[S. P. Laroche]

Well, since this forum is rather dead, I thought I'd do a little Frankestiening. So, who else is a Monarchist (not necessarily English)? I consider myself a Monarchist only to the point that I would follow a good and just King, who has proven himself have those qualities. Also, what's everyone's opinions of Monarchy's in general?

[Adrien]

I really don't like monarchs and monarchies. I mean the principle to have somebody rule a country just because he's born on the throne and not because of the will of the people and his competences is plain stupid.

And add to that that often monarchies become the reign of aristocracy and nobles (i say often because we have even more stupid puppet monarchies today like the UK, Spain,...) with oppressive and Old Regime rules and that they have very close ties with church and religion and you have the other reasons why i don't like them.

[Yeddi]

I kinda like the idea of a monarchy, in the way we have it now in Australia is kinda good. THey hold the absolute power so it's impossible to have one person control the country because the power is in the hands of the monarch. They're like a safeguard. Protecting the power so it is never used. If people understand me. It means that nearly all decisions are parliamentry based adn therefore (in theory of course) the people are in indirect control of their country in every decision.

[Boondock Saint]

Well ... being an American I have angst towards any monarchy in general, unless its king Arthur, then its cool.

I think a good 'leader' be he a king, a president or what have you can do alot of good things ... but I don't think a royal line is capable at producing enough good leaders to justify the negative leaders.

A good king is usually one that had to fight his way to the top and face adversity ... now his son, the prince, who will one day be king, may never have faced any adversity. The prince may well be a spoiled brat who has been sheltered from reality. He has no value of the peasents, his soldiers, or his kingdom in general. This prince will grow into a king who thinks he is invincible and may very well cause the downfall of his kingdom ...

Thats a general example of why I don't like the idea of a monarchy. I dont think its efficeint, nor do I think its good for the nation.

One must also think of the good of the people, fighting for a just king can unite the people of a certain land ... fighting for a corrupt king can divide the land ... now ... fighting for a nation, just or corrupt has always been considered honourable.

No one thinks poorly of the Germans who fought for their nation in WWII ... sure enough we dislike the Nazis ... but not the Germans who werent Nazis ... think submarine crews ...

My piont? A nationalist republic is much more efficient and capable and waging war then a monarchy, even one with a good king.

Thats my take on it ... I went off track a few times, watching the news ...

[Adrien]

You know Yeddi, if you only like monarchy because it prevents executive power to fall into wrong or evil hands, you would like just as much being in a Republic. Look at us for exemple, the president has not a lot of power (and he had even less before 1958) and everything is doing fine. He is even controlled by the assembly so that they can fire him if he is not good.

But, unlike those stupid kings, he has been nominated by the people and is the direct representation of its will or at least of the will of the majority of the people.

[Tigerlily]

Or queens! Or queens! Or queens! Not only kings rule a monarchy, just to let you know...

I don't know. As I kid, instead of playing "princess" like most girls, I was playing "queen" because queens had more power. So I like the idea of a monarchy if it benefits me (i.e., if I'm in charge ).

But monarchy for the people....unless it's a really friendly king/queen who is very fair to it's people....I don't think it's a good idea.

But I do like the idea of how Queen Elizabeth is, in theory and out of respect, the "head" of our government. It's better than a man....

[Adrien]

Well even if the king is kind and competent, i don't like the idea of the monarchy, because i don't see why somebody would have the power just because he was born where he was born, and without letting the people (first concerned) give its advice. And like Boon said, if the king is kind, who says that his son, or whoever take the throne will be too? In general it's true that if the foundator of a dynasty made efforts the followers are quite spoilt child.

Bah.

[Yeddi]

you would like just as much being in a Republic. Look at us for exemple, the president has not a lot of power (and he had even less before 1958) and everything is doing fine. He is even controlled by the assembly so that they can fire him if he is not good.

Yes, i would. but i'll explain something.

Ideally what i would like in Australia is a very simple change to the Constitution. Scratch out all references to the monarchy and the Governor-General and in place put in "President." I would have the Pres appointed by a joint sitting of parliament, majority wins, with nominations being submitted by a council (similar to the Australian of the year).
That would mean that this President would take the place of the Queen as the "holder" of power.

Unfortunately this will never happen as the Australian people, probably like most in the world, would want a "President" who they elect directly and has power, like the US Pres.
As much as i like many of my fellow Australians i fear that this election would like everywhere in the world, become a popularity contest between the richest members of society adn we would end up with a media personality as our head of state.

[The One.]

Having a king?Having to worship a guy unless I want my head cutted off ?
No thank you.

Even if the dude is good fair generous blah blah blah doesn't mean that his sons will be as good as him.

[Boondock Saint]

Or queens! Or queens! Or queens! Not only kings rule a monarchy, just to let you know...

I don't know. As I kid, instead of playing "princess" like most girls, I was playing "queen" ....

HA!

I put king cause i knew it would get you ...

Oh and I have some of the guys around this forum play 'queen' too ...

[Adrien]

You're right Yeddi, that's one of the problem of direct national elections (that's why i'd like to see true *political* elections, without propaganda, but when you say that people say that you are taking away freedom of speech.. sigh).

But let's not dramatize the situation, this aspect of the elections can stay reasonable. And we won't make it disappear unless we forbid propaganda during elections, so i think we must learn how to live with it.

Of course in the USA when you see the hundreds of millions spent in the campaign it makes you sick, but in Europe we know how to stay reasonnable. Look at the elections in Italy, Germany, the Eastern countries. Do you often hear problems like the one the americans have had with Bush? Naaaa.

