Should Monarchs Reign or Govern?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Well, we know the outcome of the election for certain, so for now America doesn't need a monarch. If we're still in recession by Biden's 1 year anniversary, I'm becoming an American Monarchist.

Which dynasty will you root for? Bush? Roosevelt? Adams? Harry&Meghan?

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.

[The Blaatschapen]

Which dynasty will you root for? Bush? Roosevelt? Adams? Harry&Meghan?

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?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

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?

Yes, I'm sure. He'll provide enough stability.

[Celritannia]

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?

Harry and Meghan are already in America, just saying...

[Deus Ignis]

While being a symbol of unity is good and all, monarchs are practically useless in today's era. Frankly, all monarchs in the world (constitutional or absolute) should be replaced with elected leaders.

How are they useless? Are they still leading countries and they are, how are they useless when they are making laws, guiding the people, and protecting the nation's interest?

[Free Socialist Workers States]

Would rather have no monarchs at all but if the nation wants them, then I'd rather they be symbolic and figureheads, nothing more.

[Deus Ignis]

Would rather have no monarchs at all but if the nation wants them, then I'd rather they be symbolic and figureheads, nothing more.

Can you please explain why you are against monarchs?

[Celritannia]

Would rather have no monarchs at all but if the nation wants them, then I'd rather they be symbolic and figureheads, nothing more.

Can you please explain why you are against monarchs?

I think their nation name gives a reason.

[The Blaatschapen]

Would rather have no monarchs at all but if the nation wants them, then I'd rather they be symbolic and figureheads, nothing more.

Can you please explain why you are against monarchs?

It goes against the idea of all people being born equal.

[Deus Ignis]

Can you please explain why you are against monarchs?

I think their nation name gives a reason.

True, however I prefer a explanation then a assumption on a nation's name(after-all not everyone creates a nation based on their world views)

[Picairn]

While being a symbol of unity is good and all, monarchs are practically useless in today's era. Frankly, all monarchs in the world (constitutional or absolute) should be replaced with elected leaders.

How are they useless? Are they still leading countries and they are, how are they useless when they are making laws, guiding the people, and protecting the nation's interest?

Their powers are mostly ceremonial. It's the Legislature that makes law, not the monarchs. And the Prime Minister holds actual power. A President can serve the job just fine with even more powers than a constitutional monarch.

[Resilient Acceleration]

If the monarch can do it, then he should govern. For example, the Sultan of Yogyakarta was appointed defense minister during the independence wars by the Republican government. He would later serve in various ministries, and eventually was democratically elected vice president in 1973 as the representative of civilians, as the president was from the military (though by that time the country was turning into a military dictatorship, and civilian influence would eventually be booted out).

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

I actually agree with elective monarchies. What gives one of the monarch’s children a better right to govern just because they were born earlier?

What gives a monarch the right to govern in the first place

The achievements of their ancestors. For example Ahmed Shah Durrani united Afghanistan by diplomacy. Even if a dynasty was first established by force subsequent rulers can earn their right to govern by their actions and pass this on to their children.

[San Lumen]

If the monarch can do it, then he should govern. For example, the Sultan of Yogyakarta was appointed defense minister during the independence wars by the Republican government. He would later serve in various ministries, and eventually was democratically elected vice president in 1973 as the representative of civilians, as the president was from the military (though by that time the country was turning into a military dictatorship, and civilian influence would eventually be booted out).

why he and not she?

[Celritannia]

What gives a monarch the right to govern in the first place

The achievements of their ancestors. For example Ahmed Shah Durrani united Afghanistan by diplomacy. Even if a dynasty was first established by force subsequent rulers can earn their right to govern by their actions and pass this on to their children.

This really is a terrible reason. Their heir should also be recognised for their own achievements, than just piggy-backing off their predecessors and ancestors.

[Resilient Acceleration]

If the monarch can do it, then he should govern. For example, the Sultan of Yogyakarta was appointed defense minister during the independence wars by the Republican government. He would later serve in various ministries, and eventually was democratically elected vice president in 1973 as the representative of civilians, as the president was from the military (though by that time the country was turning into a military dictatorship, and civilian influence would eventually be booted out).

why he and not she?

Because Sultan Hamengkubuwana IX was a male. His son and the current monarch, Sultan Hamengkubuwana X, is also a male. The current heir to the throne, Princess GKR Mangkubumi, is a female though.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

If the monarch can do it, then he should govern. For example, the Sultan of Yogyakarta was appointed defense minister during the independence wars by the Republican government. He would later serve in various ministries, and eventually was democratically elected vice president in 1973 as the representative of civilians, as the president was from the military (though by that time the country was turning into a military dictatorship, and civilian influence would eventually be booted out).

why he and not she?

Couldn't agree more. Queen Elizabeth II is great.

[Resilient Acceleration]

why he and not she?

Couldn't agree more. Queen Elizabeth II is great.

Well I mean my language don't have gendered pronouns, sorry I forgot, also I'm talking about an actual guy here. So yes "she" is absolutely fine.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Monarchs, upon taking the throne, should immediately abolish the monarchy and abdicate.

No Kings, No Emperors.

[The Blaatschapen]

What gives a monarch the right to govern in the first place

The achievements of their ancestors. For example Ahmed Shah Durrani united Afghanistan by diplomacy. Even if a dynasty was first established by force subsequent rulers can earn their right to govern by their actions and pass this on to their children.

Can we then also punish them for the crimes of their ancestors? It is only fair that it goes both ways

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

The achievements of their ancestors. For example Ahmed Shah Durrani united Afghanistan by diplomacy. Even if a dynasty was first established by force subsequent rulers can earn their right to govern by their actions and pass this on to their children.

Can we then also punish them for the crimes of their ancestors? It is only fair that it goes both ways

No we can't in the same way that children whose parents were ordinary corner shop-owners can inherit their parents' shop but if their parents went to prison that would not mean they could be punished.

[Celritannia]

Can we then also punish them for the crimes of their ancestors? It is only fair that it goes both ways

No we can't in the same way that children whose parents were ordinary corner shop-owners can inherit their parents' shop but if their parents went to prison that would not mean they could be punished.

So why should the heirs take claims of their forebears if they cannot also assume their crimes?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

No we can't in the same way that children whose parents were ordinary corner shop-owners can inherit their parents' shop but if their parents went to prison that would not mean they could be punished.

So why should the heirs take claims of their forebears if they cannot also assume their crimes?

For the same reason we have inherited wealth but not inherited punishment. Also it's not that they should be able to have rewards without working for them, if they abdicate the throne they should give the money back. It's more if their ancestors were good at rulership the ability may have passed through the bloodlines.

[Risottia]

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!

I think monarchs should be pointed in the general direction of Place de la Révolution. Ça ira!

[Risottia]

What gives a monarch the right to govern in the first place

The achievements of their ancestors.

So I see, you mean that the world should be ruled by the descendants of Dirac, Fermi and Einstein.