NationStates Jolt Archive

We are starting a caucus devoted to defending and preserving the institution of monarchy. It is open to all nations whose Head of State is chosen according to some sort of hereditary principle. We are convinced that this is the best form of government, since it places at the head of state someone who can represent all of the people, because he or she has not had to sell out in order receive political contributions.

If you believe in the principle of hereditary monarchy, you are cordially invited to join this caucus in order to defend the system of government we love.

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

Almost by definition, an aristocratic family is going to have conservative tendencies, which means that they cannot hope to be representative of a progressive, liberal nation. Also, look at the inbreeding in the family tree of Europe's monarchies (demonstrated by the comparatively high appearance of haemophiliacs) which is definitely not conducive to producing capable, intelligent rulers :wink: .

Almost by definition, an aristocratic family is going to have conservative tendencies, which means that they cannot hope to be representative of a progressive, liberal nation. Also, look at the inbreeding in the family tree of Europe's monarchies (demonstrated by the comparatively high appearance of haemophiliacs) which is definitely not conducive to producing capable, intelligent rulers :wink: .

1st: History doesn't support that assertion. Look at Scandinavia or Holland. The royal families in those countries are quite progressive. Monarchs do not have to sell their souls to wealthy political contributors in order to get to the top, so they can truly represent all of the people--especially the poor.

2nd: The inbreeding among royalty in the past probably wasn't any greater than among most segments of society. Most people never got more than 10 or 20 km from the little villages in which they were born, so there was an incredible amount of inbreeding among the population as a whole. Most modern royal families have intermarried with commoners, greatly reducing the amount of inbreeding. For example, the Swedish princesses are 1/4 Brazilian.

We believe that by having a monarchy, we enable our head of state to exercise independent judgement, so that he or she can truly fulfill the duty given to them by our Constitution: to "ensure that the government of the Realm is conducted in the fundamental interest of all the people, with special regard to the needs of the poor".

Overall, we prefer the mediocrity and corruption engendered by democracy to being subject to the whims of a single individual. For every Mutshohito or Victoria or Frederick III there is a Yoshihito, Richard II or Wilhelm II. Monarchy has advantages, but democracy is a lot safer and more consistent.

Overall, we prefer the mediocrity and corruption engendered by democracy to being subject to the whims of a single individual. For every Mutshohito or Victoria or Frederick III there is a Yoshihito, Richard II or Wilhelm II. Monarchy has advantages, but democracy is a lot safer and more consistent.

I think it's wrong to dichotomise monarchy and democracy. Ursoria, like most European monarchies, has an elected Parliament and Prime Minister. There is plenty of competition among our parties (three are in the current government coalition), and plenty of things for our politicians to do. Elections are frequent and totally free. Anyone 18 years of age or older (not serving a criminal sentence) can vote. We simply place one office off-limits to politics, and that is for the sake of a larger principle of democracy--that government should represent all of the people.

Even so, any sort of hereditary aristocracy is bound to cause mass corruption and complacency. This is why most countries got rid of their monarchies in the first place. For every good monarch, there are perhaps a dozen bad monarchs. For all the problems of liberal democracies, they are infinitely more desirable than monarchies. Kings and princes also have a certain air of aloofness about them that makes them less representative of common people than democratic leaders, who are still usually wealthy individuals, but without aristocratic titles. In addition, since monarchs are by definition above the law (no way to get rid of them legally), it goes against the rule of law as well as democratic ideals.

...any sort of hereditary aristocracy is bound to cause mass corruption and complacency.

Mass corruption. Well, let's see: Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, Iran-Contra ... Oops, those all occurred in a republic. As far as the level of complacency is concerned, I think it's fair to say that the voter turnout is higher in almost all European monarchies than it is in the Unitd States.

For every good monarch, there are perhaps a dozen bad monarchs.

How could we have overlooked that? Of course, George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and other leaders of republics are infinitely preferable to Queen Beatrix, King Harald, King Carl Gustaf, and other monarchs.

For all the problems of liberal democracies, they are infinitely more desirable than monarchies.

Our point was precisely that a monarchy can be a liberal democracy--and ours is.

I suspect the reason most libertarians don't much like the concept of monarchy is that it is a competing idea. Like libertarians, monarchists fear the power of government, and want to limit it by building a check and balance into the system. But whereas libertarians want to put government into a strait-jacket, most monarchists want to put it on a kind of flexible tether. Monarchy tends to limit government, but it also empowers (and to some extent glamorises) government. It tends to make government more personal, and therefore more human and likeable. Walter Bagehot put it well when he said: "Monarchy is a strong form of government, because it is an understandable form of government."

I suspect the reason most libertarians don't much like the concept of monarchy is that it is a competing idea. Like libertarians, monarchists fear the power of government, and want to limit it by building a check and balance into the system. But whereas libertarians want to put government into a strait-jacket, most monarchists want to put it on a kind of flexible tether. Monarchy tends to limit government, but it also empowers (and to some extent glamorises) government. It tends to make government more personal, and therefore more human and likeable. Walter Bagehot put it well when he said: "Monarchy is a strong form of government, because it is an understandable form of government."

I suspect the reason most libertarians don't much like the concept of monarchy is that it is a competing idea. Like libertarians, monarchists fear the power of government, and want to limit it by building a check and balance into the system. But whereas libertarians want to put government into a strait-jacket, most monarchists want to put it on a kind of flexible tether. Monarchy tends to limit government, but it also empowers (and to some extent glamourises) government. It tends to make government more personal, and therefore more human and likeable. Walter Bagehot put it well when he said: "Monarchy is a strong form of government, because it is an understandable form of government."

Sassafroon is concerned that a King, Emperor, or other monarch could build his power until he was undefeatable; the risk of tyranny, even benevolent tyranny, is not one that the people of Sassafroon are willing to take. We will be voting "nay".

I'm curious about the exactly what King Douglas' powers are. Clearly, he is more than a figurehead, but also clearly, he does not have absolute power. What is his relationship with parliament and the Prime Minister? Does he have veto power? Can he create laws without parlimentary approval? Is he simply an executive, with no lawmaking power, but the responsibility of overseeing the bodies that enforce parlimentary law?

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Mass corruption. Well, let's see: Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, Iran-Contra ... Oops, those all occurred in a republic. As far as the level of complacency is concerned, I think it's fair to say that the voter turnout is higher in almost all European monarchies than it is in the Unitd States.

Those are so tiny compared to what Europe's been through historically.

How could we have overlooked that? Of course, George W. Bush,

Conceded. But still he's not AS bad as he would be with dictatorship powers.

Jacques Chirac,

See above.

Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il,

Not exactly Republics there...

and other leaders of republics are infinitely preferable to Queen Beatrix, King Harald, King Carl Gustaf, and other monarchs.

Or what about King Louis XVI? Wilhelm II? Ivan the Terrible? Hmm?

Even DICTATORSHIPS are preferable to Monarchies, because with a dictator, the tyranny ends when he dies. A monarch can pass the tyranny down to his son and so on. Which is why most Romans supported Caesar as a dictator, but not as a king.

Our point was precisely that a monarchy can be a liberal democracy--and ours is.

So basically your monarch is just a figurehead. Then the whole point is moot and all the monarch does is drain the budget.

