NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been a lot of this republicanism from my fellow countrymen in a few other threads so I thought I'd take the Bull by the Horns and say it Straight off.

Republics are Fundamentally Inferior to Constituional Monarchies.

In this debate I won't pick real life examples of countries because the issue is too complex. For instance it would be wrong to say that Because Britiain is a Monarchy is a more sucessful country then a republic say Somalia. Such comparisons are unhelpful and flawed.

My argument is thus,

Constitional Monarchies such as, Britiain, Holland, Sweden have an advatage over Republics. All Republics have a leader e.g. the President. The president has a mandate to rule he/she demands respect. Patriotic feeling can therefore for be placed on a partisan politician. I believe that this puts a democracy at a disadvantage. With a constitional monarchy it means that the courts, civil service and Armed services have a different figure head to place their patrioitc feeling towards. This I argue encourages a culture of independence. Any kind of president, even an impartial one because they are democratically elected, even indirectly such as in Germany, have an apearance of competance, they have real influence because they deserve to be there. A Royal family on the other hand make a nice figure head but hold no actual power or influence, they are just somemore people. Not very egalitatiran you may shriek but a nessisary evil. The only other ways I can think of transfering patriotism to a powerless figure head is in the following ways,

- Not a real person at all e.g. God. But that brings in all the baggage of a theocracy.

- Some kind of citizen lottery but then again thats open to corruption and you run the risk of getting someone with bad table manners.

So a constitional Monarachy (actually a democracy) I believe is the way forward. Even if its not in Vogue. It will not symbolise the Unity and equality that a republic might impose but in the end it won't actually make a difference and people will have as much fun waving flags and the like.

I agree with this *smile*

Someone agreed, no one is repyling...interesting...

Interesting idea... It makes sense.

No, I'll wholeheartedly agree. Constitutional Monarchies pwn Republics. No argument.

Yes, well are you comparing Europe to the Americas, because really you can't?

U.S.A. has never had a king. Mexico had Maximillian and it didn't work out for him.

I think Jefferson Davis wanted to be a king of the U.S. but it didn't work out for him either.

Do Kings really serve a function (governmentally) than to uphold the traditions, or trademarks of the country. or to serve as a trademark.

I have no problem with Constitutional Monarchy at all, but it doesn't work everywhere.

Republics are Fundamentally Inferior to Constituional Monarchies.
Your argument is based on the assumption that patriotic feeling is always directed towards the head of state. I see little evidence for this - for one thing, it would cause great problems for Commonwealth countries whose head of state is the English monarch, and I see few Canadians or Australians getting all partriotic towards the Queen.

I see few Canadians or Australians getting all partriotic towards the Queen.
Maybe you need a pair of prescription glasses, then.

Maybe you need a pair of prescription glasses, then.
In fairness, why would you be loyal to someone who rarely visits the country, lives on the other side of the planet and does nothing for you? I doubt loyalty or 'patriotism' comes into it much.

Your argument is based on the assumption that patriotic feeling is always directed towards the head of state. I see little evidence for this - for one thing, it would cause great problems for Commonwealth countries whose head of state is the English monarch, and I see few Canadians or Australians getting all partriotic towards the Queen.

It doesn't always mean that that patriotism is put on a head of state, how many Americans are patriotic towards Dubya? But there is a risk, a risk that can be removed by Monarchy. Besides just because Monarchy is not fasionable in Australia and Canada at the present doesn't stop it being a part of their cultural heirtage. Oh and she's not an "English" monarch, but thats another argument.

Besides just because Monarchy is not fasionable in Australia and Canada at the present doesn't stop it being a part of their cultural heirtage. Oh and she's not an "English" monarch, but thats another argument.

Cultural heritage!? For the VAST majority of Commonwealth countries, it was forced on them! They didn't really have much of a choice... join us, bow to the King... or we'll kill you.

I disagree.
In a democratic republic your patriotism or loyalty should be directed to your peers as in everyone the state the nation whatever you want to call it. In America for example they swear alligence to the flag which represents their nation not the president.

In fairness, why would you be loyal to someone who rarely visits the country, lives on the other side of the planet and does nothing for you? I doubt loyalty or 'patriotism' comes into it much.
I am loyal, as my mother was loyal. She was born a British subject, and one day, she learned that she was no longer a British subject, but instead a Canadian citizen. She believed in the good works of the Queen, and her father before her. I believe in Elizabeth Windsor's essential goodness, she is my Queen, and I would move to prevent severing our ties with our head of state - doing so would close the book on shared history, heritage, and too much else that matters. I am honoured to have Elizabeth Windsor as our head of state.

