Any Monarchists on NS?

[Trotskylvania]

It's not essential, it's custom. It could be abolished at any time by parliament. In Britain, it's the parliament that is sovereign, not the Monarch. The Monarch is only a part of the Parliament in British constitutional tradition.

And, tell me, what are the three components of the British Parliament (hint: you can find the answer in my signature)? What is the enacting clause in UK legislation?

The House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Monarch. I'm not certain about the enacting clause in UK legislation, but I believe it's something to the effect of "If it pleases His (or Her) Majesty..."

I'm not a British constitutional scholar, I'm a political theorist. It's still very much true that the Monarch has no role in the British constitution independent of the elected government.

[Flaming Soul Forces]

Reactionary and disgustingly outdated idea. Get rid of it so humanity can progress. Thankyou, come again.

this

[Rhursbourg]

iam a constitutional monarchist

[Abdju]

Now, to the main topic, I'm going to be honest: I am indeed a monarchist, being disillusioned with democracy. I look at every. single. one. of the "democracies" of the world, and what do I see? Corrupt, shortsighed idiots, dominated by whoever shovels the most money into their re-election funds and unwilling to take any steps or enact any policies that don't generate huge benefits before their next election, for fear of generating attack ads against themselves for "wasting" taxpayer money on stuff that hasn't produced anything yet.

This I agree with 100%, and I likewise support a monarchical system, though I am for all intents and purposes an Absolutist, though one of the rare breeds of that school of thought who is also economically "left". My "ideal" system would be an absolute monarchy guided by cultural custom as the main constraint on actions, with economic activity based on a command economy within royal monopolies on the large scale, but with private activity being permitted on the petty/individual level. Wealth always ultimately translates into power, so control of both the source as well as the distribution of wealth is, in my view, essential to maintaining the power, authority and integrity, as well as the actual influence and ability to act of the throne. If you cannot control where and how the wealth of your nation is spent, then you have no real control over its direction at all.

[Icemany]

Im very proud that the UK is monarchy and I would never want to become a republic unless the monarchy regained its power, which is unlikely.

[New Chalcedon]

Now, to the main topic, I'm going to be honest: I am indeed a monarchist, being disillusioned with democracy. I look at every. single. one. of the "democracies" of the world, and what do I see? Corrupt, shortsighed idiots, dominated by whoever shovels the most money into their re-election funds and unwilling to take any steps or enact any policies that don't generate huge benefits before their next election, for fear of generating attack ads against themselves for "wasting" taxpayer money on stuff that hasn't produced anything yet.

This I agree with 100%, and I likewise support a monarchical system, though I am for all intents and purposes an Absolutist, though one of the rare breeds of that school of thought who is also economically "left". My "ideal" system would be an absolute monarchy guided by cultural custom as the main constraint on actions, with economic activity based on a command economy within royal monopolies on the large scale, but with private activity being permitted on the petty/individual level. Wealth always ultimately translates into power, so control of both the source as well as the distribution of wealth is, in my view, essential to maintaining the power, authority and integrity, as well as the actual influence and ability to act of the throne. If you cannot control where and how the wealth of your nation is spent, then you have no real control over its direction at all.

So, we share the same diagnosis (democracy simply doesn't work, for a multitude of reasons), but very different prescriptions: I was rather proposing a strong - but constitutional - monarchy (think one with a bit less political power than the US Presidency) which would be required to respect a variety of rights & freedoms on the part of its people (including extensive economic freedoms), not an absolutist model. Remember, for every Catherine II, there's a Paul III....

[Sveltz]

Death to all monarchies the are the most dictorial of all forcing people to worship the king/queen as if they were god.....hell to the no!!!! Long live the communist revolution and the revolutoin of the people for the republic!!!!

Unfortunately, this particular individual hasn't the slightest clue what modern monarchy is and to top it off he admires people like Stalin and Kim Il-Sung. Communism is the only government that has been proven to fail time and again.

[Valkern]

Now, to the main topic, I'm going to be honest: I am indeed a monarchist, being disillusioned with democracy. I look at every. single. one. of the "democracies" of the world, and what do I see? Corrupt, shortsighed idiots, dominated by whoever shovels the most money into their re-election funds and unwilling to take any steps or enact any policies that don't generate huge benefits before their next election, for fear of generating attack ads against themselves for "wasting" taxpayer money on stuff that hasn't produced anything yet. One sterling example is the healthcare "reform" bill that got through the US Congress: Big Pharma marshalled ten lobbyists for every man and woman in Congress (the Reps and the Senate combined), and got the damn bill watered down to the point of unrecognisability.

So, we share the same diagnosis (democracy simply doesn't work, for a multitude of reasons), but very different prescriptions: I was rather proposing a strong - but constitutional - monarchy (think one with a bit less political power than the US Presidency) which would be required to respect a variety of rights & freedoms on the part of its people (including extensive economic freedoms), not an absolutist model. Remember, for every Catherine II, there's a Paul III....

