NATION

PASSWORD

Should Monarchs Reign or Govern?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should Monarchs Reign or Govern?

Should Reign
29
27%
Should Govern
14
13%
Should not be given power
56
52%
Neutral
9
8%
 
Total votes : 108

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 199205
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:32 pm

If necessary, big if, limited power with constant checks and control from a parliamentary system. If not, keep them as ornamental. The time of kings and queens ruling absolutely are past, and thank the fates for that.
Code name: Ratatouille Strychnine
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Neanderthaland
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7480
Founded: Sep 10, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neanderthaland » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:46 pm

They should play Flute at Sanssouci.
Ug make fire. Mod ban Ug.

User avatar
Nevertopia
Minister
 
Posts: 2085
Founded: May 27, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Nevertopia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:00 pm

Justice should reign from above.
Down with the CCP
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 9.28
Tier 7: Stellar Settler | Level 7: Wonderful Wizard | Type 7: Astro Ambassador
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
The Restored Danelaw
Diplomat
 
Posts: 741
Founded: Sep 09, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Restored Danelaw » Thu Nov 12, 2020 4:44 am

As a constitutionalist and an ardent supporter of parliamentary democracy, I believe that the Stateshead as a political office should be -first and foremost- a figurehead. They should have some powers -most importantly the right to refuse assent to a law passed by the Parliament-, to ceremonially appoint officials, to give honours and to command the Armed Forces. A monarch should neither reign nor govern, that's the government's job. They should just be the Parliamentary Head of State.
The Danelaw
May 10, 2021
Yorwick Daily: Craftrystings not about to be built 'unless we find out how coldfusion works, witshippers in the Kingly Heere's Ambight of Forseeking and Onwicking says. | Couthgiver burning the flag of Joedland in Edinburgh sets himself on fire, not welcomed by nearby Sickhouse. | "No, Wales does not have a 'gun wearn'," Tristan Drakeford, King's Governor for Wales tells the press. Wales has been the site of 3 shootouts this last month. | 13 Princely States inholding Hyderabad as well as the Ambights of Balochistan and Bengal band with the Indish regearingtrue again against the [url==https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Delhi]Delley[/url] Folksregearing. OFN 'still talking over' what to do with Indey. | Insulindia besculds China of begoing a Deed of True Ongripe in the Haw over a diveboat's sinking.

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 58877
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Thu Nov 12, 2020 5:02 am

Albrenia wrote:The Queen is actually a pretty good money-maker for the UK. They put way more money in on tourism, properties and the like than they ever take out in upkeep.


So when somebody sings "shake your money maker". Someone goes and shakes the queen?
1. Forumer mod, now a rocker mocker. Thank you Ringo
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Size matters. Bigger is forbidden and won't give the mods pleasure.

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12602
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Thu Nov 12, 2020 5:46 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
So why should the heirs take claims of their forebears if they cannot also assume their crimes?

For the same reason we have inherited wealth but not inherited punishment. Also it's not that they should be able to have rewards without working for them, if they abdicate the throne they should give the money back. It's more if their ancestors were good at rulership the ability may have passed through the bloodlines.


The difference here is, they are inheriting a political position, they are not a private citizen taking over a family company.

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad

Crysuko wrote:My little crony: corruption is magic
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 113805
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Thu Nov 12, 2020 5:47 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Albrenia wrote:The Queen is actually a pretty good money-maker for the UK. They put way more money in on tourism, properties and the like than they ever take out in upkeep.


So when somebody sings "shake your money maker". Someone goes and shakes the queen?

She is little, you could do that.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 15938
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Thu Nov 12, 2020 5:56 am

Celritannia wrote:
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:For the same reason we have inherited wealth but not inherited punishment. Also it's not that they should be able to have rewards without working for them, if they abdicate the throne they should give the money back. It's more if their ancestors were good at rulership the ability may have passed through the bloodlines.


The difference here is, they are inheriting a political position, they are not a private citizen taking over a family company.

I don't really see how that's a meaningful distinction, and curiously enough I expect many of my counterparts on the far-left would probably agree with my reasoning there, although drawing a wholly different conclusion. In fact I would go so far as to say that workplace democracy makes more logical sense than national democracy, and the fact that we have the latter but not the former is somewhat absurd. If people aren't qualified to make decisions about the future of the firm that they work for, what makes them more qualified to make decisions affecting the future of the entire country?
Whisky-loving Anglican monarchist and one time moderator.
"It is spiritless to think that you cannot attain to that which you have seen and heard the masters attain. The masters are men. You are also a man. If you think that you will be inferior in doing something, you will be on that road very soon."
- Yamamoto Tsunetomo

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12602
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:05 am

Old Tyrannia wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
The difference here is, they are inheriting a political position, they are not a private citizen taking over a family company.

I don't really see how that's a meaningful distinction, and curiously enough I expect many of my counterparts on the far-left would probably agree with my reasoning there, although drawing a wholly different conclusion. In fact I would go so far as to say that workplace democracy makes more logical sense than national democracy, and the fact that we have the latter but not the former is somewhat absurd. If people aren't qualified to make decisions about the future of the firm that they work for, what makes them more qualified to make decisions affecting the future of the entire country?