I suspect the reason most libertarians don't much like the concept of monarchy is that it is a competing idea. Like libertarians, monarchists fear the power of government, and want to limit it by building a check and balance into the system. But whereas libertarians want to put government into a strait-jacket, most monarchists want to put it on a kind of flexible tether. Monarchy tends to limit government, but it also empowers (and to some extent glamorises) government. It tends to make government more personal, and therefore more human and likeable. Walter Bagehot put it well when he said: "Monarchy is a strong form of government, because it is an understandable form of government."

It's only more human for the monarch himself. Your typical American President is much closer to the people than your typical King of France or Britain (I know France doesn't have a king any more, but I mean historically). Monarchy INCREASES the power of government by vesting a large part of it into a single hereditary office.

In America, we put term limits on our presidents precisely to PREVENT a monarchy or dictatorship. Monarchy is not just lack of term limits, it's an anti-term-limit, which invites dictatorship and arbitrary rule.

Laws have to be cycled. Monarchy prevents this. Government claims a monopoly on force. This makes it so powerful it MUST be restricted by a straightjacket. This restraint is called "Law". In monarchy, the government is largely ABOVE the law. Your "flexibility" might better be called "arbitrary power", which is equivalent to despotism.

I think it's wrong to dichotomise monarchy and democracy.
....We simply place one office off-limits to politics, and that is for the sake of a larger principle of democracy--that government should represent all of the people.

Monarch and democracy ARE fundamentally opposed. Yes, they can be mixed, but a the fact that a "compromise" between monarch and democracy is superior to pure monarchy doesn't mean that it is also superior to pure democracy. When they are mixed, democracy and monarchy will always struggle with each other power, and the result will be better if demcracy wins. There are other ways of instituting checks and balances without the disadvantages of monarchy.
If it is desired to place an office off-limit to politics, it's not necessary to make it hereditary. Have a lottery, if you want someone who is really close to the people. Have an auction, if you need some cash. Have a gladiatorial contest, if you want pageantry.
In a democracy, the government may not represent all the people, but it at least represents a lot of them. A monarchy represents a single family.


P.S. Montesquieu had clearer arguments for monarchy. Give him a read.

I disagree with whoever said term limits are intended to prevent a monarchy in the US...no matter how many times someone gets elected, people still have to vote for him. And term limits won't stop a true tyrant who will hold on to power by force if it is what he needs to do to stay in office.

Monarchy and democracy ARE fundamentally opposed. Yes, they can be mixed, but a the fact that a "compromise" between monarchy and democracy is superior to pure monarchy doesn't mean that it is also superior to pure democracy. When they are mixed, democracy and monarchy will always struggle with each other power, and the result will be better if demcracy wins...

If by democracy you mean the principle that all offices of government should be chosen by popular election at regular intervals, then the principle of monarchy is indeed opposed to that of democracy. But we think democracy means something more than that. We think it means a government that reflects the people's wishes and serves their interests. In that sense, monarchy and democracy are not opposed--even in principle. Our people want a monarchy, and in the broadest and truest sense, it would be highly undemocratic to deprive them of it.

There have been many writers who have defended the concept of monarchy, I am sure much better than I can. Let quote but two:

"Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." -- C. S. Lewis

"Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all." -- Aristotle

C. S. Lewis and Aristotle could say whatever they liked - I don't see any arguments adduced in support of these claims. We will concede that people have an indelible tendency toward hero worship; we do not concede that there is any need to cater to this weakness, or that a monarch is inherently any better an idol than a prostitute.

We of Letila have a saying that translates more or less like this: All kings are good for is assasination.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Almost by definition, an aristocratic family is going to have conservative tendencies, which means that they cannot hope to be representative of a progressive, liberal nation. Also, look at the inbreeding in the family tree of Europe's monarchies (demonstrated by the comparatively high appearance of haemophiliacs) which is definitely not conducive to producing capable, intelligent rulers :wink: .

We don't want people with disgusting liberal thoughts.

...We will concede that people have an indelible tendency toward hero worship; we do not concede that there is any need to cater to this weakness, or that a monarch is inherently any better an idol than a prostitute.

As I understood Lewis, he wasn't saying that this was a weakness. He was saying that it was a strength--a necessary part of our spiritual nature. But he felt that it could easily be deflected in the wrong direction. Certainly in the recent past, we have seen where it was deflected to far worse personages than prostitutes or even gangsters--to people like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. Monarchy does have an element of colour, and even glamour, that other forms of government lack. It draws human adulation--hero worship if you will--into benign and constructive channels. To use Lewis' own metaphor, it gives our spiritual nature food rather than poison.

In every other form of government--in republics no less than in dictatorships--the dominant principle will be that of ambition. Those who rise to the top will be those who are abnormally ambitious--and capable of satisfying their ambition. The only alternative ever discovered to the principle of ambition has been the principle of chance--usually embodied in some form of hereditary succession. The greatest virtue of monarchy is that it tends to place at the head of affairs someone who, in every respect except the accident of birth, is more or less normal.

As I understood Lewis, he wasn't saying that this was a weakness. He was saying that it was a strength--a necessary part of our spiritual nature. But he felt that it could easily be deflected in the wrong direction. Certainly in the recent past, we have seen where it was deflected to far worse personages than prostitutes or even gangsters--to people like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. Monarchy does have an element of colour, and even glamour, that other forms of government lack. It draws human adulation--hero worship if you will--into benign and constructive channels. To use Lewis' own metaphor, it gives our spiritual nature food rather than poison.
We don't accept Lewis' authority on this issue. He was a theologian, not a sociologist or even a psychologist. What evidence is there that monarchy is any more benign or constructive than other forms of idolatry? Monarchy has produced despots every bit as bad as Hitler, Stalin, or Hussein. What makes Ivan the Terrible any better object of adulation than Adolf Hitler?

In every other form of government--in republics no less than in dictatorships--the dominant principle will be that of ambition. Those who rise to the top will be those who are abnormally ambitious--and capable of satisfying their ambition. The only alternative ever discovered to the principle of ambition has been the principle of chance--usually embodied in some form of hereditary succession. The greatest virtue of monarchy is that it tends to place at the head of affairs someone who, in every respect except the accident of birth, is more or less normal.
Ambition in a ruler is not necessarily bad, nor is it limited to politicians. Some of the best leaders - both elected and hereditary - have been ambitious. But we find the ambitions of George Washington more congenial than those of Louis XIV. Apathy is also a danger in a leader, and one that rarely appears in elected leaders. No one who had to struggle to attain rule of a nation would, for instance, neglect it in favor of foreign travel (Richard II) or religious contemplation (Edward the Confessor), or the domestic affairs of another country (William III).

Monarchy does anything but place someone at the head of affairs who is more or less normal. Monarchs tend to be egocentrical, eccentric and idiocentric. They aren't like normal people because they have very different factors of socialization. They do share some things in common with ordinary people - they may be halfwitted, insane, senescent or physically unable to discharge their duties, faults which rarely occur in elected leaders and are not tolerated for long when they do.

Kniû ||otlêfiðamû.-All kings are good for is assasination.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

The Monarchist Caucus will be attended by a small delegation from our Protectorate, representing the King of Planet, which will be very quiet and will not do much or make any commitments. We thank you for your invitation.

Office of the Prime Minister

The Monarchist Caucus will be attended by a small delegation from our Protectorate, representing the King of Planet, which will be very quiet and will not do much or make any commitments. We thank you for your invitation.