I agree, republics are almost always corrupt, and those that aren't (assuming they even exist) are too small to matter. A constitutional monarchy with the monarch having some real power is the best form of government, since you gain the benefit of a powerful politician who is not dependent on the favour of "special interests". Think about it, monarchies have been with us for thousands of years, if they weren't a good way of running things, then we wouldn't still have them today.

[Person012345]

Think about it, monarchies have been with us for thousands of years, if they weren't a good way of running things, then we wouldn't still have them today.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem?

[Acadzia]

Think about it, male nipples have been with us for thousands of years, if they weren't useful, then we wouldn't still have them today.

[Glorious Homeland]

I'm quite supportive of an absolute monarchist government type. Unfortunately the places in the world with them are blooming ****ing mental and all of the other monarchs are weakened by democratic reforms because they didn't have the strength to hold up their crown.

ctually Most European Monarchies became Republics after WWI largely because of American Influence in the post war negotiations, the irony would be if Russia had not become communist, the Russians would likely have prevented the axis powers from losing or weakening their monarchies after they lost. They'd still pay reparations out the wazoo though.

Nonsense, the empowerment of parliaments in Europe as opposed to absolute monarchies was a gradual process over centuries. The Americans had nothing to do with, Why would they in 1918, when Britain remained a super power? The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden? The Americans were supportive of monarchists in Italy immediately after world war two, for instance, as they were anti-communist. The CIA pumped lots of money into their bank accounts to spend money on campaigning, as well as other things in that era.

...bar Germany-Austria of course.

[Marsheebi]

Hello, French Monarchist here.
I have a soft spot for Absolutism, but recognize the usefulness of a constitution in the style of the German Empire.
Also, a little enamored with Napoleon Bonaparte.
Vive le Roy! Vive l'Empereur!

[Kazomal]

The President is in a very good position to represent Ireland abroad, being elected by the people, but also separate from the government and the need to maintain popularity. They have other powers too. They can refer bills to the people or the Supreme Court.

This is different how? By the very fact of being elected the President Does need to maintain popularity in order to represent, she's still no different from other politicians. The Queen does a better job of representing Britain BECAUSE she hasnt been elected. She has no bias and owes her position to no one, the need to maintain popularity is non-existent, preventing the queen from being divisive, which is good in Britain where the population has become very diverse

But doesn't this also mean that a monarch can represent their people poorly? What if the monarch is at odds with the majority of the people in the state they are head of?

[Glorious Homeland]

Hello, French Monarchist here.
I have a soft spot for Absolutism, but recognize the usefulness of a constitution in the style of the German Empire.
Also, a little enamored with Napoleon Bonaparte.
Vive le Roy! Vive l'Empereur!

Lol, the one country that hates royals the most has to be France, you must be despised

[Yohannes]

It is unfortunate that we all do not have the capacity to travel back in time. We could've foreseen what would've happen then, and maybe prevented failed social experiment such as communism from ever establishing itself in the first place. But then again we can't.
On the subject of a monarchic state. I'd actually like a constitutional monarchic state where the royal family is the one who manage the actual affair of the state, working together with a prime minister chosen by the general voting system. Both of them would have the capacity to check each other's power.
A parliament chosen by the voters would be the one that consolidate the check and balance system furthermore.
However by looking at history itself, we all will realize that such a system (a really prestigious system in my opinion) will work only in a country with a high percentage of educated population, and quite a liberal national mindset, although quite conservative as well (liberal conservative).
This type of government where the royal head of state (emperor/king/queen whateva) will only be effective in a country such as the U.K. where a long tradition and respect for the royal family is established already. The Kingdom of Netherlands and even the present Germany do have the ability to work a wonder with the monarchy system presented above. And just the feel of your country having a responsible monarch is just.. well.. good. Something that the whole country can be proud about (in my opinion of course)

[The Irish Marchlands]

Think about it, male nipples have been with us for thousands of years, if they weren't useful, then we wouldn't still have them today.

Comparing Politics to Evolutionary advances and anachronism = fail

[The Rich Port]

The last monarch of The Rich Port died old, depressed, and alone on Exodus Island.

A common fate for a lot of monarchs, I'm certain. All of that power, pomp, and holyness can REALLY go to someone's head.

I've yet to meet a good monarch. Would be awesome if I had some samples.

[The Irish Marchlands]

The last monarch of The Rich Port died old, depressed, and alone on Exodus Island.

A common fate for a lot of monarchs, I'm certain. All of that power, pomp, and holyness can REALLY go to someone's head.

I've yet to meet a good monarch. Would be awesome if I had some samples.

The Kings of Norway, Spain, and Denmark are reportedly good chaps.

[The Rich Port]

The last monarch of The Rich Port died old, depressed, and alone on Exodus Island.

A common fate for a lot of monarchs, I'm certain. All of that power, pomp, and holyness can REALLY go to someone's head.

I've yet to meet a good monarch. Would be awesome if I had some samples.

The Kings of Norway, Spain, and Denmark are reportedly good chaps.

