NationStates

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Monarchs, upon taking the throne, should immediately abolish the monarchy and abdicate.

No Kings, No Emperors.

Instead career politicians who only care about their party and whichever companies/unions are paying them.

Should they exist, it's only for ceremonial/cultural reasons but should have as little say in governance as possible. Monarchies are remnants of a bygone era. With the advent of modern education and mass communication, a more networked, educated society is better at running things on a local level than what a Monarch can ever dream of

My statement also applies to authoritarian and oligopolistic Republics

Alternamerica wrote:Should they exist, it's only for ceremonial/cultural reasons but should have as little say in governance as possible. Monarchies are remnants of a bygone era. With the advent of modern education and mass communication, a more networked, educated society is better at running things on a local level than what a Monarch can ever dream of

My statement also applies to authoritarian and oligopolistic Republics

Republics aren't exactly new either.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Monarchs, upon taking the throne, should immediately abolish the monarchy and abdicate.

No Kings, No Emperors.

Instead career politicians who only care about their party and whichever companies/unions are paying them.

Are you a monarcho socialist? Or does your political compass still put you in the overton window?

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Alternamerica wrote:Should they exist, it's only for ceremonial/cultural reasons but should have as little say in governance as possible. Monarchies are remnants of a bygone era. With the advent of modern education and mass communication, a more networked, educated society is better at running things on a local level than what a Monarch can ever dream of

My statement also applies to authoritarian and oligopolistic Republics

Republics aren't exactly new either.

Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Monarchs, upon taking the throne, should immediately abolish the monarchy and abdicate.

No Kings, No Emperors.

How boring, atleast dig up a skeleton and proclaim it god emperor. Atleast then you get all the benefits of monarchy and none of the downsides.

Alternamerica wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Republics aren't exactly new either.

Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

How so? During WW2 the monarchy stayed in Britain rather than fleeing to Canada.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Alternamerica wrote:
Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

How so? During WW2 the monarchy stayed in Britain rather than fleeing to Canada.

Something something they elect people who adapt to the modern times something something(ignores fact republics have a hard time getting anything done).

Alternamerica wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Republics aren't exactly new either.

Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

History does not exactly support that statement.

Alternamerica wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Republics aren't exactly new either.

Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

The only downside to dictatorship systems monarchist or not, is that if you give people an education, they'll realize your rule is not absolute. This realization causes tension between the monarch and people, so even if your a good leader who knows whats best for his citizens, actively educating the populace will convince folks that your rule is not in fact absolute. And probably oust you for a republic.

Is a republic more adaptable? No, but it aligns its interests with the people. A politician is someone who argues for a role, arguing that their policies are for the peoples best interest. A monarch needs to make no argument, for his rule is law, so long as he isn't overthrown.

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Instead career politicians who only care about their party and whichever companies/unions are paying them.

Are you a monarcho socialist? Or does your political compass still put you in the overton window?

I'm not against that system though I wouldn't describe myself as such. I just dislike how some people are happy to paint monarchies as an anachronism with no value, yet their own system has its own disadvantages such as accepting national awards from someone who represents a party rather than the country, and going with the example of America it's still having issues with its election and hyping up civil war albiet not to a widespread degree; meanwhile Britain gets elections done within a few weeks and has the Queen to step in if there were a constitutional crisis.

I believe that monarchs should not, and should never have existed! Power should never be concentrated in such extreme amounts for such long periods of time. All monarchs should abdicate, or be overthrown, and democratic republics established in their wake.

It's kinda telling that the concept of monarchy here is exclusively viewed in an modern european context.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Alternamerica wrote:
Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

How so? During WW2 the monarchy stayed in Britain rather than fleeing to Canada.

Our (Dutch) monarchy did both

The reigning queen was in Britain, while the crown princess was in Canada.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

Alternamerica wrote:
Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

The only downside to dictatorship systems monarchist or not, is that if you give people an education, they'll realize your rule is not absolute. This realization causes tension between the monarch and people, so even if your a good leader who knows whats best for his citizens, actively educating the populace will convince folks that your rule is not in fact absolute. And probably oust you for a republic.

Is a republic more adaptable? No, but it aligns its interests with the people. A politician is someone who argues for a role, arguing that their policies are for the peoples best interest. A monarch needs to make no argument, for his rule is law, so long as he isn't overthrown.

A monarch does have the advantage of meeting more world leaders and knowing about statesmanship in general, whereas Mr SeemedAGoodIdeaAtTheTime has a few years of being in a hedge fund. The UK Queen has met more US presidents than pretty much anyone else in the world, possibly beaten only by senior white house staff and veteran journalists.

Nakena wrote:It's kinda telling that the concept of monarchy here is exclusively viewed in an modern european context.

I don't think many would be able to stomach what would happen to the reject monarch of china in the modern day.

A monarch is usually put in place to shorten decisions in government by holding absolute power, so the monarch should govern, not merely direct their subordinates and stay out of government.

Imagine starting this thread without setting forth definitions for reign and govern.

That said, I think it can be guessed what OP meant. A reigning monarch holds a mostly ceremonial office, and is in essence a figurehead, while a governing monarch holds absolute or at least tangible power. (A better prompt for this discussion would be, "Absolute or Limited Monarchy?".)