Office of the Prime Minister

You're quite welcome--and welcome aboard!!!

One of the hardest truths I have had to learn in my life is that it is almost impossible to convince anyone to change their fundamental beliefs in the course of a debate. The most one can hope for is to plant a seed that might someday germinate. Since this thread was intended to reach other monarchists, and not to debate the merits of monarchy, this will be my last posting on the subject.

Monarchy has produced despots every bit as bad as Hitler, Stalin, or Hussein. What makes Ivan the Terrible any better object of adulation than Adolf Hitler? ...

[W]e find the ambitions of George Washington more congenial than those of Louis XIV.

Apathy is also a danger in a leader, and one that rarely appears in elected leaders. No one who had to struggle to attain rule of a nation would, for instance, neglect it in favor of foreign travel (Richard II) or religious contemplation (Edward the Confessor), or the domestic affairs of another country (William III)...

I notice that most of the monarchs you mention (and all of the worst ones) were absolute rulers. Conspicuously absent from your list are any of the monarchs who reign in Europe today. Why? Because they are all constitutional monarchs who preside over generally democratic governments. I have never advocated royal absolutism, or any other kind of absolutism. In fact, I think that the dominant principle of government ought to be democracy. But I also think there ought to be a check and balance built into the system--and the hereditary principle provides it better than anything else I know of. I have not yet had time to read Montesquieu on the subject of monarchy (though I intend to), but I wouldn't be too surprised if he agreed with me.

History amply demonstrates that excessive ambition is far more dangerous in a ruler than mere apathy. You could take William III, Edward the Confessor, and Richard II--and throw in George IV for good measure--multiply the result by a thousand, and you would still have someone far less dangerous than Hitler or Stalin. Washington's greatest virtue was precisely that he wasn't terribly ambitious. From everything I've read, he didn't want the Presidency, but wished instead to retire to Mt Vernon and live his final years in peace. He accepted the office, out of a sense of duty, but never sought it--and was glad to retire after two terms. So, in essence, Washington rather admirably fulfilled the role of constitutional monarch.

Monarchs tend to be egocentrical, eccentric and idiocentric. They aren't like normal people because they have very different factors of socialization. They do share some things in common with ordinary people - they may be halfwitted, insane, senescent or physically unable to discharge their duties, faults which rarely occur in elected leaders and are not tolerated for long when they do.

As far as insanity is concerned, there is an interesting story concerning Paul Deschanel, who served as President of France in 1920. It appears that M. Deschanel went insane during his tenure, and had to be committed to an asylum. When one of the other inmates was questioned about his belief that he was Napoleon Bonaparte, he is supposed to have replied: "You think I'm insane? You should see the guy in the next cell. He thinks he's President of France."

If you want evidence that constitutional monarchs tend to be more "normal" in their desires than elected rulers of republics, look around you in the world today. The evidence of your own senses should be far more persuasive than anything I could possibly write.

The Constitution monarchs of modern Europe are mere figureheads. Their governments are tolerable because they are democracies, not because they have hereditary heads of state.

The Kingdom of Sigmarinen feels very threatened being bordered by nothing but Communist realms and wishes to extend it's hand in peace and co-operation with other monarchs. Family ties, marriages and pacts to preserve Monarchy is the only way to survive.

My dear sister Emerentia, currently 20 years old, is looking for a powerfull monarch to marry. I know it might sound "ancient", but we need to tie our families together.

The Kingdom of Gothia must say that the King of Siegmarinen has made a rather dastrical statement. The Kingdom of Gothiar is one of Siegmarinens neigbours, and we have devoted our life to fight the terrors of Communism.

You can count Gothia in to this little society.

The Kingdom of Sigmarinen feels very threatened being bordered by nothing but Communist realms and wishes to extend it's hand in peace and co-operation with other monarchs. Family ties, marriages and pacts to preserve Monarchy is the only way to survive.

My dear sister Emerentia, currently 20 years old, is looking for a powerfull monarch to marry. I know it might sound "ancient", but we need to tie our families together.

The Kingdom of Gothia must say that the King of Siegmarinen has made a rather dastrical statement. The Kingdom of Gothiar is one of Siegmarinens neigbours, and we have devoted our life to fight the terrors of Communism.

You can count Gothia in to this little society.

We extend our royal friendship to you both. Welcome!!!

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

We extend our Imperial friendship to all members of this society. We have long defended princely perogative and monarchy as a system of government in the United Nations, and are pleased to encounter a group of like-minded sovereigns. As the Emperor of Pantocratoria, descendent and heir to the diadem of the Emperor of the Romans, and descendent of the Kings of France, we believe that we could lend a great deal of support and authority to this society.

Filial regards to my fellow princes,

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

The Constitutional monarchs of modern Europe are mere figureheads. Their governments are tolerable because they are democracies, not because they have hereditary heads of state.

I promised that I would not respond any more, but I feel I must (probably due to a weakness in my character). Modern European monarchs are, of course, severely limited in their powers (and rightly so), but they are not "mere figureheads". King Juan Carlos was not a "mere figurehead" when he prevented a fascist military coup in Spain in 1978. Nor was King Haakon of Norway, when he led his country's struggle against Nazi Germany and its puppet, Vidkun Quisling, in WWII.

Constitutional monarchy is not an overpowering form of government. It works in subtle ways--but those subtle ways all tend to the good.

We extend our Imperial friendship to all members of this society. We have long defended princely perogative and monarchy as a system of government in the United Nations, and are pleased to encounter a group of like-minded sovereigns. As the Emperor of Pantocratoria, descendent and heir to the diadem of the Emperor of the Romans, and descendent of the Kings of France, we believe that we could lend a great deal of support and authority to this society.

Filial regards to my fellow princes,

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

Welcome, your highness. We highly value your friendship, and wish you and your glorious people the best of everything.

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

His royal highness King Karl XIII of Gothia wonders what the sole prupose is? Do this organistaion have any sort of goal?

King Frederick himself enterd the hall in the UN building where the Kings and Emperors discussed, and got up on the podium and made a speech.

Emperors ,Kings, Dukes and Princes.

For to long the red menace has slayed men of royal blood, for to long they have desecrated and pillaged our heredity territories. We all know what the Reds did to Czar Nicholai II, and his entire family, and many of his relatives.

In contrast to the Reds we, the Monarchs of the World, stands for freedom, social security, a strong nation, with a strong people. While the Reds stands for a system, where people are not allowed to have their opinions heard, where people are shot just for not approving for the state system.

We have harsh monarchies as well, but in contrast to the Reds, whom only subdue their people for fun, and to crush every hope of a happy life. The Monarchs restrict the power of the people for the Monarchs and the cabinnet knows what is good for the people, and in some cases the King is guided by God, may he be named Allah or Jehova, it does not matter.

I am a man whom beleive in every states right to have the regime their people want to have. If the people support a communist system, then let them have it. It is their loss. But when i hear news every week about FARC guerilla, terrorist attacks, maoist terrorists, civil war in Nepal between a small group of communist against the Monarch and his people i get furious.

We must protect our brothers of noble blood, whom sit on the throne by the grace of their people or by God. Not to let them be overthrown by communist rebells whom are in minority, but obtain financial and military aid by the Communists, and thus a minority can hold the people in terror.

