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
Exalted Inquellian State
Minister
 
Posts: 2820
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Exalted Inquellian State » Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:49 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Exalted Inquellian State wrote:Well, we know the outcome of the election for certain, so for now America doesn't need a monarch. If we're still in recession by Biden's 1 year anniversary, I'm becoming an American Monarchist.


Which dynasty will you root for? Bush? Roosevelt? Adams? Harry&Meghan?

Elizabeth II. Also, if Trump does a coup, I'll switch to wanting a semi-constitutional monarchy, but not under her. Under an elected American monarch. A Congress will be elected, and then choose the Monarch. it won't be an elective monarchy-after the first one dies, the rules of succession kick in.
My Speculative Evolution RP-https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=494906

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 58905
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:54 am

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:
Which dynasty will you root for? Bush? Roosevelt? Adams? Harry&Meghan?

Elizabeth II. Also, if Trump does a coup, I'll switch to wanting a semi-constitutional monarchy, but not under her. Under an elected American monarch. A Congress will be elected, and then choose the Monarch. it won't be an elective monarchy-after the first one dies, the rules of succession kick in.


Elizabeth II?

You sure you want Charles on the throne at some point? :p
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
Exalted Inquellian State
Minister
 
Posts: 2820
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Exalted Inquellian State » Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:55 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Exalted Inquellian State wrote:Elizabeth II. Also, if Trump does a coup, I'll switch to wanting a semi-constitutional monarchy, but not under her. Under an elected American monarch. A Congress will be elected, and then choose the Monarch. it won't be an elective monarchy-after the first one dies, the rules of succession kick in.


Elizabeth II?

You sure you want Charles on the throne at some point? :p

Yes, I'm sure. He'll provide enough stability.
My Speculative Evolution RP-https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=494906

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12611
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:56 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Exalted Inquellian State wrote:Elizabeth II. Also, if Trump does a coup, I'll switch to wanting a semi-constitutional monarchy, but not under her. Under an elected American monarch. A Congress will be elected, and then choose the Monarch. it won't be an elective monarchy-after the first one dies, the rules of succession kick in.


Elizabeth II?

You sure you want Charles on the throne at some point? :p

Harry and Meghan are already in America, just saying...

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

Postby Deus Ignis » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:05 am

Picairn wrote:While being a symbol of unity is good and all, monarchs are practically useless in today's era. Frankly, all monarchs in the world (constitutional or absolute) should be replaced with elected leaders.


How are they useless? Are they still leading countries and they are, how are they useless when they are making laws, guiding the people, and protecting the nation's interest?
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
Free Socialist Workers States
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: May 18, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Free Socialist Workers States » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:09 am

Would rather have no monarchs at all but if the nation wants them, then I'd rather they be symbolic and figureheads, nothing more.

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

Postby Deus Ignis » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:15 am

Free Socialist Workers States wrote:Would rather have no monarchs at all but if the nation wants them, then I'd rather they be symbolic and figureheads, nothing more.


Can you please explain why you are against monarchs?
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
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12611
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:16 am

Deus Ignis wrote:
Free Socialist Workers States wrote:Would rather have no monarchs at all but if the nation wants them, then I'd rather they be symbolic and figureheads, nothing more.


Can you please explain why you are against monarchs?


I think their nation name gives a reason.

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
The Blaatschapen
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 58905
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:18 am

Deus Ignis wrote:
Free Socialist Workers States wrote:Would rather have no monarchs at all but if the nation wants them, then I'd rather they be symbolic and figureheads, nothing more.


Can you please explain why you are against monarchs?


It goes against the idea of all people being born equal.
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
Deus Ignis
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Deus Ignis » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:19 am

Celritannia wrote:
Deus Ignis wrote:
Can you please explain why you are against monarchs?


I think their nation name gives a reason.


True, however I prefer a explanation then a assumption on a nation's name(after-all not everyone creates a nation based on their world views)
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
Picairn
Senator
 
Posts: 3882
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Picairn » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:28 am

Deus Ignis wrote:
Picairn wrote:While being a symbol of unity is good and all, monarchs are practically useless in today's era. Frankly, all monarchs in the world (constitutional or absolute) should be replaced with elected leaders.


