then decided power would be concentrated on his family and passed down through his family. If Kim changes his title to King or something like that what really changes?

Not all dictators can be described as monarchs, nor all monarchs dictators of course but the point remains the line between (titular) republic and (titular) monarchy is not 100% clear cut in substantive matters, regardless of the official name slapped on it.

[Novus America]

I don't really agree with the whole dictator = monarch comparison.

So, I wouldn't consider the Kim regime to really be a monarchy.

Indeed it's not a true monarchy as it doesn't have things such as a formal line of succession, it just kinda acts like one with its nepotism.

Saudi Arabia does not have a formal line of succession in the way the UK does.
So is Saudi Arabia not a monarchy then?

[Salus Maior]

I don't really agree with the whole dictator = monarch comparison.

So, I wouldn't consider the Kim regime to really be a monarchy.

Indeed it's not a true monarchy as it doesn't have things such as a formal line of succession, it just kinda acts like one with its nepotism.

I would also argue that a key part of monarchy is how in touch it is with the national tradition. The Kims don't base their legitimacy on whether or not they are the traditional inheritors of Korean rulership, but rather build upon how they're the authors of totalitarian ideology, namely Juche.

I'd say they're just about as much monarchs as Stalin was.

[Novus America]

Indeed it's not a true monarchy as it doesn't have things such as a formal line of succession, it just kinda acts like one with its nepotism.

I would also argue that a key part of monarchy is how in touch it is with the national tradition. The Kims don't base their legitimacy on whether or not they are the traditional inheritors of Korean rulership, but rather build upon how they're the authors of totalitarian ideology, namely Juche.

I'd say they're just about as much monarchs as Stalin was.

Juche has become a national tradition. Traditions change, and some are created and forced top down. And was Napoleon not a monarch then? How in touch with a tradition someone is is not easy to quantify.

And if the Kim regime lasts say 100 more years what then? Then it will be an older tradition than many other traditions.

[Salus Maior]

Well the point is the name you slap on a thing is just a name. A rose by any other name.

The Kim regime operates and was created in the same way as say Saudi Arabia really. Some warlord/rebel leader seized power, then decided power would be concentrated on his family and passed down through his family. If Kim changes his title to King or something like that what really changes?

Not all dictators can be described as monarchs, nor all monarchs dictators of course but the point remains the line between (titular) republic and (titular) monarchy is not 100% clear cut in substantive matters, regardless of the official name slapped on it.

No, it means that there are observed differences between a monarch and a dictator in my study, even if it is a fine distinction.

I can't really comment on the Sauds, as I have little idea as to how Islamic monarchy functions traditionally (and I doubt you do either).

[Salus Maior]

I would also argue that a key part of monarchy is how in touch it is with the national tradition. The Kims don't base their legitimacy on whether or not they are the traditional inheritors of Korean rulership, but rather build upon how they're the authors of totalitarian ideology, namely Juche.

I'd say they're just about as much monarchs as Stalin was.

Juche has become a national tradition. Traditions change, and some are created and forced top down. And was Napoleon not a monarch then? How in touch with a tradition someone is is not easy to quantify.

Totalitarian ideology is a poor substitute for national culture.

I'd argue that Napoleon wasn't a valid monarch, no.

[Ludania]

That cretinous ingrate is probably one of the most odious people in modern history to be on the world stage, along with his ridiculous wife. The way he's fawned over whenever he's in the news (it's never anything good) because he made a speech in 1981 is ridiculous. I'm absolutely amazed, even by his standards. What a joke. The sooner Spain does away with that useless, parasitic family the better.

[Novus America]

Well the point is the name you slap on a thing is just a name. A rose by any other name.

The Kim regime operates and was created in the same way as say Saudi Arabia really. Some warlord/rebel leader seized power, then decided power would be concentrated on his family and passed down through his family. If Kim changes his title to King or something like that what really changes?

Not all dictators can be described as monarchs, nor all monarchs dictators of course but the point remains the line between (titular) republic and (titular) monarchy is not 100% clear cut in substantive matters, regardless of the official name slapped on it.

No, it means that there are observed differences between a monarch and a dictator in my study, even if it is a fine distinction.

I can't really comment on the Sauds, as I have little idea as to how Islamic monarchy functions traditionally (and I doubt you do either).

