Should Monarchs Reign or Govern?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If necessary, big if, limited power with constant checks and control from a parliamentary system. If not, keep them as ornamental. The time of kings and queens ruling absolutely are past, and thank the fates for that.

[Neanderthaland]

They should play Flute at Sanssouci.

[Nevertopia]

Justice should reign from above.

[The Restored Danelaw]

As a constitutionalist and an ardent supporter of parliamentary democracy, I believe that the Stateshead as a political office should be -first and foremost- a figurehead. They should have some powers -most importantly the right to refuse assent to a law passed by the Parliament-, to ceremonially appoint officials, to give honours and to command the Armed Forces. A monarch should neither reign nor govern, that's the government's job. They should just be the Parliamentary Head of State.

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

So when somebody sings "shake your money maker". Someone goes and shakes the queen?

[Celritannia]

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.

The difference here is, they are inheriting a political position, they are not a private citizen taking over a family company.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

So when somebody sings "shake your money maker". Someone goes and shakes the queen?

She is little, you could do that.

[Old Tyrannia]

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.

The difference here is, they are inheriting a political position, they are not a private citizen taking over a family company.

I don't really see how that's a meaningful distinction, and curiously enough I expect many of my counterparts on the far-left would probably agree with my reasoning there, although drawing a wholly different conclusion. In fact I would go so far as to say that workplace democracy makes more logical sense than national democracy, and the fact that we have the latter but not the former is somewhat absurd. If people aren't qualified to make decisions about the future of the firm that they work for, what makes them more qualified to make decisions affecting the future of the entire country?

[Celritannia]

The difference here is, they are inheriting a political position, they are not a private citizen taking over a family company.

I don't really see how that's a meaningful distinction, and curiously enough I expect many of my counterparts on the far-left would probably agree with my reasoning there, although drawing a wholly different conclusion. In fact I would go so far as to say that workplace democracy makes more logical sense than national democracy, and the fact that we have the latter but not the former is somewhat absurd. If people aren't qualified to make decisions about the future of the firm that they work for, what makes them more qualified to make decisions affecting the future of the entire country?

Well, I was debating if a monarch can't inherent their forebears problems, why should they inherent their successes? And individual should be recognised for their own action, not the action of a past ancestor.

I support both workplace democracy and national democracy.

[Saiwania]

The ideal monarch should do a bit of both, with perhaps some more focus being on governing well. Happy or content subjects = less rebellion and a more stable rule, if not a mandate to keep their power.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.

[Deus Ignis]

I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.

I believe that only the founder should have absolute power(because there will be idiots down the line who go off and wasting their reign partying and what not) and the rest are bound by a constitution that gives them nearly absolute power(as long as they don't change certain laws, as well as not going around sleeping with another's spouse,etc.)

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.

I believe that only the founder should have absolute power(because there will be idiots down the line who go off and wasting their reign partying and what not) and the rest are bound by a constitution that gives them nearly absolute power(as long as they don't change certain laws, as well as not going around sleeping with another's spouse,etc.)

I'm not on board with near absolute power for successors or even the founder as they may not actually care for the people and I think the people aught to have democratic power over their government. I don't think a monarch should have any more power than the current presidency and even that's pushing it. I do not like the idea of one man calling all the shots as they're virtually unaccountable if that is the case, and there are plenty of tyrannical kings throughout history who had people maimed, tortured to death, etc, without even a fair trial.

Edit: Is the "Republican" in your sig a reference to the Republican Party. If so, that's pretty ironic, and no, Trump should not become a king or even be in government for any longer. He shouldn't have even been elected in the first place.

[Deus Ignis]

I believe that only the founder should have absolute power(because there will be idiots down the line who go off and wasting their reign partying and what not) and the rest are bound by a constitution that gives them nearly absolute power(as long as they don't change certain laws, as well as not going around sleeping with another's spouse,etc.)

I'm not on board with near absolute power for successors or even the founder as they may not actually care for the people and I think the people aught to have democratic power over their government. I don't think a monarch should have any more power than the current presidency and even that's pushing it. I do not like the idea of one man calling all the shots as they're virtually unaccountable if that is the case, and there are plenty of tyrannical kings throughout history who had people maimed, tortured to death, etc, without even a fair trial.

Edit: Is the "Republican" in your sig a reference to the Republican Party. If so, that's pretty ironic, and no, Trump should not become a king or even be in government for any longer. He shouldn't have even been elected in the first place.

