NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay,

If you were a native of a nation that had a king or emperor at one time in history and that rule was put down by war, revolution etc. would you still fight for that king or emperor and would you feel loyal to him?

Strange question I know but I for one say yes, I am German and feel loyal to the Prince of Prussia and to the German royal family and would fight for them and serve them as I consider it my duty and honor.

Do you feel the same way, those of you from nations that had kings?

The Yankee man can skip posting here.

We have a King and no fucking way would I lift a finger to do anything for that dyslexic, nepotist asshole.

Off with their vile little heads, his and his German whore's! (Or, just, you know, pelt them with rotten fruit, since I am anti-death penalty.)

We have a King and no fucking way would I lift a finger to do anything for that dyslexic, nepotist asshole.

Off with their vile little heads, his and his German whore's! (Or, just, you know, pelt them with rotten fruit, since I am anti-death penalty.)


The world would be a better place with the old code of honor and duty.
Thats all I have to say on the matter.

P.S. I like the Swedish royal line, you had a brave line in the past.

I'll tell you what we do with kings 'round here, why we-


The Yankee man can skip posting here.
Oh. Right. Sorry. I-I'll just be going now...

I'll tell you what we do with kings 'round here, why we-

Oh. Right. Sorry. I-I'll just be going now...
hehe NO YANKEES!!!!!!!;)

The world would be a better place with the old code of honor and duty.
Thats all I have to say on the matter.

Of course it's the only thing you can say, because it is such a ridiculous notion when directed at a wretched monarch or nation, that not specifying what you want the "honour" and "duty" to be directed towards, you siphon what residual glory is left the terms in other areas to cover these by now fully discredited ones.

P.S. I like the Swedish royal line, you had a brave line in the past.

"Brave" - hah! Incompetent and despotic is more like it, and hopefully it shall be brought to an abrupt end in a not so distant future.

Fass is right Sweden is the Bitchiest of all the Nordic States including Greenland,Finland and Iceland yes even Iceland.


I would serve my Emperor.
I'd expect commision too.

Fass is right Sweden is the Bitchiest of all the Nordic States including Greenland,Finland and Iceland yes even Iceland.

Greenland is not a state. It is part of Denmark.

Greenland is not a state. It is part of Denmark.
They are a state, Home Rule. Those fuckers in Denmerk are loosing. Burn Denmerk BURN!!

Fass is right Sweden is the Bitchiest of all the Nordic States including Greenland,Finland and Iceland yes even Iceland.


I would serve my Emperor.
I'd expect commision too.

I would sayt the Danes
you dont know much about the rest of the noridc nations do you.?

They are a state, Home Rule. Those fuckers in Denmerk are loosing. Burn Denmerk BURN!!

State was apparently used to designate a sovereign nation, as per the listing of Finland and Iceland. Greenland is not a state in the same sense as they are. Hjemmestyre is just autonomy - they are still part of Denmark and will remain for at least as long as half their GDP comes as grants from the Danish mainland.

Greenland is comparable to the Finnish Åland Islands.

Okay, Okay? OKAY? NO, IT'S NOT OK!

If you were a native of a nation that had a king or emperor at one time in history and that rule was put down by war, revolution etc. would you still fight for that king or emperor and would you feel loyal to him?
Hell no. Inbred freaks!
Strange question I know but I for one say yes, I am German and feel loyal to the Prince of Prussia and to the German royal family and would fight for them and serve them as I consider it my duty and honor.Duty, Honor blah blah blah. It's all about the vote, baby!

Do you feel the same way, those of you from nations that had kings? My nation never had a king. I'm too good for that!

The Yankee man can skip posting here.
Note all the other responses. That's what I think of your anti-yankee crap! *slaps you like a pimp slaps his ho* Where's my money, bitch?

State was apparently used to designate a sovereign nation, as per the listing of Finland and Iceland. Greenland is not a state in the same sense as they are. Hjemmestyre is just autonomy - they are still part of Denmark and will remain for at least as long as half their GDP comes as grants from the Danish mainland.
Iceland and Finland are sovreign nations like Sweden, Germany and the U.S. etc. Home rule status means they are free in union.
Who cares anyway, Greenland sucks. Just a bunch of drunken eskimos. It is really sick over there, I know I have been there.