I am loyal, as my mother was loyal. She was born a British subject, and one day, she learned that she was no longer a British subject, but instead a Canadian citizen. She believed in the good works of the Queen, and her father before her. I believe in Elizabeth Windsor's essential goodness, she is my Queen, and I would move to prevent severing our ties with our head of state - doing so would close the book on shared history, heritage, and too much else that matters. I am honoured to have Elizabeth Windsor as our head of state.

Wait, let me get this straight. You're loyal to someone who is merely in power because they were born that way, someone who has actually done nothing really benefical for humanity, someone who rarely takes time to even visit your country and to someone whom you have no say in removing from power....

Whoa.... that takes faith to a whole new level....

Wait, let me get this straight. You're loyal to someone who is merely in power because they were born that way, someone who has actually done nothing really benefical for humanity, someone who rarely takes time to even visit your country and to someone whom you have no say in removing from power....

Whoa.... that takes faith to a whole new level....

This is what I'm saying Patriotism, faith, is based on a person with no power this makes democratic decisions easier to make objectivly. Its better then feeling those emotions to a politician. Besides in the "British Dominions" who still have the Queen as head of state, they are (largly) descended from British people (with the exception of Papa New Guinea) so they no more had the Queen Forced onto them as I did is an Englishman.

Perhaps both are flawed. Seeing as neither a president or a monarch do much
(in Europe at least) I don't think we'd be losing out by living without either of them.

Then again who would appear on our money and live off our taxes?

. Its better then feeling those emotions to a politician.
but you wouldn't and I don't. If you could read my first post in this thread that'd be great.

I am loyal, as my mother was loyal. She was born a British subject, and one day, she learned that she was no longer a British subject, but instead a Canadian citizen. She believed in the good works of the Queen, and her father before her. I believe in Elizabeth Windsor's essential goodness, she is my Queen, and I would move to prevent severing our ties with our head of state - doing so would close the book on shared history, heritage, and too much else that matters. I am honoured to have Elizabeth Windsor as our head of state.

Good for you. It's very refreshing for someone to come out in favour of the monarchy, I think it gets far too much negative press.

One thing which is surprising is that the average British person is probably only dimly aware the The Queen is the head of state of several other countries. I suppose you can blame it on the extremely odd way in which history is taught in British schools (Tudors to the Second World War, skipping out the Empire completely).

Do you think there should be closer ties between the Crown Realms? Just think how much more influence the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Carribean Islands would have if they all banded together...

but you wouldn't and I don't. If you could read my first post in this thread that'd be great.

I see your point but attaching patrioitc feeling to person is easy, why do you think you have George Washinton on Doller bills. Because America has a strong republican tradition you avoid problems it could cause. But the risk is still their, if History could have panned out differently do you think people such as General Macarthur could have filled the power vacuum? I don't know, but it could be a greater danger in countries with less cultural tradition.

Wait, let me get this straight. You're loyal to someone who is merely in power because they were born that way, someone who has actually done nothing really benefical for humanity, someone who rarely takes time to even visit your country and to someone whom you have no say in removing from power....

Whoa.... that takes faith to a whole new level....

You forget, we are talking about a head of state. A figurehead. He or she has little to know power or political influence. Thus loyalty is merely a feeling and provides little in the way of actual requirements of the person.

Do you think there should be closer ties between the Crown Realms? Just think how much more influence the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Carribean Islands would have if they all banded together...

There's an argument that commonwealth countries should be able to join the EU. That would be good even if it lead to economic failure simply because it would make the French look small. Which is always a good thing.

There's an argument that commonwealth countries should be able to join the EU. That would be good even if it lead to economic failure simply because it would make the French look small. Which is always a good thing.

EU? euuuuuuu....

What would you personally think of a unification of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

I think it'd be great for the following reasons:
1. The new country would have great influence in Europe, Asia Pacific and America.
2. There would be an alternative English-speaking democracy with global reach to keep America on its toes.
3. Just imagine what the French would say :P

Patriotism sucks.
Nationalism sucks.

But besides these two opinions (yes, opinions, take note of that), the idea of keeping a monarch in a constitunational monarchy is to avoid having someone else take their place.

The monarch essentially has no power (which the President does) and all the power of the monarch is purely formal. However, no one else can take the same position. A good example of this, is how Hitler could not take the position of the president until the president died. When the president did die, Hitler got free reign. If a monarch dies, an heir takes over. An heir with as much power as the previous monarch - none, but enough to stop dictatorships.

And monarchs also do the added job of distracting the people away from the prime minister. This way, the prime minister has a slightly easier time doing his job (see how much flak Bush is getting) and the monarch gets to be head of state.

Why is patriotism fundamentally good? Where is it written in the fabric of the universe that patriotism is a good thing? Why do we need figureheads? Who says they are logically required?