But that is cherry picking. You observe differences in the ones you chose to look at, and when I point out one that might go against it you simply refuse to involve it in your “study”.
Because you have a confirmation bias problem. Although we all do, because you are very much an ideological monarchist, you come at it looking to support your ideology.

Although I cannot say I am an expert on Islamic Monarchy, one does not have to be an expert on something to comment on it. Certainly Saudi Arabia is an interesting case because it is different than the European conception. Whereas usually the debate is heavily Eurocentric not looking at monarchies that deviate from it.

Saudi Arabia is not strictly patrilineal hereditary in that the title is not always from father to sun but is hereditary in the way that the leaders of the house always choose one of their own.

[Novus America]

Juche has become a national tradition. Traditions change, and some are created and forced top down. And was Napoleon not a monarch then? How in touch with a tradition someone is is not easy to quantify.

Totalitarian ideology is a poor substitute for national culture.

I'd argue that Napoleon wasn't a valid monarch, no.

Over a long enough time it can become part of the culture. For example the Chinese monarchy can be traced back to the totalitarian ideologies of Qin Shi Huang that later became traditions.
He invented his title. So I guess he was not a valid monarch? But then when did the monarchy become valid?

And what about the Roman Empire? Was it a monarchy? When did it become a “valid” one?

Then it just becomes a subjective “I like this monarchy”.

Thus to my point. The validity of the Monarch is based solely on the ability to convince enough people it is valid.

Now to keep it on the subject of Spain, this thus damages the validity of the monarchy if it cause people to think the monarchy less valid as a result.

And if the majority of Spanish people no longer believe the monarchy is valid, then it has a problem.

[The Romanian Confederacy]

Even if we get rid of the monarchy for the last time, someone,or some party with ideological similarities to the falange might rise to power. Yes I'd be nice to see Spain become a republic again,but it will die out like the second republic, albeit without a civil war.

[Novus America]

Even if we get rid of the monarchy for the last time, someone with ideological similarities to the falange might rise to power. Yes I'd be nice to see Spain become a republic again,but it will die out like the second republic, albeit without a civil war.

Admittedly with Spain, it has a tendency to change rapidly and suddenly on the issue.
The First Republic only lasted about a year. Although it could possibly settle in time. France for example went through five republics, two empires, three kingdoms, plus a few dictatorships in some 200 years before finally settling on the Fifth Republic.

Where Spain settles, if it does is not certain.

[The Romanian Confederacy]

Even if we get rid of the monarchy for the last time, someone with ideological similarities to the falange might rise to power. Yes I'd be nice to see Spain become a republic again,but it will die out like the second republic, albeit without a civil war.

Admittedly with Spain, it has a tendency to change rapidly and suddenly on the issue.
The First Republic only lasted about a year. Although it could possibly settle in time. France for example went through five republics, two empires, four kingdoms, plus a dictatorship in some 200 years before finally settling on the Fifth Republic.

Where Spain settles, if it does is not certain.

Agreed

[Dollystana]

Monarchies are a scam by definition. We should bring down this criminal institution... again. For the third time. And hopefully the last one.

The king of Spain was overthrown... and replaced by a fascist dictator. It’s ironic how many people criticize monarchies despite them generally being better places to live in, Norway Sweden UK and Japan are some examples. (Yes japan is a monarchy and I will listen to your opinion as you are a Spaniard I am not, however you need to get better debating skills)

[Novus America]

Monarchies are a scam by definition. We should bring down this criminal institution... again. For the third time. And hopefully the last one.

The king of Spain was overthrown... and replaced by a fascist dictator. It’s ironic how many people criticize monarchies despite them generally being better places to live in, Norway Sweden UK and Japan are some examples. (Yes japan is a monarchy and I will listen to your opinion as you are a Spaniard I am not, however you need to get better debating skills)

Certainly there are some titular monarchies that are successful (though Norway has a lot to do with natural resources, the monarchy did not make it rich) Switzerland, Ireland and Germany have similar living standards (higher than Sweden and Japan actually) yet are republics. So it is clear it is not the title that makes it successful.

And that is cherry picking. “These three monarchies are better that many republics and are amongst the best countries” could be replaced with “these three republics are better than many monarchies and amongst the best in the world”.

Looking at the top 10 by HDI they are about evenly divided between the two (and Japan is not in the top 10).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ment_Index

So it is not the being a monarchy or not that is the controlling factor.