I would sayt the Danes
you dont know much about the rest of the noridc nations do you.?
No i left Denmark and Norway off for a reason.;)

Greenland is not a state. It is part of Denmark.
I wont question you on this.
So it should be(A part of Denmark).

My nation never had a king. I'm too good for that!
-snippage-

You will yield to the Commonwealth!

Okay? OKAY? NO, IT'S NOT OK!


Hell no. Inbred freaks!
Duty, Honor blah blah blah. It's all about the vote, baby!

My nation never had a king. I'm too good for that!


Note all the other responses. That's what I think of your anti-yankee crap! *slaps you like a pimp slaps his ho* Where's my money, bitch?
Yankee is a term over the Americans and not in a bad sence. Take it as you wish I REALLY dont care.

Its ok to say okay.

If you were a native of a nation that had a king or emperor at one time in history and that rule was put down by war, revolution etc. would you still fight for that king or emperor and would you feel loyal to him?

Depends on the king/emperor in question. I do see some advantages in having a ruler who was *trained* to rule from birth, instead of having someone who just knows how to gain peoples support and has to leave the office after a few years - just when he is getting the hang of the actual work he has to do.

But of course, that someone was trained does not *automatically* make him the best choice. It just increases the likelihood.

Yankee is a term over the Americans and not in a bad sence. Take it as you wish I REALLY dont care.

Its ok to say okay.
I was pokin a bit of fun, thats all, dude. ;) Except for the pimpslap part. That I meant. Seriously, where's my money? :D


BTW - I like the term Yankee! It really fucks off the southerners around here when I use it to describe myself! Slip in Gettysburg, and you got yourself a fight! :p

Depends on the king/emperor in question. I do see some advantages in having a ruler who was *trained* to rule from birth, instead of having someone who just knows how to gain peoples support and has to leave the office after a few years - just when he is getting the hang of the actual work he has to do.

But of course, that someone was trained does not *automatically* make him the best choice. It just increases the likelihood.
Agreed!

I was pokin a bit of fun, thats all, dude. ;) Except for the pimpslap part. That I meant. Seriously, where's my money? :D
;) Ill send you a money order.

I would fight for and serve my people, nothing else. My country threw off the King of England's rule in our War of Independence for a good reason, you know.

~ Romandeos.

I would fight for and serve my people, nothing else. My country threw off the King of England's rule in our War of Independence for a good reason, you know.

~ Romandeos.
Yes, those English royals suck!

;) Ill send you a money order.
AWWWW fuck it. Go buy yourself some beer with it. Just don't ever tell anyone I was a bad pimp, ya hear? :headbang:

Yes, those English royals suck!

I would not quite say that. King George III seems to me to have been a decent king, but he did not know how to handle things with the American Colonies.

~ Romandeos.

I would not quite say that King George III 'sucked', as you say. He just did not know how to properly deal with a people like us Americans.

~ Romandeos.

The only way the english rulers deal with their people or people they rule is by force. Allways!

The only way the english rulers deal with their people or people they rule is by force. Allways!

Maybe so, but maybe not. I won't argue either way on that one. What is true is that the English king did attempt to subdue us by force, quite possibly the worst thing he could have done.

~ Romandeos.

Strange question I know but I for one say yes, I am German and feel loyal to the Prince of Prussia and to the German royal family and would fight for them and serve them as I consider it my duty and honor.You just cannot follow someone blindly like that, no matter how royal they are. You have to think for yourself. If the Prince of Prussia told you to jump from a cliff, I'm sure you wouldn't do it ;)

I'm a Swede. I don't see how it is my duty to serve the Swedish king at all. In fact, it's his job to serve me and the rest of the nation. If there was a war and I was drafted - I'd fight for myself and those I hold dear, not my king.

Strange question I know but I for one say yes, I am German and feel loyal to the Prince of Prussia and to the German royal family and would fight for them and serve them as I consider it my duty and honor.




okay. what i'm going to do now is just back of slowly, leave the thread, seal it carefully, if i should feel generous i might poke some holes for air into it, and never return again.