I know about this, for my own people. The people of Sigmarinen was for 30 years under a tyrranic rule of corrupt politicans and the military, when the people finally managed to throw of the schackles of tyranny and they all elected me to be their King, their heredity king, once again. They looked back upon the time when Sigmarinen was a Monarchy, and it was a happy one. And so it is today. Thanks to my rule over my people. I am the primary servant of my people, that is my credo.

I wonder if the rest of the monarchs share my concern, and also asks if they are ready to fight for monarchy not just with words, but with actions.


His Majesty Frederick von Hohenzollern-Sigmarinen sat down at a seat and waited for others to answer.

HRH Tom II, King of the Lowcountry, announces that he shall at once join the caucus and shall be present at its next meeting.

The greatest virtue of monarchy is that it tends to place at the head of affairs someone who, in every respect except the accident of birth, is more or less normal.

Err....rite. Look at the royal family of Britain and tell me that they are relatively similar to the majority of the population. The monarch is head of the church in a country where only 6% of the population regularly attends a religious service. Their political views are fairly conservative at a time when the conservative party may be close to becoming the third party behind the (admittedly increasingly conservative) labour party and the fairly left-wing liberal democrats (centrists no more, I'd say). They get private educations at posh boarding schools. None of these things reflect the general background or feelings of the populace.

His royal highness King Karl XIII of Gothia wonders what the sole prupose is? Do this organistaion have any sort of goal?

I wish to thank your Highness for your query. The Monarchist Caucus has the following purposes:

1) To exchange views concerning the institution of hereditary monarchy;

2) To consider whether any resolutions pending in the United Nations have possible adverse consequences for the future of monarchy, and if so, discuss what to do about them; and

3) To provide a place for royalty to hang out in congenial, club-like surroundings.

...Look at the royal family of Britain and tell me that they are relatively similar to the majority of the population. The monarch is head of the church in a country where only 6% of the population regularly attends a religious service. Their political views are fairly conservative at a time when the conservative party may be close to becoming the third party behind the (admittedly increasingly conservative) labour party and the fairly left-wing liberal democrats (centrists no more, I'd say). They get private educations at posh boarding schools. None of these things reflect the general background or feelings of the populace.

It's a relative matter. I'm sure that Queen Elizabeth's life and background are vastly different from those of most people in the UK. Her husband's political views are quite a bit to the right of my own (and, I suspect, those of most Britons). I also think that England could have got along quite nicely without Prince Charles' intervention on behalf of fox hunting. But having said all that, it seems to me that the Queen is, in her essential psychology and intellectual capacity, a fairly ordinary woman with a crown on her head. She doesn't seem consumed by a lust for power, and I haven't noticed her making the kind of megalomaniac statements that regularly issue from the White House. She visited Canada about a year ago, and impressed most people (including those opposed to monarchy) with her friendliness, humanity, and lack of pretension. All things considered, in the rankings of "normality", I will put Liz up against Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush any day of the week.

I noticed that you neglected to mention any of the other European monarchs, most of whom (especially in Scandanavia) are much more accessible than British royalty.

I have never said that monarchs are perfect people, or that hereditary monarchy is a perfect form of government--merely that it is better than any of the available alternatives.

HRH Tom II, King of the Lowcountry, announces that he shall at once join the caucus and shall be present at its next meeting.

We extend a royal welcome to your Highness, and to the people of your great country. You will be an honoured member of our caucus. You may see the purposes of the caucus listed in a separate posting which we have just made.

Welcome aboard!!!

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

When this thread turned into a debate about the merits of monarchy, I felt somewhat chagrined, since my essential purpose was to provide a place for monarchists to get together, rather than to provide a forum for debate. But I'm starting to change my mind. I'm beginning to think that the debate is part of the reason why this caucus is needed.

The concept of hereditary monarchy gets defended so seldom in the world today that many of the most specious charges levelled against it go unanswered. It is fairly easy to see, upon examining history, that monarchy has provided more freedom, more economic prosperity, more safety--and yes, more democracy--for more people, in more places, over longer periods of time than any other form of government. But it is far more difficult to discover the reasons why that is so. Modern political theory tends to sanctify the forms of democracy, while paying scant attention to the practical question of how many, or how few, people actually benefit from the workings of government. Monarchists restore an essential balance to the debate by insisting that there is more to democracy than holding elections. There is the fundamental question posed by the Romans: Qui Bono? -- Who Benefits?

I only wish that my own intellectual capacity was up to the task of defending monarchy. As it is, I will be quite grateful for any help I might receive.

The King of Sigmarinen adressed the ruler of Ursoria and said

A military league where we are to protect eachother is what i desire.


(OOC: Rpg wars are apparently fought often, and being on an island where by their own standards it reads "Only non capitalists allowed" i feel threatened :) But i want to remain there :))

I stand by my quote. Kings are good only for assasination. Monarchy is an outdated system of government.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat on the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

The King of Sigmarinen adressed the ruler of Ursoria and said

A military league where we are to protect eachother is what i desire.


(OOC: Rpg wars are apparently fought often, and being on an island where by their own standards it reads "Only non capitalists allowed" i feel threatened :) But i want to remain there :))

Your Highness,

Ursoria is committed to following a national policy of military neutrality. Our constitution forbids us to deploy military forces unless we ourselves are attacked. However, we wish to maintain friendly relations with your great country, both in this caucus and in other ways. We wish your Highness, and the People of Sigmarinen, the best of everything.

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

I stand by my quote. Kings are good only for assasination...

Have a good day too. :D

[W]e, the Monarchs of the World, stands for freedom, social security, a strong nation, with a strong people. I am the primary servant of my people, that is my credo...

It is a noble credo. Monarchs are not merely the servants of the people--they are the slaves of the people. They are bound by considerations of honour to defend the people at whatever the personal cost. Certainly at the cost of their thrones, and even at the cost of their lives.

Monarchy is not about a life of privilege. It is about a life of service and sacrifice. Our crown belongs to the people--especially to the poor--and it will always be so.

Extending our best wishes to your Majesty, and to your noble countrymen.

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I think that a monarchy gives identity and stability to a nation. Like in the case of Nipperland, my reign started weeks ago and I have gave stability to nipperlanders.

H.S.H Prince Ermgard VI of Nipperland

The government should be elected by the people. That must be accomplished first before socialism can be successfully implemented without becoming a dictatorship.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat on the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

While we do acknowledge your right to rule your country, we have to agure a point that you have brought into this. I do not think monarchy is as good as you make it out to be. Take the Roman Empire, although not a full monarchy it did have a system of succession basically based on family pass down. For every sane decent Emperor such as Octavious and Julius Caesar, you had a mad on like Caligulia and Nero. Now despite this, there are good rulers, i am not saying that monarchy is bad, just that it CAN be bad if the wrong heir comes into power.

We in Russia full heartedly support the first poster's ideals,however this ideal can not be forced on all nations currently members of the UN,it just won't work.

Your Majesty,

We would never force our ideals on anyone. We stand firmly for the proposition that all nations should be entitled to choose any form of government they wish--whatever that may be--subject only to the necessity of maintaining ordinary standards of humanity and the planet we all must share.

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

What makes a king better than an elected official?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat on the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

The government should be elected by the people. That must be accomplished first before socialism can be successfully implemented without becoming a dictatorship.

Our government is elected by the people. We have an elected Parliament, which chooses a Cabinet and Prime Minister who are responsible for the day-to-day government of our country. Our elections are frequent and absolutely free. Anyone 18 years of age or older (not serving a criminal sentence) can vote.

