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
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12696
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:48 am

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Monarchies are an outdated concept that belong in the medieval ages


And so republics belong in the classical era I guess.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Alternamerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 778
Founded: Apr 11, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Alternamerica » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:52 am

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Greater Cosmicium wrote:
Monarchies are an outdated concept that belong in the medieval ages


And so republics belong in the classical era I guess.


Except Republics, both Democratic or Communist, seem to be faring better in the modern day than Monarchies do. Even then, the most successful monarchies are constitutional ones where elected officials have more power over the nation's legislature
What if America, but with Social Democracy & Eisenhower worship? Medicare For All, North American Highspeed Rail, and $1 Trillion military budget because we're the best country. CIA love Teddy Roosevelt and the environment enough to torture Oil executives. Our conservatives shoot Klansmen for sport. We waterboard UN delegates until they sign the GND
30% IRL views, 70% joke

Anthem | Basically USA | Factbook | Trump Tweets | GOP when there's liter | American Katyusha/Erika (WW2)
BREAKING NEWS: Proud Boys are robbing vaccines from rich neighborhoods to give to low income communities often neglected during vaccine rollout

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12696
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:56 am

Alternamerica wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
And so republics belong in the classical era I guess.


Except Republics, both Democratic or Communist, seem to be faring better in the modern day than Monarchies do. Even then, the most successful monarchies are constitutional ones where elected officials have more power over the nation's legislature


Monarchies seem to be doing pretty well and are typically at the top of international freedom indexes. Again looking at America with its wonderful electoral collage system. The UK has FPTP too but at least we get elections started and finished in a short space of time.
Last edited by SD_Film Artists on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

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

Postby The Marlborough » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:01 pm

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

Yeah he's actually not that bad, contrary to popular belief.


Anyway, I think monarchs should be able to exercise power, have veto power, and implement some policy without prior approval, while also having a permanent parliament to draft legislation, act as a conduit between the Crown and people, and even have some veto power over the monarch's directives with a supermajority vote.
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
Greater Cosmicium
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 200
Founded: Mar 29, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Greater Cosmicium » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:10 pm

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Alternamerica wrote:
Except Republics, both Democratic or Communist, seem to be faring better in the modern day than Monarchies do. Even then, the most successful monarchies are constitutional ones where elected officials have more power over the nation's legislature


Monarchies seem to be doing pretty well and are typically at the top of international freedom indexes. Again looking at America with its wonderful electoral collage system. The UK has FPTP too but at least we get elections started and finished in a short space of time.


Which kind of indexes? The ones that get funded by the US government?
✯✯✯ UNIVERSAL EMPIRE OF GREATER COSMICIUM ✯✯✯
Military Hub
Geography Hub
History Hub
Economy Hub

Doing a total rewrite of this nation to shake off its generic space empire image. I dread to know WHEN it will be done.
NS stats were dropped into Diet Coke to finally serve a useful purpose for Greater Cosmicium.
14/05/1072918 | Cosmi-Web News: [MED] You may already be dead without knowing it, here's how to tell. | Cosmician Press Agency: Cosmician Censorship Bureau moves to ban book "The Remnants of Cosmicium" for "prophetic content predicting Cosmicium's downfall"

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12696
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:12 pm

Greater Cosmicium wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
Monarchies seem to be doing pretty well and are typically at the top of international freedom indexes. Again looking at America with its wonderful electoral collage system. The UK has FPTP too but at least we get elections started and finished in a short space of time.


Which kind of indexes? The ones that get funded by the US government?


Things like Freedomhouse https://freedomhouse.org/countries/free ... d%20Status

Also I'm not sure why the US government would be funding monarchiest propaganda, if that's what you were implying.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Valdonia01
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Dec 10, 2017
Corporate Police State

Postby Valdonia01 » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:14 pm

Monarchies in general should be abolished. Even in a purely figure head role monarchies promote inequality

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 15939
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:17 pm

Alternamerica wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
And so republics belong in the classical era I guess.