I am actually a proponent of autocracy; but monarchy is one of my least favorite forms of it. This is solely because of hereditary succession. There is no guarantee that the son of a great ruler will be half as great as his father. History is littered with examples. It's almost as if you're rolling up a new Dungeons and Dragons character every time the monarch dies; and, just as great men are few amongst the total population, so are truly great monarchs few amongst monarchies. For every Sun King you get five or six bumbling forgettables, maybe even a Charles II if you're unlucky...

Obviously the problem of incest can be mitigated in modern times, but still. There's no guarantee that the ruler will have the forethought to rear his heir to be a suitable successor to the throne, and placing the fate of one's nation on what is essentially the roll of a die is not an excellent system of governance.

Of course, this is, to a certain extent, a problem with all autocracies; but it can be alleviated by systems which allow the most capable to seize power, rather than passing it down from father to son.

Therefore, if there is to be a monarch at all, consign him to reigning, holding no real power over his nation. Governing should be left to autocrats who have earned power, rather than inherited it.

The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile wrote:Imagine starting this thread without setting forth definitions for reign and govern.

That said, I think it can be guessed what OP meant. A reigning monarch holds a mostly ceremonial office, and is in essence a figurehead, while a governing monarch holds absolute or at least tangible power. (A better prompt for this discussion would be, "Absolute or Limited Monarchy?".)

I am actually a proponent of autocracy; but monarchy is one of my least favorite forms of it. This is solely because of hereditary succession. There is no guarantee that the son of a great ruler will be half as great as his father. History is littered with examples. It's almost as if you're rolling up a new Dungeons and Dragons character every time the monarch dies; and, just as great men are few amongst the total population, so are truly great monarchs few amongst monarchies. For every Sun King you get five or six bumbling forgettables, maybe even a Charles II if you're unlucky...

Obviously the problem of incest can be mitigated in modern times, but still. There's no guarantee that the ruler will have the forethought to rear his heir to be a suitable successor to the throne, and placing the fate of one's nation on what is essentially the roll of a die is not an excellent system of governance.

Of course, this is, to a certain extent, a problem with all autocracies; but it can be alleviated by systems which allow the most capable to seize power, rather than passing it down from father to son.

Therefore, if there is to be a monarch at all, consign him to reigning, holding no real power over his nation. Governing should be left to autocrats who have earned power, rather than inherited it.

Tbf, even the roman empire had issues of succession, and they designated heirs instead of it simply being hereditary. They even got some real shit emperors in power at times.

Neither. They should be abolished.

Nakena wrote:It's kinda telling that the concept of monarchy here is exclusively viewed in an modern european context.

Monarchy is an extraordinarily broad term, so it's difficult to make any kind of generic argument for or against it.

The Hellas Planitia Territories wrote:I believe that monarchs should not, and should never have existed! Power should never be concentrated in such extreme amounts for such long periods of time. All monarchs should abdicate, or be overthrown, and democratic republics established in their wake.

Off with their heads.

The same can be said of every aristocracy.

Alliance with the aristocracies and monarchies of Europe, for instance, is downright treason against the principles the Founders stood for.

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!

Monarchies are an outdated concept that belong in the medieval ages; the world has moved beyond the need for them. An absolute monarch can't properly make decisions for an entire nation, even a small one, since they can't possibly know the desired policies of each section of the population (also they never properly make decisions, because, y'know, personal enrichment and gaining support of your nobility, damn the commoners), while a constitutional monarch has many of the same issues (the monarchs of many constitutional monarchies still decide whether a law passes or not after it's been passed in more "democratic" government chambers), except they're less powerful.

Only the common people truly know what policy they align with and what they want (or don't want) as leader and what government to have, not monarchs, "elected" "representatives" that never end up representing the people, or other ruling people of similar type.

TLDR: They should do neither. Down with the monarchy! Long live the worker's republic!

Sorry for the possibly incoherent ramble, I'm not used to writing such opinions.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Tbf, even the roman empire had issues of succession, and they designated heirs instead of it simply being hereditary. They even got some real shit emperors in power at times.

Sure, but I wasn't necessarily arguing for designated succession. This would inexorably lead to autocrats bequeathing power to those they favored, rather than those most capable of ruling.

Even electing successors via some sort of shadow council or oligarchy is a dubious succession system. Power struggles at the death of an autocrat are nearly inevitable, so autocracies might as well embrace them, so that the strongest successor may claim power.

Greater Cosmicium wrote:

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!

Monarchies are an outdated concept that belong in the medieval ages; the world has moved beyond the need for them. An absolute monarch can't properly make decisions for an entire nation, even a small one, since they can't possibly know the desired policies of each section of the population (also they never properly make decisions, because, y'know, personal enrichment and gaining support of your nobility, damn the commoners), while a constitutional monarch has many of the same issues (the monarchs of many constitutional monarchies still decide whether a law passes or not after it's been passed in more "democratic" government chambers), except they're less powerful.

Only the common people truly know what policy they align with and what they want (or don't want) as leader and what government to have, not monarchs, "elected" "representatives" that never end up representing the people, or other ruling people of similar type.

TLDR: They should do neither. Down with the monarchy! Long live the worker's republic!

Sorry for the possibly incoherent ramble, I'm not used to writing such opinions.

One could say there never, ever was a need for monarchy and aristocracy. Paine's Rights of Man makes a lot of excellent points in this respect, and you might consider reading Adams on the nature of the alliance between the civil power and the ecclesiastical power under feudalism.