In addition, our constitution was approved by our people in a special referendum, and can be altered (in whole or in part) in the same way.

We are not socialists, but we do believe that government should help the poor, when no other recourse is available.

And yet you are still ruled by a king. What can he do better than a president?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat on the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

The concept of hereditary monarchy gets defended so seldom in the world today that many of the most specious charges levelled against it go unanswered. It is fairly easy to see, upon examining history, that monarchy has provided more freedom, more economic prosperity, more safety--and yes, more democracy--for more people, in more places, over longer periods of time than any other form of government.

This is because monarchy was the ONLY real form of government from 1400-the 1800s. Democracies have almost always outperformed comparable monarchies. Case in point, in the 1600s/1700s, the Netherlands created a monarchless Republic whereas the southern Netherlands (belgium), which was very similiar economically, remained under the rule of a Hapsburg Monarch. The Netherlands developed into a prosperous center of banking, finance, trade, and seafaring, whereas Belgium did not perform nearly as well at that time. On examining the last two hundred years, it's clear to see that monarchies have been some of the least successful first-world governments, some of hte most revolution-prone, and having largely slow economic growth. In many cases, blood-and-iron dictatorships are preferable to monarchies, for the simple fact that dictatorships at least often retain a shred of meritocracy and the tyranny of a dictator ends at his death whereas the tyranny of monarchy continues until the whole government is overthrown and replaced.

But it is far more difficult to discover the reasons why that is so. Modern political theory tends to sanctify the forms of democracy, while paying scant attention to the practical question of how many, or how few, people actually benefit from the workings of government. Monarchists restore an essential balance to the debate by insisting that there is more to democracy than holding elections. There is the fundamental question posed by the Romans: Qui Bono? -- Who Benefits?

The monarch and his cronies tend to benefit the most in a monarchy. And they benefit, not because of their merits, but beacuse of birth. Modern political science defends democracy because it is the system that has provided the most liberty to man and also the most prosperity.

Monarchies are still lame. They can't be controlled by the people. The king is too powerful.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

AB.IMP.CAES.GEKKO.REX.ETVRIAE.IMP.LAT.P.P.SEMP.AVG.

While we do acknowledge your right to rule your country, we have to agure a point that you have brought into this. I do not think monarchy is as good as you make it out to be. Take the Roman Empire, although not a full monarchy it did have a system of succession basically based on family pass down. For every sane decent Emperor such as Octavious and Julius Caesar, you had a mad on like Caligulia and Nero. Now despite this, there are good rulers, i am not saying that monarchy is bad, just that it CAN be bad if the wrong heir comes into power.

However, just as bad Emperors may be born to the throne from time to time, so too may truly terrible rulers, who happen to possess the authority and pinache necessary to sway the masses, be elected to office. As bad as Nero was, he still caused far less damage than Hitler, who was, in fact, an official elected by the masses. While no system can ensure perfect leadership, a monarchy has one advantage-- assuming the initial monarch is a capable ruler (as most founding monarchs are), he or she should likly be able to raise a child in a manner befitting a proper ruler, or choose a worthy and benevolent successor. Furthermore, in a true consititutional democracy, while the monarch makes decisions and supports his nation with a minimal amount of red tape, the monarch's powers are limited and the people have legal recourse against an unsatisfactory monarch. Also, let us not forget that the simplest yet strongest recourse the people have against corrupt rule is the revolution. This in mind, a corrupt monarch is much easier to remove than a corrupt political party, or a corrupt administration.

As far as the argumet that monarchy is an outdated form of government, the term 'outdated' is purely subjective. While, yes, most of the modern world is comprised of republics, which were formerly monarchies, republics existed before these monarchies and monarchies will likely follow our republics. These things tend to repeat over time. Forget not that classical Athens and Rome, models for the modern American republic, each had republics in their respective histories that were, after they fell into corruption and decay, replaced with glorious Empires.

As for the original discussion, "what makes a king better than an elected official," as addition to items already mentioned, good (successful) kings look upon their people as like their children, caring for their well being as best they can. On the contrary, good (successful) politicians see not their children, but their votes, in the people. Such politicians seek merely to get themselves elected-- sometimes this leads to actually doing something for the people. More often, it leads to many great promises to the people and a failure to deliver (e.g., while I am in no way a staunch opponent to America's present administration, Bush did promise great reforms for the nation's education, but educational institutions continue to receive the worst budget cuts they've had in many years, being forced to diminish the quality of education available, lay off teachers, and drastically scale back financial aid programs for those of us in higher education). When Augustus said there would be free bread for the starving, there was.

A bad president can be voted out. A bad king can't. Thus, a president has a motive to live up to their promises unless they can make themselves dictators.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

A bad president can be voted out. A bad king can't. Thus, a president has a motive to live up to their promises unless they can make themselves dictators.

That's naive. If you look back over the past 200 years, you'll find that the vast majority of tyrants and warmongers have been presidents, prime ministers, and other non-monarch national leaders.

The real question shouldn't be "What makes a king better than an elected official?", it should be "What makes an elected official better than a king?". Elected (and not quite elected but certainly not royal) officials have done far more damage than monarchs ever have.

But if you're really convinced that there is a problem with all monarchies, why don't you tell me what you think is wrong with the United Kingdom's system of government, and explain how you think it would better without a monarch.

The UK would be better without a monarch because the monarch in this case is too weak to do anything and is thus a waste. The vast majority of tyrants have all been dictators. A dictator and a monarch are pretty much the same thing. They are both above the law and can't be voted out. The only difference is that it's possible for a monarch to be just a figurehead(read: pointless). An elected official is far better because they can be removed from office by voting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

If you think a figurehead is pointless, you're very much mistaken. Tell the people of Britain who lived during the Blitz in World War 2 that having King George VI and his Queen Elizabeth as figureheads was pointless.

The fact is that in the grand scheme of things, monarchy as a system of government, even when the monarch has real powers, has been just as effective and positive a system of government as democracy.

A monarch lends legitimacy to the government itself, the justice system, and to the sovereignity of the state. Unlike the concept of a state, a monarch isn't an abstract idea, a monarch is an actual person, the physical embodiment of nationhood. A monarch is something much more tangible and useful than an idea.

The borg had a queen and they eventually lost a major battle to a single small starship. In the grand scheme of things, monarchy has proven to be an outdated and inferior form of government that is a major road block to abandoning the class system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

The borg had a queen and they eventually lost a major battle to a single small starship. In the grand scheme of things, monarchy has proven to be an outdated and inferior form of government that is a major road block to abandoning the class system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."
:roll: :lol:

The idea of a monarch runs contrary to equality. As an opponent of social classes, I find it highly repungent. What did a king do to earn their power? Nothing. What did an elected official do to earn their power? Organize a huge campaign and work hard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

Man, I sure opened a can of worms when I started this thread. I have some inkling now of how General Custer must have felt. But here goes:

... [M]onarchy was the ONLY real form of government from 1400-the 1800s. Democracies have almost always outperformed comparable monarchies.

Not quite. There was one conspicuous republic during that period--the Republic of Venice. But it is an example that republicans don't often like to bring up, since the Republic of Venice degenerated into one of the worst tyrannies in history. I have visited Venice, and have personally seen the dungeon where the opponents of that regime were put. When you entered one of those cells, you never saw sunlight again.