Except Republics, both Democratic or Communist, seem to be faring better in the modern day than Monarchies do. Even then, the most successful monarchies are constitutional ones where elected officials have more power over the nation's legislature

You can't judge republics as more successful than monarchies based on a snapshot of a particular moment in history; if you'd done the same at the end of the 19th century you would likely conclude that monarchy was far more successful as a system of government than republicanism, but then the First World War intervened. Republican ideas have been in vogue since the early 20th century, in large part due to the domination of the world by republican governments, and as such most new states created in that period have been created as republics; but they have not, in general, been substantially more stable, better governed or more free than monarchies existing in the same timeframe. Indeed, where formal monarchies have been abolished and replaced with republics in the 20th and 21st century the new regimes have more or less invariably been worse in every measurable respect.

Assuming that current ideological trends will continue into the future is also extremely naïve. In the 5th century BC virtually all of the Greek city-states were democratically or oligarchically run, like most states today. Monarchy was associated with the long-gone heroic era and with barbarian peoples. But by the mid-4th century, Macedon had risen prominence over the Greek states, ushering in the era of the Hellenistic monarchies which were to dominate the eastern Mediterranean until the ascent of Rome. History is far from linear, and in general what we'd broadly categorise as monarchies have been the most common forms of government through history.
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
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12696
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:18 pm

Valdonia01 wrote:Monarchies in general should be abolished. Even in a purely figure head role monarchies promote inequality


I like the idea that we can strive to be a monarch even if the average person's ability to get into the royal family is virtually nil. It says a lot about a nation's pride if you can say that your head of state answers only to God, rather than- 'he got elected because the right companies gave him enough election funds to convince some plebs that he's a nice guy'. That's why when I think of 'republic' I automatically on an almost synthesia-like level think of some African militiaman who has recently removed a stable state, ready to enforce his faceless, likely corrupt "repuBlic" to the joy of the world.

For the record I'm not generalising Africans to being predisposed to corruption, just that a lot of independence movements happend there.
Last edited by SD_Film Artists on Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Alternamerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 778
Founded: Apr 11, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Alternamerica » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:44 pm

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Alternamerica wrote:
Except Republics, both Democratic or Communist, seem to be faring better in the modern day than Monarchies do. Even then, the most successful monarchies are constitutional ones where elected officials have more power over the nation's legislature


Monarchies seem to be doing pretty well and are typically at the top of international freedom indexes. Again looking at America with its wonderful electoral collage system. The UK has FPTP too but at least we get elections started and finished in a short space of time.


Except Republics, both Democratic or Communist, seem to be faring better in the modern day than Monarchies do. Even then, the most successful monarchies are constitutional ones where elected officials have more power over the nation's legislature

I already mentioned that in the above quote, and the monarchies that ranked high are constitutional monarchies where they have little or no power other than for ceremonial purposes. The US is the only modern Republic with an electoral college system so not sure how that's an argument for Monarchism when I already suggested Constitutional Monarchies and Democratic Republics are the best forms of government purely because Monarchs aren't calling the shots
What if America, but with Social Democracy & Eisenhower worship? Medicare For All, North American Highspeed Rail, and $1 Trillion military budget because we're the best country. CIA love Teddy Roosevelt and the environment enough to torture Oil executives. Our conservatives shoot Klansmen for sport. We waterboard UN delegates until they sign the GND
30% IRL views, 70% joke

Anthem | Basically USA | Factbook | Trump Tweets | GOP when there's liter | American Katyusha/Erika (WW2)
BREAKING NEWS: Proud Boys are robbing vaccines from rich neighborhoods to give to low income communities often neglected during vaccine rollout

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12696
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:53 pm

Alternamerica wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
Monarchies seem to be doing pretty well and are typically at the top of international freedom indexes. Again looking at America with its wonderful electoral collage system. The UK has FPTP too but at least we get elections started and finished in a short space of time.


Except Republics, both Democratic or Communist, seem to be faring better in the modern day than Monarchies do. Even then, the most successful monarchies are constitutional ones where elected officials have more power over the nation's legislature

I already mentioned that in the above quote, and the monarchies that ranked high are constitutional monarchies where they have little or no power other than for ceremonial purposes. The US is the only modern Republic with an electoral college system so not sure how that's an argument for Monarchism when I already suggested Constitutional Monarchies and Democratic Republics are the best forms of government purely because Monarchs aren't calling the shots


You said that republics are doing better when that's not the case. I mentioned America because they're often cited (probably by Americans) as an example of a free democracy and republic, yet they aren't achieving the benefits seen by modern monarchies.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Alternamerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 778
Founded: Apr 11, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Alternamerica » Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:52 pm

