NationStates

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Monarchies are an outdated concept that belong in the medieval ages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.

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Monarchies are an outdated concept that belong in the medieval ages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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Death to the Autocrats! Rebirth of power to the people!

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.

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.

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.

Constitutional monarchy is fine.

Any monarchy with actual power, outside emergency powers, is not.