NationStates Jolt Archive

With particular reference to the British monarchy (not that I'm from Britain :P)

But considering how elected officials act these days, including the lies they always use to gain office, do you think that perhaps the monarchies of the world, which (in the case of Britain, at least) have little to no real power anymore and are hereditary, therefore they cannot be corrupted by their 'power' and do not have to lie to get in...so what does everyone think?

PS: Sorry about the badly worded paragraph :(

Elected officials are better i guess, because not only one man can make a decision.
Basically, the monarchy over here began losing it's power with Charles I who came to the throne in 1625. He reigned until he was over thrown in our Civil War in 1649, then lost his head in Jan 1650.
The Republic didn't work, so Charles II became king but had less power, as there was a standing parliament.
Sinse then, the monarchy has had less and less power. George III went nuts but didn't die, so parliament got more powerful. The last king to have any power was Edward VII, but he handed it to the people. Sinse he died (1910), the monarchy has simply been a figure-head.
What can I say, monarchy or government, this country was the most powerful country in the world for nearly 1000 years having used both...
And even then, it's not like we lost it, but joined the bloody Commonwealth and instead gave it away.

With particular reference to the British monarchy (not that I'm from Britain :P)

But considering how elected officials act these days, including the lies they always use to gain office, do you think that perhaps the monarchies of the world, which (in the case of Britain, at least) have little to no real power anymore and are hereditary, therefore they cannot be corrupted by their 'power' and do not have to lie to get in...so what does everyone think?

PS: Sorry about the badly worded paragraph :(
Well, if we had no elected officials and the monarchy did not have its power restored, who would run the country?!

Obviously elected officials are more desirable from a democratic viewpoint, in an ideal world politicians would be free of financial obligations to backers and would be honest and honourable people with the best intentions for the people at heart. Sadly, that isn't the case today, but maybe one day...

None, in both cases people aren't free

you can have good kings or bad kings as you can have good or bad elected representatives the diference is you can get rid of the bad elected ones in 5 years, rather then wait till they die and hope their heir will be better

I believe that the monarchy should be playing a greater role in British politics to date. The prime minister used to be answerable to the head of state such as Queen Victoria and her predecessors, however alas, times have changed, and for the worse I personally feel.

The Monarchy, has become an institution that merely represents long lost power, however, this should change.

The Prime Minister should be answerable to the head of state once more, and his powers should be significantly reduced, or require Imperial approval. This creates a two tier system, which prevents unilaterally biased and sometimes flawed decisions from becoming policy, such as the poll tax and the war in Iraq.

If people feel this system puts far too much power in the hands of Her Majesty, then perhaps we should begin reinstating powers to the House of Lords, who used to be able to combat parliaments rather stupid decisions.

Lets sort this Labour mess out.

Yeah what you say kinda makes sense...I'm a Socialist and believe in true Democracy...but seeing as neither true Socialism or Democracy can ever exist...Monarchy is sounding better :P

Yeah what you say kinda makes sense...I'm a Socialist and believe in true Democracy...but seeing as neither true Socialism or Democracy can ever exist...Monarchy is sounding better :P
Why do you say that? I'm a socialist-leaning liberal democrat myself and I prefer a more idealistic outlook, personally! Switzerland has a system very close to true democracy and I am pretty sure the human race will outgrow capitalism eventually :)

Yeah what you say kinda makes sense...I'm a Socialist and believe in true Democracy...but seeing as neither true Socialism or Democracy can ever exist...Monarchy is sounding better :P


i would say australia comes close to a true democracy..

granted its enforced though via mandatory voting that incurrs stiff fines if you dont.

There is a guy named Hans Hermann Hoppe who argues that pure monarchy in city states is better than democracy. Mainly because the king would see the state as his property, and thus be able to think more long term than officials who might not be reelected in four years. But also because people realise that they are not the queen, but somehow imagine that they can be elected to the parliament, so they think more critically in monarchy.

Personally I'll vote for democracy as the lesser of two evils. I am a bit naïve, so I believe that complete lunatics have a somewhat lesser chance of being elected. Since you can't trust the king to be wise enough to make those good decisions for his "property" I don't trust Hoppes arguments.