I dunno. The Spanish Monarchs may have been decent, but, coincidentally, had several Native American genocides under their belt. Also, I hear they were terribly inbred, almost obscenely so.

But Denmark and Norway? Interesting, what do you know about them?

[The Irish Marchlands]

The Kings of Norway, Spain, and Denmark are reportedly good chaps.

I dunno. The Spanish Monarchs may have been decent, but, coincidentally, had several Native American genocides under their belt. Also, I hear they were terribly inbred, almost obscenely so.

But Denmark and Norway? Interesting, what do you know about them?

Very little other then the King of Norway is the EPITOME of a powerless monarch, his parliament has even stripped AND EXILED the nobility of the country. The man seems to have either taken it in his stride or decided to keep quiet until he's eventually overthrown by the parliament, Denmark's Monarchys is the oldest in Europe and its still going, and as far as I can tell its one of the most robust and healthy of monarchies with a surprising support base in its country, the Heir apparent has taken an American to be his Queen consort so liklihood of inbreeding in the next generation is small to non-existent.

Also you're using CHarles II against the current King Juan Carlos? The current family is of House Bourbon and is far removed from Charles II's inbreeding.

[The Rich Port]

I dunno. The Spanish Monarchs may have been decent, but, coincidentally, had several Native American genocides under their belt. Also, I hear they were terribly inbred, almost obscenely so.

But Denmark and Norway? Interesting, what do you know about them?

Very little other then the King of Norway is the EPITOME of a powerless monarch, his parliament has even stripped AND EXILED the nobility of the country. The man seems to have either taken it in his stride or decided to keep quiet until he's eventually overthrown by the parliament, Denmark's Monarchys is the oldest in Europe and its still going, and as far as I can tell its one of the most robust and healthy of monarchies with a surprising support base in its country, the Heir apparent has taken an American to be his Queen consort so liklihood of inbreeding in the next generation is small to non-existent.

Also you're using CHarles II against the current King Juan Carlos? The current family is of House Bourbon and is far removed from Charles II's inbreeding.

I could care less if they're inbred. You like what you like, even if it happens to be your sister.

The monarchical structure allows little room for constructive criticism. A king may have advisors, but it's totally up to what kind of King you're dealing with. Unfortunately, most monarchs have proven less than cordial, both with their subjects and with other countries. Revolutions happen rightfully so.

I'm desperate to find a benevolent monarch, one who actually made the system work.

[The Irish Marchlands]

Very little other then the King of Norway is the EPITOME of a powerless monarch, his parliament has even stripped AND EXILED the nobility of the country. The man seems to have either taken it in his stride or decided to keep quiet until he's eventually overthrown by the parliament, Denmark's Monarchys is the oldest in Europe and its still going, and as far as I can tell its one of the most robust and healthy of monarchies with a surprising support base in its country, the Heir apparent has taken an American to be his Queen consort so liklihood of inbreeding in the next generation is small to non-existent.

Also you're using CHarles II against the current King Juan Carlos? The current family is of House Bourbon and is far removed from Charles II's inbreeding.

I could care less if they're inbred. You like what you like, even if it happens to be your sister.

The monarchical structure allows little room for constructive criticism. A king may have advisors, but it's totally up to what kind of King you're dealing with. Unfortunately, most monarchs have proven less than cordial, both with their subjects and with other countries. Revolutions happen rightfully so.

I'm desperate to find a benevolent monarch, one who actually made the system work.

Catherine the Great of Russia.

Also I'll think you find if you study the more famous revolutions closely enough you'll find very few of them are justifiably even given whatever level of horror the previous regime implied. For example, we have the view of the French Monarchy being horrifically uncaring and oppressive prior tot he French revolution yes? Then why was it being decried by all of its neighbours for being liberal?

[South Norwega]

I could care less if they're inbred. You like what you like, even if it happens to be your sister.

The monarchical structure allows little room for constructive criticism. A king may have advisors, but it's totally up to what kind of King you're dealing with. Unfortunately, most monarchs have proven less than cordial, both with their subjects and with other countries. Revolutions happen rightfully so.

I'm desperate to find a benevolent monarch, one who actually made the system work.

I think the current King of Bhutan is pretty cool, forcing his country to democracy against its wishes and all.

Although maybe banning Traffic lights and forcing people to wear all clothes isn't the best idea.

[New Chalcedon]

Hello, French Monarchist here.
I have a soft spot for Absolutism, but recognize the usefulness of a constitution in the style of the German Empire.
Also, a little enamored with Napoleon Bonaparte.
Vive le Roy! Vive l'Empereur!

Lol, the one country that hates royals the most has to be France, you must be despised

He's not French: the telltale mis-spelling of "Roy" gives it away. It's spelt as "Vive le Roi".

[The Irish Marchlands]

Lol, the one country that hates royals the most has to be France, you must be despised

He's not French: the telltale mis-spelling of "Roy" gives it away. It's spelt as "Vive le Roi".

He may be second generation French, dont be so harsh