So, if we assume that you are europeans you shouldn't have problems.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

But I do like the idea of how Queen Elizabeth is, in theory and out of respect, the "head" of our government. It's better than a man...

Theres that double standard freedom was speaking of when he got slammed.

[S. P. Laroche]

People always forget the one major aspect of Monarchism, and Feudalism in general; with great privilege comes great reponsiblity. The Monarch isn't simply some spoilt brat, who gets everything and gives nothing back. The Monarch (Or Lord, Earl, Baron, Duke, et cetera) has a responsibility to the people, to rule justly, to protect and shelter them from trouble. His Majesty King George VI knew this, and thus didn't leave London during the bombings, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II knows it too. The next generation of Kings and Queens may not, but it is the fault of society that they don't. It is up to the people to demand that the Monarch keep their end of the bargain. I think in today's day and age, everyone has forgotten that.

[Boondock Saint]

People always forget the one major aspect of Monarchism, and Feudalism in general; with great privilege comes great reponsiblity.

I would challenge you and reply with ...

'It is NOT the people who tend to forget, but the monarchs.'

[Boondock Saint]

Ah ... and you might reply with ...

It is up to the people to demand that the Monarch keep their end of the bargain.

HA HA!

I could just imagine it now ... a farmer peasent walks up to King Thomas the Cruel and says 'hey you there, yes you! What makes you think you can get away with this eh? I say your being a bad king up there in your palace. We are starving here! Now, be a good king and go provide for your people!'

Yea ... thats a likely scenerio ...

To blame the ineptitude of the monarchy on those the monarchy holds all the power over is like blaming the child for allowing their parent to beat them ...

[ZenWilsonian]

I am against a monarchy, it is a completely illogical system. Yeddi, I don't understand your argument about absolute power being a safeguard, as an elected official is less likely to be corrupt than anyone who came to power in a hereditary way. I understand there is some argument in it, that one is brought up in a certain way in a royal family, but their power should not be forced upon us. In North Korea for example, the current Chief Commander (the closest they have to king or president), is Kim Jong Il, son of the countries' eternal president (so you can see in DPRK president is actaully strictly a figurehead position, as a mentor for the nation), Kim Il Sung. But Kim Jong Il got his position through the military and working for it (and was elected by the army). In the DPRK, the person with the most power, but who is paid less attention to is the prime minister, who is elected by the people. So, if a monarchy is to form, it should be an elected monarch, much like the Kennedies could have been had they not been shot everytime they got involved in politics.
As for Nadine's argument, yeah, I was always a King when I played games like that (I didn't play much, but my bedroom seceded from the UK when I was 6)... But a woman being better... I can see the point, but it is still a system biased towards men you know, a woman was only heir apparent to the throne because there were no men in her position. And a woman isn't 'better', this is just as sexist as the men you complain about.

[Adrien]

You're damn right Boon, that's a nice answer!

I really don't see why today people can still be monarchists.. even here in France we have some, who make demonstrations claiming that Louis XVI is a martyr!

[S. P. Laroche]

Why you people always got to see the bad?

I would challenge you and reply with ...

'It is NOT the people who tend to forget, but the monarchs.'

I meant in todays day and age, not historically.

HA HA!

I could just imagine it now ... a farmer peasent walks up to King Thomas the Cruel and says 'hey you there, yes you! What makes you think you can get away with this eh? I say your being a bad king up there in your palace. We are starving here! Now, be a good king and go provide for your people!'

Yea ... thats a likely scenerio ...

Actually, it is a likely scenario, or else we wouldn't have a French Republic or an United States. Your example of King Thomas the Cruel is noted (though unlikely, as peasents would first have to go to their local lordling, and he to the King), but I counter with The English Civil War:

Some Puritan peasent walks up to King Charles and says "Hey, you there. Stop being so damned Protestant! That's right, be more Puritan or we'll lop off your head" Which of course, they did.

I think the main point your having trouble with, is that I'm propossing an Monarchical system with no serfdom (which amounts to slavery), which therefore lends itself a working law system in which every freeman, and nobleman (inlcuding the King) were equal under the law. Under said system, a King could easily be brought to justice. Simply appoint a group of rotating Nobles to uphold the law code from Royal interference (i.e. Royal elimination of said law code).

[Adrien]

I meant in todays day and age, not historically.

Of course today the monarchs like in England or Spain don't forget, they have nothing to learn! They are just puppets. Which means that they now only have left one bad aspect of monarchy: the fact to put someone in power because of his birth.

And when in other part of the world you still have "true" Kings (third world, lost countries... remember Tonga?), well they behave like Boon said they would.

Actually, it is a likely senario, or else we wouldn't have a French Republic or an United States.

That is much different from what Boon said. He was talking about peasants coming to try to have something peacefully, and you are talking about a revolution. And when a revolution happens, it's most of the time because the monarch is incompetent and that the people want to oust him. And most of the time, when the revolution really comes from the people (and not some nobles and the brother of the king) they replace it with a Republic.

I think the main point your having trouble with, is that I;m propossing an Monarchical system with no serfdom (which amounts to slavery), which therefore lends itself a working law system in which every freeman, and nobleman (inlcuding the King) were equal under the law.

A monarchy is even more senseless and useless in a situation like this one. Here i will once again oppose the problem of the useless and senseless aspect of the hereditary transmission of power.

And no i don't give credit neither to those who pretend that they can choose their next king among the royal family by voting.

Come on, think wisely, leave the monarchy to the past.

[S. P. Laroche]

Come on, think wisely, leave the monarchy to the past.

Never!! I was born a Kingsman and I'll die a Kingsman.