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Alternamerica wrote:

I already mentioned that in the above quote, and the monarchies that ranked high are constitutional monarchies where they have little or no power other than for ceremonial purposes. The US is the only modern Republic with an electoral college system so not sure how that's an argument for Monarchism when I already suggested Constitutional Monarchies and Democratic Republics are the best forms of government purely because Monarchs aren't calling the shots


You said that republics are doing better when that's not the case. I mentioned America because they're often cited (probably by Americans) as an example of a free democracy and republic, yet they aren't achieving the benefits seen by modern monarchies.


Who cites America as an example of a model Democratic Republic? Even other supporters of Republicanism criticize the hell out of the US model as outdated. What benefits do monarchies have other than being a drain on taxes in the case of constitutional monarchies? Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway would still be Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway as a Republic. Their royal families are only there for ceremonial purposes and for the most part powerless. Remove them and the countries will still function exactly as they are right now.

In cases where Monarchs do have political power, you'd get the authoritarianism of Saudi Arabia or the instability of Thailand. The monarchies that appear to be working are Democratic with powerless monarchs which function a lot like Democratic Republics minus the culture of crown wearers
Last edited by Alternamerica on Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What if America, but with Social Democracy & Eisenhower worship? Medicare For All, North American Highspeed Rail, and $1 Trillion military budget because we're the best country. CIA love Teddy Roosevelt and the environment enough to torture Oil executives. Our conservatives shoot Klansmen for sport. We waterboard UN delegates until they sign the GND
30% IRL views, 70% joke

Anthem | Basically USA | Factbook | Trump Tweets | GOP when there's liter | American Katyusha/Erika (WW2)
BREAKING NEWS: Proud Boys are robbing vaccines from rich neighborhoods to give to low income communities often neglected during vaccine rollout

User avatar
Senkaku
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21543
Founded: Sep 01, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Senkaku » Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:53 pm

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!

Why let them reign or govern when you could simply depose them
haters will see you growing on a finite planet and say you can't grow infinitely

User avatar
Holy Tedalonia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11651
Founded: Nov 14, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Holy Tedalonia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:54 pm

Alternamerica wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
You said that republics are doing better when that's not the case. I mentioned America because they're often cited (probably by Americans) as an example of a free democracy and republic, yet they aren't achieving the benefits seen by modern monarchies.


Who cites America as an example of a model Democratic Republic? Even other supporters of Republicanism criticize the hell out of the US model as outdated. What benefits do monarchies have other than being a drain on taxes in the case of constitutional monarchies? Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway would still be Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway as a Republic. Their royal families are only there for ceremonial purposes and for the most part powerless. Remove them and the countries will still function exactly as they are right now

Imagine the benefits of making a skeleton king, all the benefits of monarchy and none of the costs.
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
Albrenia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16245
Founded: Aug 18, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Albrenia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:56 pm

Monarchs with some power can be useful, as long as it's understood that they serve the people, not the other way around. Misuse or even too much use of the powers they have should be met with their legal removal by the people.
Last edited by Albrenia on Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alternamerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 778
Founded: Apr 11, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Alternamerica » Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:56 pm

Holy Tedalonia wrote:
Alternamerica wrote:
Who cites America as an example of a model Democratic Republic? Even other supporters of Republicanism criticize the hell out of the US model as outdated. What benefits do monarchies have other than being a drain on taxes in the case of constitutional monarchies? Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway would still be Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway as a Republic. Their royal families are only there for ceremonial purposes and for the most part powerless. Remove them and the countries will still function exactly as they are right now

Imagine the benefits of making a skeleton king, all the benefits of monarchy and none of the costs.


You sir know how to run a compromise.

Hail the Skeletal Majesty!
What if America, but with Social Democracy & Eisenhower worship? Medicare For All, North American Highspeed Rail, and $1 Trillion military budget because we're the best country. CIA love Teddy Roosevelt and the environment enough to torture Oil executives. Our conservatives shoot Klansmen for sport. We waterboard UN delegates until they sign the GND
30% IRL views, 70% joke

Anthem | Basically USA | Factbook | Trump Tweets | GOP when there's liter | American Katyusha/Erika (WW2)
BREAKING NEWS: Proud Boys are robbing vaccines from rich neighborhoods to give to low income communities often neglected during vaccine rollout

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12696
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:52 pm

Alternamerica wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
You said that republics are doing better when that's not the case. I mentioned America because they're often cited (probably by Americans) as an example of a free democracy and republic, yet they aren't achieving the benefits seen by modern monarchies.