... [i]n the 1600s/1700s, the Netherlands created a monarchless Republic whereas the southern Netherlands (belgium), which was very similiar economically, remained under the rule of a Hapsburg Monarch. The Netherlands developed into a prosperous center of banking, finance, trade, and seafaring, whereas Belgium did not perform nearly as well at that time.

A couple of observations. First, the Netherlands restored its monarchy in 1815, and has remained one ever since (its current sovereign being Queen Beatrix). Yet it still retains its economic prosperity. Secondly, the States General in Holland was hardly the model of a democratic government. Thirdly, it is interesting that you didn't mention the "lux" in Benelux--Luxembourg--which has always had a monarchy, and which today has the highest per capita GDP in the world.

On examining the last two hundred years, it's clear to see that monarchies have been some of the least successful first-world governments, some of hte most revolution-prone, and having largely slow economic growth.

You left out any consideration of whether the republics that replaced those monarchies were better-governed than the regimes they supplanted. Offhand, I would say that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Libya, for example, were far better off when they had their monarchies. And, of course, Russia needs no elaboration. Two political scientists, Lee Sigelman of George Washington University and Jeremy Mayer of Kalamazoo College in Michigan, actually did a comparative statistical study of monarchies vs republics in the world today, and found that monarchy is a significant negative predictor of both social unrest and economic inequality. For further details, visit the website of the American Political Science Association (www.apsanet.org), or see PS : Political Science & Politics, December 1998.

... In many cases, blood-and-iron dictatorships are preferable to monarchies, for the simple fact that dictatorships at least often retain a shred of meritocracy and the tyranny of a dictator ends at his death whereas the tyranny of monarchy continues until the whole government is overthrown and replaced.

Ay, there's the rub. I may be unfair, Global Market, but I suspect that the primary reason you oppose monarchy is not that it contradicts democracy, but that it contradicts meritocracy. I, for one, would much rather live in a free country ruled by a monarch than in a "blood-and-iron" dictatorship ruled by someone who "merited" his position.

Modern political science defends democracy because it is the system that has provided the most liberty to man and also the most prosperity.

Since 1990 the (real-world) U.N. has ranked countries according to a statistical indicator called the "Human Development Index", which provides a measure of overall economic wellbeing. The top 10 nations in the current rankings are as follows (listed in order): Canada, France, Norway, U.S., Iceland, Netherlands, Japan, Finland, New Zealand, and Sweden. Note that six of the ten are constitutional monarchies.

Your Honour, I rest my case.

Note that many are also a lot more economically liberal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

The idea of a monarch runs contrary to equality. As an opponent of social classes, I find it highly repungent. What did a king do to earn their power? Nothing. What did an elected official do to earn their power? Organize a huge campaign and work hard.

And with what legitimacy does that intone them? None. They won a popularity contest. Irrelevant.

The idea of equality is a nonsense. God has ordained a certain social order which we inherit as our birthright. You clearly judge monarchies by how susceptible they are to becoming socialist anarchies. A system of government should be judged on its own merit, not judged by how far it has progressed on an invented scale of progress towards some ideological utopia.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

Since 1990 the (real-world) U.N. has ranked countries according to a statistical indicator called the "Human Development Index", which provides a measure of overall economic wellbeing. The top 10 nations in the current rankings are as follows (listed in order): Canada, France, Norway, U.S., Iceland, Netherlands, Japan, Finland, New Zealand, and Sweden. Note that six of the ten are constitutional monarchies.

I agree with you, but those aren't the current rankings at all. You can see the whole list here: http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_10_1_1.html

The top 10 are:

1 Norway (Constitutional Monarchy)
2 Iceland (Republic)
3 Sweden (Constitutional Monarchy)
4 Australia (Constitutional Monarchy)
5 Netherlands (Constitutional Monarchy)
6 Belgium (Constitutional Monarchy)
7 United States (Republic)
8 Canada (Constitutional Monarchy)
9 Japan (Constitutional Monarchy)
10 Switzerland (Republic)

So 7/10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are Constitutional Monarchies.

Since 1990 the (real-world) U.N. has ranked countries according to a statistical indicator called the "Human Development Index", which provides a measure of overall economic wellbeing. The top 10 nations in the current rankings are as follows (listed in order): Canada, France, Norway, U.S., Iceland, Netherlands, Japan, Finland, New Zealand, and Sweden. Note that six of the ten are constitutional monarchies.

I agree with you, but those aren't the current rankings at all. You can see the whole list here: http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_10_1_1.html

The top 10 are:

1 Norway (Constitutional Monarchy)
2 Iceland (Republic)
3 Sweden (Constitutional Monarchy)
4 Australia (Constitutional Monarchy)
5 Netherlands (Constitutional Monarchy)
6 Belgium (Constitutional Monarchy)
7 United States (Republic)
8 Canada (Constitutional Monarchy)
9 Japan (Constitutional Monarchy)
10 Switzerland (Republic)

So 7/10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are Constitutional Monarchies.

Thank you. We're sorry, but apparently the list we used wasn't up-to-date. You've made our point better than we did.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for helping us out. For awhile, we felt like the Lone Ranger--without Tonto. :D

Excuse me.

A monarchy can only be 100% effective if,

All its members are provided for completely, and can retain no hidden agendas, and ultimately be above coruption.

It must truly represent the nation in that IT serves the nation, and not the NATION serves it.

Also, it must be capable of creating and maintaining rulers who are able to sustain themselves and their functionality and effectives, and the "royal" family itself must maintain "interbreeding" with the population at large at an acceptable rate to increase or maintain genetic diversity and ensure all possible rulers are not restricted by any health problems, physical or mental.

Ultimately the monarchy must be able to regulate its members and ensure their actions are not excessive nor harm the population.

And, further more, at any time when the people of the nation make the decision to remove the control of the monarchy through any means that would result in alternate government, the monarchy must be able to stand down without gross conflict, in essance, they must not hinder such a move in any way, although they should be allowed their private possesions and a suitable, humane, alternate living location, and should come to no harm by the people or new rulers.

Only if all these steps are carried out can a monarchy be truly good for its nation and people under it.

Although might I add, I personally am against a monarchy, as I am of a democratically controlled republic, with a capitalistic economy.

Anyhoo, there's my two komoks,

Bless, double bless.

A Rep of Komokom.

Ahem, Oh yeah and,

HDI Is all good and well, but speaking as a citizen of (RL) Australia, trust me, the monarchy of (RL) England, whom we are technically still a "colony" of, so to speak, Has little sway over us, in fact, while the queen can order our Prime Minister to step down, that power was only ever exercised once in the history of our nation, and was due solely to the economy and political motivations of the time, ultimately we are a self governing democracy and care little for the control in any form executed by our colonial brethren. Still, so far if it aint broke don't fix it.

With regards, A Rep of Komokom.

:)

Ahem, Oh yeah and,

HDI Is all good and well, but speaking as a citizen of (RL) Australia, trust me, the monarchy of (RL) England, whom we are technically still a "colony" of, so to speak, Has little sway over us, in fact, while the queen can order our Prime Minister to step down, that power was only ever exercised once in the history of our nation, and was due solely to the economy and political motivations of the time, ultimately we are a self governing democracy and care little for the control in any form executed by our colonial brethren. Still, so far if it aint broke don't fix it.