And monarchs also do the added job of distracting the people away from the prime minister. This way, the prime minister has a slightly easier time doing his job (see how much flak Bush is getting) and the monarch gets to be head of state.

I disagree, but that could be the legislative and Executive are fused so Blair gets a beating in the House of Commons (sort of a mix of both houses of Congress) when ever he does somthing foolish at PMs Question time. Not that anyone bothers to watch though...

EU? euuuuuuu....

What would you personally think of a unification of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

I think it'd be great for the following reasons:
1. The new country would have great influence in Europe, Asia Pacific and America.
2. There would be an alternative English-speaking democracy with global reach to keep America on its toes.
3. Just imagine what the French would say :P

It could be good, I think building it would be a mind field however. When Canada, NZ, Austrialia and South Africa were gaining dominionship there was a movement to form a "Greater Britain" as an alternative to independence. It would mean that Canadians, Austailans New Zealanders and such would have MP in the house of commons. The problem being that it took so long to send people between the two countries and send messages by morse code it was in practical. Who knows in today's world "Britannia" could be founded. We should form a society. Still back to the thread...

EU? euuuuuuu....

What would you personally think of a unification of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

I think it'd be great for the following reasons:
1. The new country would have great influence in Europe, Asia Pacific and America.
2. There would be an alternative English-speaking democracy with global reach to keep America on its toes.
3. Just imagine what the French would say :P

It could be good, I think building it would be a mind field however. When Canada, NZ, Austrialia and South Africa were gaining dominionship there was a movement to form a "Greater Britain" as an alternative to independence. It would mean that Canadians, Austailans New Zealanders and such would have MP in the house of commons. The problem being that it took so long to send people between the two countries and send messages by morse code it was in practical. Who knows in today's world "Britannia" could be founded. We should form a society. Still back to the thread...

EU? euuuuuuu....

What would you personally think of a unification of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

I think it'd be great for the following reasons:
1. The new country would have great influence in Europe, Asia Pacific and America.
2. There would be an alternative English-speaking democracy with global reach to keep America on its toes.
3. Just imagine what the French would say :P

It could be good, I think building it would be a mind field however. When Canada, NZ, Austrialia and South Africa were gaining dominionship there was a movement to form a "Greater Britain" as an alternative to independence. It would mean that Canadians, Austailans New Zealanders and such would have MP in the house of commons. The problem being that it took so long to send people between the two countries and send messages by morse code it was in practical. Who knows in today's world "Britannia" could be founded. We should form a society. Still back to the thread...

Do you think there should be closer ties between the Crown Realms? Just think how much more influence the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Carribean Islands would have if they all banded together...
Yes, I've always felt strongly that the Commonwealth Nations should be much more than it has been allowed to be. We could stand together and make our world a far far better place.

I am not ashamed of my ancestry, nor am I ashamed of Elizabeth Windsor. She is a good woman, and that is more than enough for me. Long live the Queen.

You forget, we are talking about a head of state. A figurehead. He or she has little to know power or political influence. Thus loyalty is merely a feeling and provides little in the way of actual requirements of the person.
Although under the right set of circumstances, it certainly could.

too lazy to read through the thread, but i thought it funny that you said you weren't going to use real world examples, and then did. (well, of constitutional monarchies, but we all know you were refering to the US when you said President :P) (ok, mebbe not all of us, but it seemed implied to me)

EU? euuuuuuu....

What would you personally think of a unification of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?


Wasn't that already tried...?:confused:

Oh yes, silly me.... it was the EMPIRE! Shame you fellows in Britain didn't feel much like sharing the power and wealth though. Kinda annoyed your 'partners' last time.... America, Ireland, India, the territories in Africa... etc etc

You forget, we are talking about a head of state. A figurehead. He or she has little to know power or political influence. Thus loyalty is merely a feeling and provides little in the way of actual requirements of the person.Although under the right set of circumstances, it certainly could.exactly under what set of circumstances it would...for your country?

Wait, let me get this straight. You're loyal to someone who is merely in power because they were born that way, someone who has actually done nothing really benefical for humanity, someone who rarely takes time to even visit your country and to someone whom you have no say in removing from power....


Wait, let me get this straight, you are loyal to someone who is merely in power because of the whim of a mob, someone who has done nothing really beneficial for humanity. Someone whom only the media have a say in removing from power?

The problem being that it took so long to send people between the two countries and send messages by morse code it was in practical. Who knows in today's world "Britannia" could be founded. We should form a society. Still back to the thread...

Best Idea I have heard all day (since "one for the road?"), only not just one MP, several, have each nation send several MP's. Make the commonwealth a real "Common Wealth"

Plus it gets rid of the problem that the Empire had, namely that revolutions are expensive.