Well, I was debating if a monarch can't inherent their forebears problems, why should they inherent their successes? And individual should be recognised for their own action, not the action of a past ancestor.

I support both workplace democracy and national democracy.

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad

Crysuko wrote:My little crony: corruption is magic
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18853
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:16 am

The ideal monarch should do a bit of both, with perhaps some more focus being on governing well. Happy or content subjects = less rebellion and a more stable rule, if not a mandate to keep their power.

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 3863
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:24 am

I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.

User avatar
Deus Ignis
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Deus Ignis » Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:16 am

The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.


I believe that only the founder should have absolute power(because there will be idiots down the line who go off and wasting their reign partying and what not) and the rest are bound by a constitution that gives them nearly absolute power(as long as they don't change certain laws, as well as not going around sleeping with another's spouse,etc.)
Man is Beyond Good and Evil, for Morals and Ethics change from Culture to Culture and Era to Era
The hardest choice for a monarch is to choose his nation's happiness or his own, for all roads lead to ruin
Greed & Pride above all else
Monarchist, Republican , Comanche
Favorite Forum: Which Germany was the best?
Deus Regem Deus Tenebris Deus Ignis

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 3863
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:56 am

Deus Ignis wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.


I believe that only the founder should have absolute power(because there will be idiots down the line who go off and wasting their reign partying and what not) and the rest are bound by a constitution that gives them nearly absolute power(as long as they don't change certain laws, as well as not going around sleeping with another's spouse,etc.)

I'm not on board with near absolute power for successors or even the founder as they may not actually care for the people and I think the people aught to have democratic power over their government. I don't think a monarch should have any more power than the current presidency and even that's pushing it. I do not like the idea of one man calling all the shots as they're virtually unaccountable if that is the case, and there are plenty of tyrannical kings throughout history who had people maimed, tortured to death, etc, without even a fair trial.

Edit: Is the "Republican" in your sig a reference to the Republican Party. If so, that's pretty ironic, and no, Trump should not become a king or even be in government for any longer. He shouldn't have even been elected in the first place.

User avatar
Deus Ignis
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Deus Ignis » Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:08 am

The Reformed American Republic wrote:
Deus Ignis wrote:
I believe that only the founder should have absolute power(because there will be idiots down the line who go off and wasting their reign partying and what not) and the rest are bound by a constitution that gives them nearly absolute power(as long as they don't change certain laws, as well as not going around sleeping with another's spouse,etc.)

I'm not on board with near absolute power for successors or even the founder as they may not actually care for the people and I think the people aught to have democratic power over their government. I don't think a monarch should have any more power than the current presidency and even that's pushing it. I do not like the idea of one man calling all the shots as they're virtually unaccountable if that is the case, and there are plenty of tyrannical kings throughout history who had people maimed, tortured to death, etc, without even a fair trial.

Edit: Is the "Republican" in your sig a reference to the Republican Party. If so, that's pretty ironic, and no, Trump should not become a king or even be in government for any longer. He shouldn't have even been elected in the first place.

Why would you think I want Trump as a king? I am only a republican mainly because they are closer to my views then democrats
Man is Beyond Good and Evil, for Morals and Ethics change from Culture to Culture and Era to Era
The hardest choice for a monarch is to choose his nation's happiness or his own, for all roads lead to ruin
Greed & Pride above all else
Monarchist, Republican , Comanche
Favorite Forum: Which Germany was the best?
Deus Regem Deus Tenebris Deus Ignis

User avatar
Luziyca
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36560
Founded: Nov 13, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Luziyca » Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:45 am

They should reign, not govern, unless it is absolutely necessary to stop a tyrant from governing.
|||The Kingdom of Rwizikuru|||
[13:38] Vnik [Hardhiara] Luz is obviously the worst scout Kylaris has
IIwikiFacebookTwitterKylaris: the best region for five years runningAbout meYouTubePolitical compass

User avatar
The Marlborough
Minister
 
Posts: 2643
Founded: May 27, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby The Marlborough » Sat Nov 14, 2020 12:00 pm

The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.

I don't see why feudalism was brought up (this isn't getting into how there are a lot of inaccurate popular views of feudalism) since it hasn't been part of Western society for centuries and monarchies existed before it. Not to mention of course that feudalism is a primarily European phenomenon that doesn't really apply to most other civilizations and their respective history of monarchism.
How could the Irish potato famine happen if they were surrounded by fish?
Support the Lil Red Dress Project to bring awareness to MMIWG.
Bless our neon cyberpunk future.

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 3863
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:33 pm

The Marlborough wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.

I don't see why feudalism was brought up (this isn't getting into how there are a lot of inaccurate popular views of feudalism) since it hasn't been part of Western society for centuries and monarchies existed before it. Not to mention of course that feudalism is a primarily European phenomenon that doesn't really apply to most other civilizations and their respective history of monarchism.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.