Who cites America as an example of a model Democratic Republic?


Americans who tend to not be in favour of monarchies and at least see their system as better even if they don't agree with the electoral college etc.

What benefits do monarchies have other than being a drain on taxes in the case of constitutional monarchies? Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway would still be Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway as a Republic. Their royal families are only there for ceremonial purposes and for the most part powerless. Remove them and the countries will still function exactly as they are right now.


You could say the same about any government. Even a benevolent dictatorship would still make Denmark Denmark. Other governments also use up taxes. More to the point, as previously mentioned the US could do with a non-partisan head of state, a physical manifestation of Uncle Sam.
Last edited by SD_Film Artists on Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Albrenia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16245
Founded: Aug 18, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Albrenia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:55 pm

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.

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 15939
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 3:11 pm

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.

The monarchy isn't even funded from taxes- it's funded by the income from the Crown Estates. Monarchies in general are not any more expensive than presidencies, contrary to popular perception. Generally much less so when you factor in the cost of regular presidential elections. Abolishing the monarchy probably wouldn't save the British taxpayer anything worth quibbling about, and you don't see people in Ireland or Germany complaining about the cost of their presidents even though their roles are largely ceremonial just as Queen Elizabeth II's or King Harald V's are. Or, at least, I've never heard of a campaign group calling for the abolition of the Irish or German presidencies. Republicans generally just dislike monarchy on principle, but since the majority of people in today's European monarchies don't share their fundamental aversion they harp on about the cost in the hope of misleading people into seeing the monarchy as a significant financial burden.
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
Northwest Slobovia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12414
Founded: Sep 16, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Northwest Slobovia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 3:16 pm

Albrenia wrote:Monarchs with some power can be useful, as long as it's understood that they serve the people, not the other way around. Misuse or even too much use of the powers they have should be met with their legal removal by the people.

In short, the role of a president in a parliamentary system. If you want to slap a crown on them and address them as "your majesty", that's your business. :P
Gollum died for your sins.
Power is an equal-opportunity corrupter.

User avatar
The Union of American Communes
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Nov 06, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Union of American Communes » Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:42 pm

Death to the Autocrats! Rebirth of power to the people!
Long Live the Great Leaders, Premier Biden and Vice-Premier Harris!

User avatar
Novus America
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36800
Founded: Jun 02, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Novus America » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:11 pm

Holy Tedalonia wrote:
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.


The Roman Empire was actually officially a Republic. Emperor and Prince were originally Republican titles that monarchists later stole/appropriated. The Roman Empire was of course in practice a semi hereditary dictatorship (but often by adoption not by blood) but in theory and sometimes even in practice (well with the backing of the military) the Senate would elect and depose Emperors.

And few dynasties lasted long. Of course the Roman system of succession was extremely unstable.
An Emperor would choose a successor, often their son, but often and adopted one.
But they could only take power with military support, and thus the reality was it was really who could command support of the military, coups were common.
Last edited by Novus America on Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
___|_|___ _|__*__|_

Zombie Ike/Teddy Roosevelt 2020.

Novus America represents my vision of an awesome Atompunk near future United States of America expanded to the entire North American continent, Guyana and the Philippines. The population would be around 700 million.
Think something like prewar Fallout, minus the bad stuff.

Politically I am an independent. I support what is good for the country, which means I cannot support either party.

User avatar
The Greater Gothic Empire
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 144
Founded: May 14, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Greater Gothic Empire » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:26 pm

Autocracy is a preferable alternative to democracy. Of course I understand that the vast majority of those who voted for the third option would want to rant about things like how democratic 'states' call for explicit regicide and it is not just disturbing, but vehemently disgusting and unbearable. I am not just saying this as an insult to democracy-lovers throughout NationStates, but I would want to express my thoughts on how democracies are nothing more or less than majority tyrannies. In a democracy, everybody gets sh*t regardless of the corresponding elected government/administration/parliament. Why did everybody equally gets sh*t in democratically elected-governments? The majority wanted too much power they feel entitled to overthrow a monarch just because one's a monarch, not just the monarch is good or bad or morally ambiguous.