Why would you think I want Trump as a king? I am only a republican mainly because they are closer to my views then democrats

[Luziyca]

They should reign, not govern, unless it is absolutely necessary to stop a tyrant from governing.

[The Marlborough]

I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.

I don't see why feudalism was brought up (this isn't getting into how there are a lot of inaccurate popular views of feudalism) since it hasn't been part of Western society for centuries and monarchies existed before it. Not to mention of course that feudalism is a primarily European phenomenon that doesn't really apply to most other civilizations and their respective history of monarchism.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm not inherently opposed to a monarch, but they should have common sense limitations on their powers, and if they're given any power at all, it should be subjected to something very similar to a Bill of Rights so a monarch doesn't have the ability to crush all dissent and impose an absolutist will. In addition, there should be no feudalism or anything backwards like that, and there should be a democratically elected parliament with legitimate lawmaking authority.

I don't see why feudalism was brought up (this isn't getting into how there are a lot of inaccurate popular views of feudalism) since it hasn't been part of Western society for centuries and monarchies existed before it. Not to mention of course that feudalism is a primarily European phenomenon that doesn't really apply to most other civilizations and their respective history of monarchism.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.

I'm not on board with near absolute power for successors or even the founder as they may not actually care for the people and I think the people aught to have democratic power over their government. I don't think a monarch should have any more power than the current presidency and even that's pushing it. I do not like the idea of one man calling all the shots as they're virtually unaccountable if that is the case, and there are plenty of tyrannical kings throughout history who had people maimed, tortured to death, etc, without even a fair trial.

Edit: Is the "Republican" in your sig a reference to the Republican Party. If so, that's pretty ironic, and no, Trump should not become a king or even be in government for any longer. He shouldn't have even been elected in the first place.

Why would you think I want Trump as a king? I am only a republican mainly because they are closer to my views then democrats

Some neoreactionaries wanted Trump to be crowned king.

[The Marlborough]

I don't see why feudalism was brought up (this isn't getting into how there are a lot of inaccurate popular views of feudalism) since it hasn't been part of Western society for centuries and monarchies existed before it. Not to mention of course that feudalism is a primarily European phenomenon that doesn't really apply to most other civilizations and their respective history of monarchism.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.

Well why would it be? The abolition of the mechanics of feudalism tended to be supported by a wide variety of social classes, including the nobility, and the pressures that led to its development don't even exist.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.

Well why would it be? The abolition of the mechanics of feudalism tended to be supported by a wide variety of social classes, including the nobility, and the pressures that led to its development don't even exist.

There have been posters on this very board that want it back, and I didn't know if OP was one of them, so I don't think I did anything wrong there.

[Northern Saxonia]

Obviously not, especially if it is a hereditary system. Monarchs are good as a unifying force and popular figurehead, but it will be only a matter of time until you get an inbred, unqualified, and possibly insane person as the leader.

[Deus Ignis]

I don't see why feudalism was brought up (this isn't getting into how there are a lot of inaccurate popular views of feudalism) since it hasn't been part of Western society for centuries and monarchies existed before it. Not to mention of course that feudalism is a primarily European phenomenon that doesn't really apply to most other civilizations and their respective history of monarchism.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.

Why would you think I want Trump as a king? I am only a republican mainly because they are closer to my views then democrats

Some neoreactionaries wanted Trump to be crowned king.

Must be a whole bunch of uneducated,delusional teens then, I at least want my monarch to have some semblance of dignity ( Yes I support Trump, but lets face it, he is a a-hole, plus either he or his campaign managers are missing humongous chances to improve his image left and right)

[Holy Tedalonia]

I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider restoring it.



Some neoreactionaries wanted Trump to be crowned king.

Must be a whole bunch of uneducated,delusional teens then, I at least wait my monarch to have some semblance of dignity ( Yes I support Trump, but lets face it, he is a a-hole, plus either he or his campaign managers are missing humongous chances to improve his image left and right)

Nah, we should just get a genetic sample of the beloved Emperor Norton, and create a genetic clone. Only then will we have the perfect monarch of america, and restore an ancient dynasty.

[Tokora]

I don't hate the idea of a monarchy, but as a Socialist I don't want the fate of a country to be at the mercy of parenting. Monarchies are best kept constitutionally where bad ones are kept out of trouble and good ones can just voice their views with parliament going "that's actually a good point" rather than being decreed on a whim.