Deus Ignis wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm not on board with near absolute power for successors or even the founder as they may not actually care for the people and I think the people aught to have democratic power over their government. I don't think a monarch should have any more power than the current presidency and even that's pushing it. I do not like the idea of one man calling all the shots as they're virtually unaccountable if that is the case, and there are plenty of tyrannical kings throughout history who had people maimed, tortured to death, etc, without even a fair trial.

Edit: Is the "Republican" in your sig a reference to the Republican Party. If so, that's pretty ironic, and no, Trump should not become a king or even be in government for any longer. He shouldn't have even been elected in the first place.

Why would you think I want Trump as a king? I am only a republican mainly because they are closer to my views then democrats

Some neoreactionaries wanted Trump to be crowned king.

User avatar
The Marlborough
Minister
 
Posts: 2643
Founded: May 27, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby The Marlborough » Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:48 pm

The Reformed American Republic wrote:
The Marlborough wrote:I don't see why feudalism was brought up (this isn't getting into how there are a lot of inaccurate popular views of feudalism) since it hasn't been part of Western society for centuries and monarchies existed before it. Not to mention of course that feudalism is a primarily European phenomenon that doesn't really apply to most other civilizations and their respective history of monarchism.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.

Well why would it be? The abolition of the mechanics of feudalism tended to be supported by a wide variety of social classes, including the nobility, and the pressures that led to its development don't even exist.
How could the Irish potato famine happen if they were surrounded by fish?
Support the Lil Red Dress Project to bring awareness to MMIWG.
Bless our neon cyberpunk future.

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 3863
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Sat Nov 14, 2020 2:52 pm

The Marlborough wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.

Well why would it be? The abolition of the mechanics of feudalism tended to be supported by a wide variety of social classes, including the nobility, and the pressures that led to its development don't even exist.

There have been posters on this very board that want it back, and I didn't know if OP was one of them, so I don't think I did anything wrong there.

User avatar
Northern Saxonia
Secretary
 
Posts: 31
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Saxonia » Sat Nov 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Obviously not, especially if it is a hereditary system. Monarchs are good as a unifying force and popular figurehead, but it will be only a matter of time until you get an inbred, unqualified, and possibly insane person as the leader.

User avatar
Deus Ignis
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Deus Ignis » Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:02 am

The Reformed American Republic wrote:
The Marlborough wrote:I don't see why feudalism was brought up (this isn't getting into how there are a lot of inaccurate popular views of feudalism) since it hasn't been part of Western society for centuries and monarchies existed before it. Not to mention of course that feudalism is a primarily European phenomenon that doesn't really apply to most other civilizations and their respective history of monarchism.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.


Deus Ignis wrote:Why would you think I want Trump as a king? I am only a republican mainly because they are closer to my views then democrats

Some neoreactionaries wanted Trump to be crowned king.


Must be a whole bunch of uneducated,delusional teens then, I at least want my monarch to have some semblance of dignity ( Yes I support Trump, but lets face it, he is a a-hole, plus either he or his campaign managers are missing humongous chances to improve his image left and right)
Last edited by Deus Ignis on Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Man is Beyond Good and Evil, for Morals and Ethics change from Culture to Culture and Era to Era
The hardest choice for a monarch is to choose his nation's happiness or his own, for all roads lead to ruin
Greed & Pride above all else
Monarchist, Republican , Comanche
Favorite Forum: Which Germany was the best?
Deus Regem Deus Tenebris Deus Ignis

User avatar
Holy Tedalonia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11650
Founded: Nov 14, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Holy Tedalonia » Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:02 pm

Deus Ignis wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.



Some neoreactionaries wanted Trump to be crowned king.


Must be a whole bunch of uneducated,delusional teens then, I at least wait my monarch to have some semblance of dignity ( Yes I support Trump, but lets face it, he is a a-hole, plus either he or his campaign managers are missing humongous chances to improve his image left and right)

Nah, we should just get a genetic sample of the beloved Emperor Norton, and create a genetic clone. Only then will we have the perfect monarch of america, and restore an ancient dynasty.
Name: Ted
Ideology: Capitalism
Political Compass: Social Libertarian for some reason. I honestly don't know why it placed me there.
Race: Vampire
Political Side: none anymore. Do you think I want to associate with anyone in politics? No I think on my own terms now (not happy? Fine I'll have some stuff for you to judge.
Electoral College Reforms: Standardized voting across the nation, Ranked Choice Voting, and Removal of Gerrymandering.
Student Loan/Free College: Copy Australias homework of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)
Favorite Senator: Ted Cruz (Ted's have to help out Ted's)
Status: Healthy and as strong as a starved ox
I M P E R I A LR E P U B L I C

User avatar
Tokora
Diplomat
 
Posts: 806
Founded: Oct 08, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tokora » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:57 pm

I don't hate the idea of a monarchy, but as a Socialist I don't want the fate of a country to be at the mercy of parenting. Monarchies are best kept constitutionally where bad ones are kept out of trouble and good ones can just voice their views with parliament going "that's actually a good point" rather than being decreed on a whim.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Teffland, The Blaatschapen, The Holy Therns, The Plough Islands

Advertisement

Remove ads