Regardless of whether a country is a constitutional monarchy, or a republic, or even a stateless commune, I find democracy to be the worst forms of long-term government and in saying this, I say I grow exhausted not just over actual democratic concerns such as voter fraud or elected governments enjoying low popular support, among others, but mostly I found even the concept of democracy to be based on mob rule. That, is what democracy is.

I am more than alright a monarch with fundamentally and virtually complete, peerless, unrestrained, unlimited, universal, unrestricted, unchallenged, unquestionable and self-entitled absolute power. After reading what happened with Nicholas II, all I care is that the most charismatic personalities by far deserve to rule (and lead) than the majority of sheep following which idea they call desirable while I call ugly. n the other hand, a constitutional monarchy with a generally-constrained figurehead is anything I vehemently hate—constitutional figureheads make me want to think of posh, affluent, Hollywood stars and I assert figureheads like Elizabeth II or Naruhito should better be Hollywood actors than 'monarchs' which in fact, are lifeless marionettes of an unruly, ignorant populace.

That being said, let peerless autocrats reign whatever the hell they want for everything I vehemently care. What I don't mind literally am disgusted over, are those trolls like this representative of a lot of the anti-monarchist voters who call for dragging monarchs onto the streets and publicly hang them to death for entertainment overthrowing monarchies worldwide and I am not hesitant to call them out. Believe me, they're everywhere, and it is not just decent people who are anti-monarchist regardless of whether moderate or borderline their antagonistic stance towards monarchy is, there are people who riot in the streets calling for an overthrow of all authority in general, which is why I need.
Last edited by The Greater Gothic Empire on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:12 pm, edited 15 times in total.

GREATER GOTHIC EMPIRE
MAGNVM GOTHICVM IMPERIVM
"Je Dio ni fidas"

User avatar
Auphelia
Minister
 
Posts: 2853
Founded: Jan 05, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Auphelia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:28 pm

I find monarchs to be quite a delightful concept, with all of the history and glamour surrounding the idea of royalty. However, this fondness is only formed because they do not have much power to concretely influence policy. If they have power, they share the blame for a nation's problems. Divorced from their original roles, however, an assuming they are decent people at least, seeing living royalty is just a bit of fun. Elizabeth II knights people, which is delightful and something ceremonial and meaningful to do for people who have made great achievements. Monarchs have birthdays and weddings that drive tourism, and from a foreign relations standpoint, whilst their power is limited in places like England, Queen Elizabeth II serves as an excellent diplomat. A visit with the Queen is a humbling experience, after all, her having reigned longer than most world leaders have been alive. But if the Queen had the power to raise taxes so she could build a new palace, or declared war on France because one of their ministers didn't bow deeply enough when meeting her, that would be a different scenario entirely.

So without any real power (aside from the inherent soft power of fame and at least moderate wealth), monarchies are a fun little bit of living history and generally worth it. Monarchs with power, however, are not.
6 Term Local Councillor of the South Pacific
The Grand Dame of Deliciously, Despicably Dastardly Deeds and Devilishly Deranged Doings

Condemned for Being the Baddest Old Biddy
SC #307

Kyrusia wrote:...This one. This one is clever. I like this one.

Charlia wrote:You, I like.

You're entertaining. And your signature makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the insiiii--

User avatar
Jedi Council
Senator
 
Posts: 3951
Founded: Jan 01, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Jedi Council » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:31 pm

Constitutional monarchy is fine.

Any monarchy with actual power, outside emergency powers, is not.
New Liberal | Humanist
Surfing NS Since 2013
Morally obligated to finish any Star Wars quote
The Huskar Social Union wrote:Jedi Council is in fact, the big gay.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Bobanopula, Esalia, Google [Bot], Heloin, Ifreann, Jarvikan, Kingdom of Englands, New yugoslavaia, Odreria, Parxland, Philjia, Playing In The Water, Postauthoritarian America, Poulton-with-Fearnhead, Qyrym, Shidei, South Americanastan, Stephaniesland, The Emerald Legion, The Huskar Social Union, Vistulange, Wallenburg

Advertisement

Remove ads