Plus..we could teach the EU and the yanks just what world influence really is. Can you IMAGINE the good that a unified, TRULY unified commonwealth could do?

Wait, let me get this straight, you are loyal to someone who is merely in power because of the whim of a mob, someone who has done nothing really beneficial for humanity. Someone whom only the media have a say in removing from power?


*scans previous post*
Nope.. can't see where you got that from. I never said it, nor implied it. Never even referred to it. Being 'loyal' to a leader- elected or not is idiotic, but more so if they are there because they were born to the right people.

*scans previous post*
Nope.. can't see where you got that from. I never said it, nor implied it. Never even referred to it. Being 'loyal' to a leader- elected or not is idiotic, but more so if they are there because they were born to the right people.
I said it. I said it because whether or not they are genuinely good can make all the difference. I feel that my head of state is a very good woman indeed.

And to OceanDrive, I don't know, really. But I do know that if she had to, for some strange reason, step in and actually administer the government here in Canada, I would trust her to do and to do so to the best of her abilities.

I think that a Constitutional Monarchy would have to depend on what the royals can do. I'd support it if the Royal family had no authority, were completely self-supporting, and weren't recognized by the government as anything other than rich guys with funny hats.
Wait, we already have those in America . . . We call them celebrities.

Cultural heritage!? For the VAST majority of Commonwealth countries, it was forced on them! They didn't really have much of a choice... join us, bow to the King... or we'll kill you.

I'll remember that next time the southern US wants to bugger off.

/civil war reenactments are fun
//Canada gained its independence peacefully with The British North America Act of 1867. Has the Queen as the Head of State.
///India did not gain it's independence peacefully. No longer has the Queen as the Head of State but is still apart of the commonwealth IIRC

I think that a Constitutional Monarchy would have to depend on what the royals can do. I'd support it if the Royal family had no authority, were completely self-supporting, and weren't recognized by the government as anything other than rich guys with funny hats.
Wait, we already have those in America . . . We call them celebrities.Yes...Indeed...and hollywood Icons do not cost us taxes...they PAY TAXES.

*scans previous post*
Nope.. can't see where you got that from. I never said it, nor implied it. Never even referred to it. Being 'loyal' to a leader- elected or not is idiotic, but more so if they are there because they were born to the right people.
I said it to take the piss out of the way the language you used seemed to imply being loyal to a president WAS good but to a king or queen was not. Sorry if you didnt mean that.


And the royal family do not cost Britain anything overall, they bring FAR more money in from tourists than they cost as heads of state.

Isn't France a Republic (as is the US?)

And the royal family do not cost Britain anything overall, they bring FAR more money in from tourists than they cost as heads of state.

So basically, loyalty has nothing to do with it then.

Its economically beneficial to keep a monarchy?

So basically, loyalty has nothing to do with it then.

Its economically beneficial to keep a monarchy?

Rather like a Royal Zoo...

Rather like a Royal Zoo...
Now there's somthing I'd pay to see.... :D

Charlie want a 'nana :D

Now there's somthing I'd pay to see.... :D

Charlie want a 'nana :D

"Remember while driving through the confines of Buckingham Palace Royal Preserve, to keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times..."

Oh yes, silly me.... it was the EMPIRE! Shame you fellows in Britain didn't feel much like sharing the power and wealth though. Kinda annoyed your 'partners' last time.... America, Ireland, India, the territories in Africa... etc etc

To be fair, compared with the French and Spanish empires the British one was pretty enlightened. Besides, it did share the wealth - it helped develop the infastructure of those countries. The idea of the empire, at least the initial idea of liberal minded politicians, was to bring the rest of the world up to speed with Britain and save their souls, then leave peacefully. It didn't always work of course, but if you look at places like Hong Kong and India, it certainly benefitted them in the long run. Doesn't change the fact that a lot of people were opressed under it, but their hearts were in the right place.

"Remember while driving through the confines of Buckingham Palace Royal Preserve, to keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times..."
*Mental picture of a ravenous Queen Elizabeth jumping up on bonnet and clambering all over the car bashing the windscreen trying to get in* :D

I think we may be wavering from the path a minute.... oh who cares!

I think we may be wavering from the path a minute.... oh who cares!maybe you could add a poll...just to make it interesting ;)

Think about this: there are people who, from birth, are taught how to run a nation, how to be fiscally responsible, and who are taught the art of diplomacy and warfare. This is a Monarch, respectively.

Now compare this with someone who was able to win a popularity contest and who does not necessarilly know how to manage a nation - although some of these people do have a history of running large companies - who has never been taught the art of warfare and who does not necessarily know how to be a competent diplomat.

The fact of the matter is that politicians are rarely ever trained on how to govern and rule over a nation.