How are they useless? Are they still leading countries and they are, how are they useless when they are making laws, guiding the people, and protecting the nation's interest?

Their powers are mostly ceremonial. It's the Legislature that makes law, not the monarchs. And the Prime Minister holds actual power. A President can serve the job just fine with even more powers than a constitutional monarch.
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Albrenia wrote:With great power comes great mockability.

Salus Maior wrote:Nothing we say here actually matters.

Moralityland wrote:big corporations allied with the communist elite
Center-left liberal, or "neoliberal scum"
according to the far-left and far-right.
Listen here Jack, we're going to destroy malarkey.

♔ The Empire of Picairn ♔
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
✵ Certified brunch-loving liberal and resident optimist of NSG. All Hail Biden!

User avatar
Resilient Acceleration
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 23, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Resilient Acceleration » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:32 am

If the monarch can do it, then he should govern. For example, the Sultan of Yogyakarta was appointed defense minister during the independence wars by the Republican government. He would later serve in various ministries, and eventually was democratically elected vice president in 1973 as the representative of civilians, as the president was from the military (though by that time the country was turning into a military dictatorship, and civilian influence would eventually be booted out).
Last edited by Resilient Acceleration on Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

2033.12.21
 Nippon World | Secretary Pasca: "release Taiwan lmao" if China wants embargo of critical phosphorus lifted, according to tweet // Riots and looting in 18 Chinese cities following "apocalyptic" food shortage and UN famine warning, amid agricultural collapse in North China following shortage of water and phosphorus-based fertilizer // PLA dispatched to "restore order" in Tianjin and Guangzhou

A near-future scenario where transhumanist tech barons and their ruthless capitalism are trying to save the planet, emphasis on "try" | Resilient Accelerationism in a nutshell | OOC

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:55 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:I actually agree with elective monarchies. What gives one of the monarch’s children a better right to govern just because they were born earlier?


What gives a monarch the right to govern in the first place ;)

The achievements of their ancestors. For example Ahmed Shah Durrani united Afghanistan by diplomacy. Even if a dynasty was first established by force subsequent rulers can earn their right to govern by their actions and pass this on to their children.
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59113
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:57 am

Resilient Acceleration wrote:If the monarch can do it, then he should govern. For example, the Sultan of Yogyakarta was appointed defense minister during the independence wars by the Republican government. He would later serve in various ministries, and eventually was democratically elected vice president in 1973 as the representative of civilians, as the president was from the military (though by that time the country was turning into a military dictatorship, and civilian influence would eventually be booted out).

why he and not she?

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12611
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:59 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:
What gives a monarch the right to govern in the first place ;)

The achievements of their ancestors. For example Ahmed Shah Durrani united Afghanistan by diplomacy. Even if a dynasty was first established by force subsequent rulers can earn their right to govern by their actions and pass this on to their children.


This really is a terrible reason. Their heir should also be recognised for their own achievements, than just piggy-backing off their predecessors and ancestors.

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
Resilient Acceleration
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 23, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Resilient Acceleration » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:59 am

San Lumen wrote:
Resilient Acceleration wrote:If the monarch can do it, then he should govern. For example, the Sultan of Yogyakarta was appointed defense minister during the independence wars by the Republican government. He would later serve in various ministries, and eventually was democratically elected vice president in 1973 as the representative of civilians, as the president was from the military (though by that time the country was turning into a military dictatorship, and civilian influence would eventually be booted out).

why he and not she?

Because Sultan Hamengkubuwana IX was a male. His son and the current monarch, Sultan Hamengkubuwana X, is also a male. The current heir to the throne, Princess GKR Mangkubumi, is a female though.

2033.12.21
 Nippon World | Secretary Pasca: "release Taiwan lmao" if China wants embargo of critical phosphorus lifted, according to tweet // Riots and looting in 18 Chinese cities following "apocalyptic" food shortage and UN famine warning, amid agricultural collapse in North China following shortage of water and phosphorus-based fertilizer // PLA dispatched to "restore order" in Tianjin and Guangzhou

A near-future scenario where transhumanist tech barons and their ruthless capitalism are trying to save the planet, emphasis on "try" | Resilient Accelerationism in a nutshell | OOC

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:59 am

San Lumen wrote:
Resilient Acceleration wrote:If the monarch can do it, then he should govern. For example, the Sultan of Yogyakarta was appointed defense minister during the independence wars by the Republican government. He would later serve in various ministries, and eventually was democratically elected vice president in 1973 as the representative of civilians, as the president was from the military (though by that time the country was turning into a military dictatorship, and civilian influence would eventually be booted out).

why he and not she?