I know exactly what you mean. I feel a great sense of loyalty to Genghis Khan and Hammurabi in particular.

...would you still fight for that king or emperor and would you feel loyal to him?
Nope. I probably wouldn't have while he was still in power (unless he really, really earned it).

And by the way, revolutions have a tendency to indicate that the king is no longer the popular type...

Strange question I know but I for one say yes, I am German and feel loyal to the Prince of Prussia and to the German royal family and would fight for them and serve them as I consider it my duty and honor.
I thought you were from Iceland?

Depends on the king/emperor in question. I do see some advantages in having a ruler who was *trained* to rule from birth, instead of having someone who just knows how to gain peoples support and has to leave the office after a few years - just when he is getting the hang of the actual work he has to do.

But of course, that someone was trained does not *automatically* make him the best choice. It just increases the likelihood.

Strange that there have been a lot more terrible and unremarkable monarchs over the years then very good ones. Which is opposite to what one would expect to see seeing they had been "trained" since birth.

It is also interesting that many if the best monarchs in many countries weren't trained from birth but won the crown through force of arms.

I would not quite say that. King George III seems to me to have been a decent king, but he did not know how to handle things with the American Colonies.

~ Romandeos.


NB: George III was a Hanovarian, therefore German, as well as being a German prince, he was also the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg ;)

The only way the english rulers deal with their people or people they rule is by force. Allways!

You make it sound like no other monarchs do this...

The only way the english rulers deal with their people or people they rule is by force. Allways!

Oh dear, another mass anti English tirade?

Rule by force? C'mon, one civil war, numerous uprisings by Lords (William II) and a few other conflicts makes "Rule is by force. Always" a bit far off the truth. Granted some haven't been brilliant, but since the existence of parliment, the rule of the English King/Queen has always been limited.

All I can say is two things:

1- I still have my Oath of Allegiance on my wall which states that I swear:
"Do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law. So Help Me God"
- I wouldn't have taken the oath if I didn't mean it.

2. I'm a card carrying member of the Monarchist League ;)

Draw your own conclusions.

Strange that there have been a lot more terrible and unremarkable monarchs over the years then very good ones. Which is opposite to what one would expect to see seeing they had been "trained" since birth.

It is also interesting that many if the best monarchs in many countries weren't trained from birth but won the crown through force of arms.

Agreed. But I still think that one should be trained before being allowed to run a country.
Maybe a system where someone needs to follow a 5 year training programme before they can enter elections/apply to be successor ? If they do not make president there are plenty of other political jobs which could do with a well trained ruler.

Since America hasn't had a king since George III (and he didn't turn out too well in the end) I could care less about royalty.

BURN IN HELL GEORGE III!:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

okay. what i'm going to do now is just back of slowly, leave the thread, seal it carefully, if i should feel generous i might poke some holes for air into it, and never return again.

My feelings exactly. Holy shit.

The Yankee man can skip posting here.
Why? We've had historical experience with kings too, you know. Telling us not to participate because we got rid of our royal oppressors unfairly biases the conversation in favor of monarchists. (But maybe that's the point?)

Royalty is an anachronism in the 21st century. If you feel like keeping a royal family around as figureheads and tourist attractions, then that's your business, but you'd be wise to vest all real power in an elected government. The reason for this is that kings are no wiser, saner, or more intelligent than any other person, so it's inevitable that sooner or later a complete incompetent and/or power-hungry egomaniac will inherit the position. And then, because it's your "duty and honour" to support him, you're stuck with him. Whereas with an elected government, if you do happen to elect an idiot (it does happen, alas), you can at least chuck him overboard in the next election and try someone else.

:p

Let's see... German emperors?

No, I don't feel any loyalty towards any of them, ever, no matter what royal house he might have been from. Not even Ludwig II of Bavaria, and he is about the only one who still fascinates and inspires people, although (or maybe because) he was barking mad...

Okay,

If you were a native of a nation that had a king or emperor at one time in history and that rule was put down by war, revolution etc. would you still fight for that king or emperor and would you feel loyal to him?

Strange question I know but I for one say yes, I am German and feel loyal to the Prince of Prussia and to the German royal family and would fight for them and serve them as I consider it my duty and honor.