With regards, A Rep of Komokom.

:)

As another RL citizen of Australia, I can assure you we're not a colony of the British Crown, and have not been since 1901. We are an independent realm (Elizabeth II is our monarch due to her being the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of Great Britain). The Queen has never sacked the government, that was the Queen's representative, the Governor-General, and if the Governor-General had been a President, he would've done the same thing.

But I agree, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[S]peaking as a citizen of (RL) Australia ... so far if it aint broke don't fix it.

As another RL citizen of Australia ... I agree, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Apparently, two-thirds of the voters in Australia agreed with you in 1998, since the proposal to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic failed in every one of the Australian states.

I'm from Norway and the only reason that I'm a royalist is that it beats having a president, since I dont like the idea that one person should have so much power that he is considered to be a govermental power on his own.

Besides, we don't have to worry about the royal familiy making any political moves and its very nice to have a royal familiy you can cheer at every 17 May.

[S]peaking as a citizen of (RL) Australia ... so far if it aint broke don't fix it.

As another RL citizen of Australia ... I agree, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Apparently, two-thirds of the voters in Australia agreed with you in 1998, since the proposal to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic failed in every one of the Australian states.

Yes but I should point out, the vast majority of Australians were actually in support of a republic, just not a republic in the model offered by the government in that referendum. :wink:

In any case, the UN's list demonstrates pretty well that monarchies stack up pretty well compared to republics. :D

As Queen of FelisCatus, i can tell you that ppl need a Leader, the major reason beeing having someone to blame if something goes wrong.

No ppl want to be take responsable for the turns of events, goods or bads; maybe they talk a lot, maybe they protest, maybe they want to voice there opinions.... But the major thing that evry ppl want from all the countries is someone TO DO THE JOB FOR THEM.

That's why monarchie is always the best solution, if the ruler make mistakes, it get killed or executed, then replace by another one...If not: he is worshiped. Simple and efficient solution.

Can I help?

... I should point out, the vast majority of Australians were actually in support of a republic, just not a republic in the model offered by the government in that referendum. :wink:

Apparently the republicans were divided between those who wanted an elected President on the "American" model, and those who wanted the President appointed by Parliament on, say, the "Austrian" model. The latter was actually proposed, and was soundly defeated. We note that no proposal to redo the referendum along different lines has come forth--so apparently the republicans are still divided.

So approximately half the republicans thought that an "American-style" president would give Australia an elected dictator, while the other half thought that an "Austrian-style" president would simply provide a sinecure for superanuated politicians.

The voters apparently said: "To Hell with all of you!! We'll keep the Queen."
:D

I agree, we should keep the Queen.

1st: History doesn't support that assertion. Look at Scandinavia or Holland. The royal families in those countries are quite progressive. Monarchs do not have to sell their souls to wealthy political contributors in order to get to the top, so they can truly represent all of the people--especially the poor.


I am from holland. we are progressive because we made our queen shut up :P. Actually we are only monarchy in name. In practice we are just a normal democracy, but instead of a president, we have a queen with even less power than the weakests of presidents.

She has to official right to shut up, so she can never be crisised.

Quote more or less corrected.

You should not tell are Queen to shut up. You may be from holland but that is no reason.

Almost by definition, an aristocratic family is going to have conservative tendencies, which means that they cannot hope to be representative of a progressive, liberal nation. Also, look at the inbreeding in the family tree of Europe's monarchies (demonstrated by the comparatively high appearance of haemophiliacs) which is definitely not conducive to producing capable, intelligent rulers :wink: .

1st: History doesn't support that assertion. Look at Scandinavia or Holland. The royal families in those countries are quite progressive. Monarchs do not have to sell their souls to wealthy political contributors in order to get to the top, so they can truly represent all of the people--especially the poor.

2nd: The inbreeding among royalty in the past probably wasn't any greater than among most segments of society. Most people never got more than 10 or 20 km from the little villages in which they were born, so there was an incredible amount of inbreeding among the population as a whole. Most modern royal families have intermarried with commoners, greatly reducing the amount of inbreeding. For example, the Swedish princesses are 1/4 Brazilian.

We believe that by having a monarchy, we enable our head of state to exercise independent judgement, so that he or she can truly fulfill the duty given to them by our Constitution: to "ensure that the government of the Realm is conducted in the fundamental interest of all the people, with special regard to the needs of the poor".

I am from holland. we are progressive because we made our queen shut up :P. Actually we are only monarchy in name. In practice we are just a normal democracy, but instead of a president, we have a queen with even less power than the weakests of presidents.

She has to official right to shut up, so she can never be crisised.

Why did you copy paste that and not comment on it?

Stay out of this.

Alrigh, don't make me break out the http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:Ox97JBdY8ZkC:www.centralpc.org/photo/youth/mss00/guru.jpg

... [M]onarchy was the ONLY real form of government from 1400-the 1800s. Democracies have almost always outperformed comparable monarchies.

Not quite. There was one conspicuous republic during that period--the Republic of Venice. But it is an example that republicans don't often like to bring up, since the Republic of Venice degenerated into one of the worst tyrannies in history. I have visited Venice, and have personally seen the dungeon where the opponents of that regime were put. When you entered one of those cells, you never saw sunlight again.

... [i]n the 1600s/1700s, the Netherlands created a monarchless Republic whereas the southern Netherlands (belgium), which was very similiar economically, remained under the rule of a Hapsburg Monarch. The Netherlands developed into a prosperous center of banking, finance, trade, and seafaring, whereas Belgium did not perform nearly as well at that time.

A couple of observations. First, the Netherlands restored its monarchy in 1815, and has remained one ever since (its current sovereign being Queen Beatrix). Yet it still retains its economic prosperity. Secondly, the States General in Holland was hardly the model of a democratic government. Thirdly, it is interesting that you didn't mention the "lux" in Benelux--Luxembourg--which has always had a monarchy, and which today has the highest per capita GDP in the world.

On examining the last two hundred years, it's clear to see that monarchies have been some of the least successful first-world governments, some of hte most revolution-prone, and having largely slow economic growth.


Holland. Funny example. Holland was an economic success as a republic because they defeated the spanish in battle. Cut of the belgium harbour of antwerp, and those rich merchants moved the amsterdam. It has nothing to do with monarchy or no monarchy. During the early stages we where a world power, but due to insufficient manpower, and corruption of the republic we where a wreck by the time we got our king back. We where most not impressive. Our economic success now is a fraction of what it once was. Though I came to understand that our new king, which was just the old city holder restated in a new title did quite good in trying to rebuild the wrecked economy the the republic had left behind. That and the french demonation.

Examples are not so good, because in the end it is the people that make the country, at least in modern times.

But shall we never forget that it got all started because of the monarchies, so respect for it is the least we can have. A monarchy is a form of super successfull capitalism. A land owner who has managed to collect such a massive amount of land that in his success he could be considered king. The kings of long ago where leaders of just one tribe :P. But they are not unlike the owner of a big private corporation. There individual selfish persuit of more power, is what made the nations.

Hail bill gates, the new king of the world :P.

People who hate monarchs usually I blinded by a one sided hate, a disliking for something they don't even really know what it means. Just kicking against somebody that is already down. Not saying that I am in favor though.