Couldn't agree more. Queen Elizabeth II is great.
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Resilient Acceleration
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 23, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Resilient Acceleration » Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:01 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
San Lumen wrote:why he and not she?

Couldn't agree more. Queen Elizabeth II is great.

Well I mean my language don't have gendered pronouns, sorry I forgot, also I'm talking about an actual guy here. So yes "she" is absolutely fine.
Last edited by Resilient Acceleration on Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

2033.12.21
 Nippon World | Secretary Pasca: "release Taiwan lmao" if China wants embargo of critical phosphorus lifted, according to tweet // Riots and looting in 18 Chinese cities following "apocalyptic" food shortage and UN famine warning, amid agricultural collapse in North China following shortage of water and phosphorus-based fertilizer // PLA dispatched to "restore order" in Tianjin and Guangzhou

A near-future scenario where transhumanist tech barons and their ruthless capitalism are trying to save the planet, emphasis on "try" | Resilient Accelerationism in a nutshell | OOC

User avatar
Trollzyn the Infinite
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5496
Founded: Aug 22, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Trollzyn the Infinite » Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:26 am

Monarchs, upon taking the throne, should immediately abolish the monarchy and abdicate.

No Kings, No Emperors.
☆ American Patriot ☆ Civic Nationalist ☆ Rocker & Metalhead ☆ Heretical Christian ☆
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

Reminder that Donald J. Trump is officially a traitor to the United States of America as of January 6th, 2021
The Paradox of Tolerance
永远不会忘记1989年6月4日天安门广场大屠杀
Ես Արցախի կողքին եմ
Wanted Fugitive of the Chinese Communist Party
Unapologetic stan for Lana Beniko - #1 Sith Waifu

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 58905
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:35 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:
What gives a monarch the right to govern in the first place ;)

The achievements of their ancestors. For example Ahmed Shah Durrani united Afghanistan by diplomacy. Even if a dynasty was first established by force subsequent rulers can earn their right to govern by their actions and pass this on to their children.


Can we then also punish them for the crimes of their ancestors? It is only fair that it goes both ways :)
Last edited by The Blaatschapen on Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:44 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:The achievements of their ancestors. For example Ahmed Shah Durrani united Afghanistan by diplomacy. Even if a dynasty was first established by force subsequent rulers can earn their right to govern by their actions and pass this on to their children.


Can we then also punish them for the crimes of their ancestors? It is only fair that it goes both ways :)

No we can't in the same way that children whose parents were ordinary corner shop-owners can inherit their parents' shop but if their parents went to prison that would not mean they could be punished.
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12611
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:54 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:
Can we then also punish them for the crimes of their ancestors? It is only fair that it goes both ways :)

No we can't in the same way that children whose parents were ordinary corner shop-owners can inherit their parents' shop but if their parents went to prison that would not mean they could be punished.


So why should the heirs take claims of their forebears if they cannot also assume their crimes?
Last edited by Celritannia on Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

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
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:55 am

Celritannia wrote:
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:No we can't in the same way that children whose parents were ordinary corner shop-owners can inherit their parents' shop but if their parents went to prison that would not mean they could be punished.


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.
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53493
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:58 am

Deus Ignis wrote:This thread is about how monarchs should act while in power. Now lets begin:
I believe that monarchs should reign, not govern, and point the nation into one general direction, while the lords and elected/appointed commoners work out the smaller details.

So lets debate NS!

I think monarchs should be pointed in the general direction of Place de la Révolution. Ça ira!
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53493
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:00 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:
What gives a monarch the right to govern in the first place ;)

The achievements of their ancestors.

So I see, you mean that the world should be ruled by the descendants of Dirac, Fermi and Einstein.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Duvniask, Fractalnavel, Iron Land, Juristonia, Kubra, Laka Strolistandiler, New haven america, NS Miami

Advertisement

Remove ads