Kenmoria wrote:Bears Armed wrote:And put the succession seriously at risk? There's a reason why the old saying about royal & noble wives being expected to produce children was "an heir and a spare"...In the RL kingdom of England, for example, the longest unbroken line of 'parent-to-oldest son' (or 'parent to oldest son's oldest son', where the intermediate heir predeceased the parent] successions to the throne has involved only five monarchs (i.e. John => Henry III => Edward I => Edward II=> Edward III), and including those queens regnant that we've had as well wouldn't give a longer chain.. but all of the monarchs have been descended from William the Conqueror, and all but one or two of them (i.e. William he Conqueror, and perhaps his rival Harold Godwinsson) have been descended from Alfred the Great...
(OOC: However, monarchies are not actually prohibited. Plenty of passed resolutions make it more difficult to maintain an ideology, without prohibiting. Hereditary monarchies might be hurt under this proposal, but are quite evidently still possible, since a monarch could just have one child. I don’t see this as an ideological ban.)
OOC: Specific hereditary monarchies will be split up under this proposal. Forcing even just one nation to either cease to exist or change its form of government is an ideological ban.