But to take to best of both world, though it might have been mentioned in the pages in between what I read. How about the tibetan system. A leader like a monarch, but choicen at birth for its qualities. The advantages of having somebody trained for power, and power invested without having to bribe and backstap for it, but choicen for capability so there is a good genetic backing. Something that once was so for royalty too, but after generations the genetic advantages of the founder start to dissapear. Certainly in a time where genes where unknown, and people married for property instead of capabilities.

I don't get you.

I don't get you.

The only way to understand is to stop trying :P

My quotes refere to the use of holland as a so called example.

As Queen of FelisCatus, i can tell you that ppl need a Leader, the major reason beeing having someone to blame if something goes wrong... That's why monarchie is always the best solution...

Can I help?

I cordially invite you both to join the Monarchist Caucus.

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

...I should point out, the vast majority of Australians were actually in support of a republic, just not a republic in the model offered by the government in that referendum.

There is, incidentally, a rather interesting analysis of the election results from Associate Professor Malcolm Mackerras of the School of Politics at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra. Prof. Mackerras writes: “My belief is that historians will declare the Queen to have been the ‘Condorcet winner’. This psephological term is defined as ‘a candidate who can beat any other in a pairwise contest’.” In other words, monarchy may not have majority support in Australia, but it can beat any of the other alternatives in a head-to-head contest. Actually, Prof. Mackerras feels that there are three alternative republican models: the “mediamalist” approach (which actually lost), the “maximalist” approach (direct election), and the true “minimalist” approach (making a Governor General appointed by Parliament Australia’s formal Head of State, while leaving everything else unchanged).

You can read the entire analysis at the website of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy: http://www.norepublic.com.au/Ref99/Final_Results_Analysis.htm

You can't abolish social classes with a king around. That's my main objection to monarchy. A king is nothing more than a hereditary dictator. Bush may be bad, but we can get a new president without having to start a revolution. Imagine if Bush were to stay in office until he dies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

Err. Hmm.

I apologise for my earlier proclomation about Australia and such in regard to the colony business and the queen removing the prime minister and such, as at that time I was almost unconcious and was not think srtaight, I was tryingh to get a message through though.

What I was trying to say through my sleep hased typing was that in effect, our connection to the monarchy has little effect on our overall HDI, and that its more due to our elected government ( And no the fact our governments formation is styled in a similar fashion to GB's is not my point, I am talking one on one with monarchy and Oz here ) then any kind of moarchistic thingy.

See my point I am desperately trying to . . . to . . . to . . . zzz

Actually I am dead tired now, less partying, more sleep...

Thanking you for your correction and . . . (Slips into coma)

A very sleepy little Rep of Komokom.

You can't abolish social classes with a king around. That's my main objection to monarchy. A king is nothing more than a hereditary dictator. Bush may be bad, but we can get a new president without having to start a revolution. Imagine if Bush were to stay in office until he dies.

You can temper the worst effects of poverty. You can make sure that every child has decent opportunities in life. You can make sure that everyone has a right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. We have argued strongly for all of these things (see our posts regarding the "Bill of No Rights"); and as King, I am bound by the highest considerations of honour and duty to "ensure that the government of the Realm is conducted in the fundamental interests of all the people, with special regard to the needs of the poor".

But as long as people are free, social classes will develop. People have different interests and abilities, and they tend to associate with like-minded individuals. Monarchy reminds us all (and especially Kings) that freedom comes from diversity, and not from enforced conformity. That is one of its virtues.

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria

Err. Hmm.

I apologise for my earlier proclomation about Australia and such in regard to the colony business and the queen removing the prime minister and such, as at that time I was almost unconcious and was not think srtaight, I was tryingh to get a message through though.

What I was trying to say through my sleep hased typing was that in effect, our connection to the monarchy has little effect on our overall HDI, and that its more due to our elected government ( And no the fact our governments formation is styled in a similar fashion to GB's is not my point, I am talking one on one with monarchy and Oz here ) then any kind of moarchistic thingy.

See my point I am desperately trying to . . . to . . . to . . . zzz

Actually I am dead tired now, less partying, more sleep...

Thanking you for your correction and . . . (Slips into coma)

A very sleepy little Rep of Komokom.

Yes I understand your point, but I think you misunderstand why we brought out the HDI. Bringing out the HDI just demonstrates that there is nothing about monarchies which precludes the state from being a successful one, and a good one in which to live, contradicting any claim that a monarchy somehow holds back a nation from moving in the right direction.

You can't abolish social classes with a king around. That's my main objection to monarchy. A king is nothing more than a hereditary dictator. Bush may be bad, but we can get a new president without having to start a revolution. Imagine if Bush were to stay in office until he dies.


In real life, a king is anything but an hereditary dictator. There isn't a monarch in the world with as wide ranging powers as the US President. If you assert that a king is an hereditary dictator, then an elected president would simply be an elected dictator.

Furthermore, who says the abolition of social classes is necessarily a good thing? A state can try to eliminate poverty without also eliminating wealth and eliminating nobility. Nothing precludes a monarchy retaining its nobility and eliminating poverty. The point is to raise everybody's standard of living to an acceptable level, not to lower everybody's standard of living to the lowest common denominator. Given that that is the point, I see no reason why a noble class should be eliminated in the name of social progress.

You can't abolish social classes with a king around.
The only way to abolish social classes is to make all human beings clones with the same genes. The only way to abolish hereditary social classes is to abolish the family. As long as parents love their children, there will be hereditary class distinctions.
What we ought to avoid are caste distinctions - hereditary class distinctions enforced by law. Monarchy engenders these distinctions because monarchs average more than one child per generation; inevitably there is a surplus of royalty who are not only likely to be favored by their cousin the king but are legally distinguished from the population in at least one way: they are eligible, at least in theory, to succeed to the throne. In short, Monarchy breeds aristocracy, and aristocracy leads to caste distinctions.

Imagine if Bush were to stay in office until he dies.
Even worse - imagine if Clinton hadn't been forced out by term limits.

As I have join htis can some one tell me what this is about.

This is a forum in which many battles are waged, and people die.

Your fast(not).

(am too)

Go to hell

Go to Philip's house.

You can't abolish social classes with a king around.

He is right, but what can do?

Electrocute yourself?

Tom do you konw what is going on in this?

Let get back to what we are talking about.

What the...

Modalert: spam

You can't abolish social classes with a king around.

He is right, but what can do?

what can we do?

You can't abolish social classes with a king around.

He is right, but what can do?

what can we do?

We're not trying to abolish wealth. We're trying to abolish poverty.

oh, How do we do that then, I will help if you want?

oh, How do we do that then, I will help if you want?

Well, we don't have all the answers, and sometimes we make mistakes. But our constitution gives us a basic principle that we try to follow. It says: "Human life being a necessary condition for human freedom, all people shall have a right to the requisites of a human existence, including adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care, to be provided at public expense, if necessary."

cool.

What now then?

Tyrrany by "Popular Vote" is STILL TYRRANY!!!

The Principality of AnteNicea Would Be Proud to become a Member of the Monachist Caucus.

Tyrrany by "Popular Vote" is STILL TYRRANY!!!

The Principality of AnteNicea Would Be Proud to become a Member of the Monachist Caucus.

Your Highness,

We extend a royal welcome to AnteNicea. We will be proud to have your wonderful country and glorious people participate in the Monarchist Caucus.

H.R.H. King Douglas I
On Behalf of the People and Government of Ursoria