Do you feel the same way, those of you from nations that had kings?

The Yankee man can skip posting here.


i am opposed to the royalty in both Germany and Britain( being both german and scottish)

Okay,

If you were a native of a nation that had a king or emperor at one time in history and that rule was put down by war, revolution etc. would you still fight for that king or emperor and would you feel loyal to him?

Strange question I know but I for one say yes, I am German and feel loyal to the Prince of Prussia and to the German royal family and would fight for them and serve them as I consider it my duty and honor.

Do you feel the same way, those of you from nations that had kings?

The Yankee man can skip posting here.

I am completely pro-monarchy. But I wouldn't move a finger for my country's Imperial House anytime in history. I am Brazilian, and I hate this idiotic Federative Republic that we became after the military conquest. However, the Brazilian Imperial House is composed -only- by descendants of Portuguese and French origin people, what do scuks...

No, I'm not loyal to either Mihai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_of_Romania) nor his sorry-ass contender cousin Paul Lambrino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lambrino).

The English (used in the loosest sense possible) royal family? No. Well, unless you go by that Tony Robinson program on Channel 4 a few years ago, that traced the real king of England, and it happened to be some Republican in the Australian outback...I'd support him - he wants to get rid of the royal family...

Fass is right Sweden is the Bitchiest of all the Nordic States including Greenland,Finland and Iceland yes even Iceland.


I would serve my Emperor.
I'd expect commision too.
Jealous of Sweden are we? :rolleyes:

Depends on the king/emperor in question. I do see some advantages in having a ruler who was *trained* to rule from birth, instead of having someone who just knows how to gain peoples support and has to leave the office after a few years - just when he is getting the hang of the actual work he has to do.

But of course, that someone was trained does not *automatically* make him the best choice. It just increases the likelihood.
Elected monarchs are an even better option. So long as their power is countered by that of an educated, intellectual elite of statesmen (following Plato's Republic's idea of Philosopher Kings), it would be ideal, as they would be committed to the people's welfare and would possess the education to make informed choices. I detest politicians and party politics, as they sell their agenda and themselves. They want power to have power, not to govern the nation well. Representative democracies are not the best form of democracy. No form is. Yet, arguably, having people who are truly meritorious of their rank would be by far the preferrable solution.

I liked much about Imperial Germany. I will admit, most of my ideas are too libertarian to advocate a complete restoration of old age monarchy, yet adapted models could work well.

I would be one of the revolutionaries fighting the king, actually. I hate monarchy like, uh, a person hates something they hate or something.

I'm anti-monarchy, personally, so I certainly wouldn't die for one. I just wanted to point out that the 'British' royal family are barely that. The Queen's family's name before it was changed in 1914 was "Sax-Coburg-Gotha-Schleiswig-Holstein-Sondernberg-Battenberg-Glucksberg". I wonder why they changed it! Doesn't sound too German to me! *irony*.

Also - people seem to be using the terms 'English' and 'British' interchangeably. This is simply wrong. Please get it right. It's not hard.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

My country wouldn't be my country without a monarchy. In particular, the King of Scotland becoming the King of England, thus uniting the two countries [Hence, the United Kingdom of Great Britain].

I'm English by birth, but British by nationality. Just the way I like it. I have a "local" identity, as well as the British identity.

I believe that in the UK, the monarchy is a figurehead. Its good, because it gives something to motivite the forces, and unite the people. Its a bit like the "Uncle Sam" figure for Britons. You know, "go off and fight for Uncle Sam / the Queen".


Sorry, its so short, but I have no time at all. I'll post again in more detail when I get back.

My country wouldn't be my country without a monarchy. In particular, the King of Scotland becoming the King of England, thus uniting the two countries [Hence, the United Kingdom of Great Britain].

The Union of the Parliaments united the two countries rather then the union of the crowns surely.

"Uncle Sam" figure for Britons. You know, "go off and fight for Uncle Sam / the Queen".

Meh, personally, if we are going with archaic symbolism I much prefer John Bull

The European royalty of today? Nah. They're weak.

But when your average king was an arrogant, mean spirited, inbred, illiterate sonuvabitch and a genocidal maniac to boot, now that's the kind of king I'd follow even into certain death!