Monarchies 34 replies

Please wait...

Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#21 8 years ago

Honestly the only reason why the current throne in the UK seems to have lasted all these years is because Queen Elizabeth II has been able to

But at the end of the day what is the purpose of a monarchy, particularly in the modern day? It just seems a bit redundant and stupid. Hell one thing I wonder is about the House of Lords, which outside of Iran and a couple of other states, is the only one that seats religious officials in parliament.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,667 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,169 Posts

6 Threads

#22 8 years ago

I believe I already commented upon the value of the monarchy to maintaining checks and balances.

The House of Lords does not don't have the power to propose legislation and a mere 26 out of the 722 members are appointed from the church.




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,954 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,512 Posts

38 Threads

#23 8 years ago

Monarchies provide a nation with a personality. If you were to remove the crown from Denmark, it wouldn't be Denmark any more. They're around because people want them to be, not because they serve a purpose. They're comparable to national artefacts and paintings; we don't need them any more. They were just a phase that society passed through, but we still have paintings on our walls and we still visit museums to stare at ancient artefacts. And as long as they don't harm state nor economy, I see no reason they should be removed.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#24 8 years ago

Nemmerle;5397846I believe I already commented upon the value of the monarchy to maintaining checks and balances.[/quote]

But for their purposes or the populace?

The House of Lords does not don't have the power to propose legislation and a mere 26 out of the 722 members are appointed from the church.

The fact that its there to begin with is idiotic. It doesn't matter that they have power or not, the nature that the Church of England still has that role is kind of idiotic.

[QUOTE=Serio;5397865]Monarchies provide a nation with a personality. If you were to remove the crown from Denmark, it wouldn't be Denmark any more. They're around because people want them to be, not because they serve a purpose. They're comparable to national artefacts and paintings; we don't need them any more. They were just a phase that society passed through, but we still have paintings on our walls and we still visit museums to stare at ancient artefacts. And as long as they don't harm state nor economy, I see no reason they should be removed.

Why should they serve a function in the state? They just seem like dead weight beyond just providing a cushy image and tourism.




Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,876 XP

6th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#25 8 years ago

Commissar MercZ;5398005But for their purposes or the populace? [/QUOTE]

I think his previous post explained that quite adequately, don't you?

Commissar MercZ;5398005The fact that its there to begin with is idiotic. It doesn't matter that they have power or not, the nature that the Church of England still has that role is kind of idiotic.

Idiotic from our side of the pond is having two elected houses where pretty much every piece of legislation passes (or conversely is blocked) through a partisan vote based on party lines, or is blocked by a partisan vote from an elected head of state.

Or, failing that if it goes to your supreme court is voted on by an assembly of elected judges with expressed political views that they vote on (lol wtf?) if the American press is to be believed.

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5398005] Why should they serve a function in the state? They just seem like dead weight beyond just providing a cushy image and tourism.

Why should they serve a function in the state? Uh. You do realise that in a monarchy, the monarch IS the state, right? Parliament's laws etc have no force in themselves. They write the laws but it's a mere piece of paper until the monarch signs them into law.

In addition, the monarch visits whoever commands a majority in the House of Commons (nearly always the PM) each week to discuss ongoing matters and give advice to the PM. Put simply, our Monarch has been in office for 58 years. Your president is has been in office for all of 2 years.

Who do you think has a better grasp of international politics and or how any given situation is likely to go?

Yes, your American and raised from the cradle to beleive that monarchy's are evil and pointless. We aren't. I'll take our system any day of the week over yours. So will the rest of the country, that's why it is the way it is. :)




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#26 8 years ago

I don't really mind wether I'd live in a republic or a constitutional monarchy. The Netherlands is a monarchy, with queen Beatrix as head of state. In theory she has some power left, such as during the current formation process of trying to get a coalition goverment to be formed (she could refuse to accept whatever coalition the parliament comes up with... Or refuse to sign bills and so on. But as others have said, this would be politcal suicide if she even desired to harass the peasants population, and she'd quickly find her family to be revoked of any and all powers).

The advantage of a republic is ofcourse that it's more democratic, the downside is that democracies aren't flawless either. Populist people could be elected into power rather then for their skill/expertise/knowledge (hence why I'm unsure about such things as allowing people to elect the town mayor, opposed to having the authorities propose one to the quee, who then gives her thumbs up to it by giving permissoin as some minor formality; you could end up with some incompetent fool who can talk the talk quite well, but can't walk the walk, or worse, cripple the entire municipal while attempting to do so...). .

A monarch does provide some stability: Something peoplecould hold on to during periods of polical unrest. And the monarch should be expected to be politcally neutral, unbiased and only be interested in doing what's best for the country rather then what's in the best interest of his/her party or personal career...

I'd probably opt for keeping the royal families around, if only purely or mostly for symbolic purposes only. I'd limit the various advantages they have to a bare minimum though (why don't they have to pay taxes? Just treat it as any other (goverment) career/position: set a certainw wage for it, various declariont options etc. ). Though if we'd turn into a republic I wouldn't shred a tear either. We have various republican parties from the left to the right end of the political spectrum.

I wouldn't call myself "anti-monarchy" neither "pro (constitutional) monarchy". Who ever brings up an afficient, stable system has my vote. It may involve a monarch, it may not... :clueless:




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#27 8 years ago

im related to the german royal family (cousin) which was discontinued after WW1 so does that mean im related to the english royal family?

and if so does that mean if the current royal family somehow die with no hier's my family is entitled to the german and british thrones?




Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,876 XP

6th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#28 8 years ago

Splicer100;5398316im related to the german royal family (cousin) which was discontinued after WW1 so does that mean im related to the english royal family?

and if so does that mean if the current royal family somehow die with no hier's my family is entitled to the german and british thrones?[/QUOTE]

In short, no. Not even if every single person in the chain of succession died.

the English Bill of Rights 1689 no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

You also can't be Catholic. We've had enough of papish plots, I tell thee!

[quote=the English Bill of Rights 1689] And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#29 8 years ago

Freyr;5398113 Idiotic from our side of the pond is having two elected houses where pretty much every piece of legislation passes (or conversely is blocked) through a partisan vote based on party lines, or is blocked by a partisan vote from an elected head of state.[/quote]

I don't generally like the idea of upper-houses anyways, because they are only a check on radical changes.

However, unlike the House of Lords, the Senate has a real power and can be influenced from the outside and be changed by vote by the people.

On the other hand, the House of Lords is based on peerage (in this modern age?) and sits religious officials. I find it funny that the Church of England is still formally tied to the state despite how things are now.

Or, failing that if it goes to your supreme court is voted on by an assembly of elected judges with expressed political views that they vote on (lol wtf?) if the American press is to be believed.

You don't know how checks and balances and seperation of powers work do you? They aren't exclusive to a republican system.

Why should they serve a function in the state? Uh. You do realise that in a monarchy, the monarch IS the state, right? Parliament's laws etc have no force in themselves. They write the laws but it's a mere piece of paper until the monarch signs them into law.

Then why bother having them?

In addition, the monarch visits whoever commands a majority in the House of Commons (nearly always the PM) each week to discuss ongoing matters and give advice to the PM. Put simply, our Monarch has been in office for 58 years. Your president is has been in office for all of 2 years.

And? Queen Elizabeth is only looked upon better because she's... Queen Elizabeth. They'll suffer the same problem that the Vatican had after getting a good image (Pope John Paul II) to a not so good one (Pope Benedict)

Also, you forget- the US president serves as both head of state and head of government. In the UK and other countries, this function is split. Formally the crown is head of state and Prime Minister head of government.

Who do you think has a better grasp of international politics and or how any given situation is likely to go?

I'd rather have someone that I could at least have the comfort of knowing they're there because they've had training in diplomacy and politics, not because they came out of the right vagina.

Yes, your American and raised from the cradle to beleive that monarchy's are evil and pointless. We aren't. I'll take our system any day of the week over yours. So will the rest of the country, that's why it is the way it is. :)

You support a system that entitles people to certain privileges just because they were born in the right place? We can't escape from the strata of higher classes anywhere in society, but at least outside of a monarchy they are controlling an influential part of the economy because of their skills.

And thank you for generalizing me with the other 300+ million Americans in the USA. For one thing many of them don't share my views, and more so most of them could care less.

Honestly the main reason why monarchies are still around today is because of nationalist sentiment or because their functions have been relegated to a weaker and symbolic head of state.

[QUOTE=Admiral Donutz;5398307] I wouldn't call myself "anti-monarchy" neither "pro (constitutional) monarchy". Who ever brings up an afficient, stable system has my vote. It may involve a monarch, it may not... :clueless:

As a socialist I don't have faith in liberal democracies, but I don't care much for monarchies so I think the choice is easy there.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,667 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,169 Posts

6 Threads

#30 8 years ago

Commissar MercZ;5398005But for their purposes or the populace? [/QUOTE]

Both of course. If you're holding out for an entirely altruistic political process you'll be here for a long time.

Some people look for power because they want to protect something and others look for power because they get off on it. On a local level, with specific issues, you get a lot of the former kind of person; they accept authority to fix stuff. On the state level you get a lot of the latter kind; they go after authority because they have an ideal vision of how you should live nailed in their heads. The key is finding a balance; getting integrated enough powers that you don't get a thousand different laws, trade regulations armies, etc – and separate enough powers that you don't end up with the inmates running the asylum.

The machinery of state is always going to be subservient to those in power. So you've got to divy authority up so no-one ends up with too much and then make some of the people involved in that process answerable to the general public. Preferably you draw a higher house – that authorises laws but can't propose them - from professions that deal with the the areas the laws are likely to concern, or award life-long roles in government to people so they can actually build up a wealth of experience. A lower house you have directly elected by the people. Balance the responsibility within those areas between two separate hierarchies.

A peerage isn't actually a bad way to do it. They'll tend to have the best educations – money really does make better educated people; posh schools bring in the big bucks because they work - and they won't be unduly influenced by fluctuations in party-politics.

If democracy was perfect; the average voter smart well educated and diligent; you wouldn't need to divide up the authority and entrench expertise to withstand the fluctuations of party-politics. Sadly however the average voter is not particularly smart or diligent and we have an incredibly complex society that even very wise people cannot appreciate the totality of.

You're building a system that attracts certain kinds of people and simultaneously restrains the wrong kind of people when they do end up there - and they do end up there.

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5398005]The fact that its there to begin with is idiotic. It doesn't matter that they have power or not, the nature that the Church of England still has that role is kind of idiotic.

Why? The Church has been one of the most stable institutions in our history and most people still hold to broadly religious values even if they don't regularly worship a specific denomination. Personally I've no problem with a small number of Bishops being allowed to sit in the HoL.