Succession in a monarchic system - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15237265
Sandzak wrote:
You are right... but what is it with a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain???

The discussion in this forum changed my ideology from authoritarian to democracy.



The Queen doesn't have day to day power. Mostly she's a figurehead, but her disapproval can carry a lot of weight things are going badly.

There are a number of countries that still have royalty, but mostly they don't have power.

"1000 year Reichs have the lifespan of mayflies." The Expanse

In 1973, I got to see communist dominated Hungary, and Tito's Fascist Spain. What I took away from that is the more power is concentrated in few hands, the worse off it is for everyone else.
#15237278
late wrote:The Queen doesn't have day to day power. Mostly she's a figurehead, but her disapproval can carry a lot of weight things are going badly.

There are a number of countries that still have royalty, but mostly they don't have power.

"1000 year Reichs have the lifespan of mayflies." The Expanse

In 1973, I got to see communist dominated Hungary, and Tito's Fascist Spain. What I took away from that is the more power is concentrated in few hands, the worse off it is for everyone else.


I have sympathies for Prussia, their education system produced genuises like Einstein.

The romans said:" The first king is a genius, successor is average, and the 3rd an idiot."

Therefore have most monarchies lost power.
#15240840
My Ideal is the Prussian State, not Great Britain. The Kaiser rules with the parlaiment, and succession should be decided by the Monarch, not simply the oldest.

The Ottoman Dynasty the longest lasting in History had the customs after the Death of the Emperor the sons had to fight each other.
#15241060
Monarchy is a system where there is at some point in time a power struggle, where one faction led by one person wins and solidifies power and rule. This person, declaring themselves "monarch", is human and will therefore die at some point, and therefore must find a successor. Just like where a person gives their wealth to their children when they die, so too does a monarch want to give their power to one of their children when they die.

Thus, a monarchy is typically a country ruled by genetics rather than competency. The nice thing about democracy is that competency is typically much more of a deciding factor. Obviously the most competent person in a country is not the national leader because not all members of a society wants to be a public leader, nor is any democratic system or political party so free of corruption that the most competent person rises to the top of a particular political party. However, a democratic system where those who are ruled get to view the resumes and job interviews (public debates etc) of those who want to rule them, and then pick their favorite candidate along them via national referendum, seems a more just and competent system than any monarchy would hope to be over the longterm.
#15241071
Potemkin wrote:That only works in a nation with a particular history and a particular culture. Britain, for example, went through multiple revolutions and civil wars in the 17th century, which killed a larger proportion of the population than both World Wars combined. At the time, the other European powers looked on in astonishment at the chaos and carnage going on in Britain, but by the time the dust settled in 1688, we had a political system - constitutional monarchy - which we could live with, and which wouldn’t stand in the way of the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie in later centuries. Then, in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was the turn of the other European powers to be wracked by revolution and civil wars, while we looked on in astonishment…. Lol.


Interesting. May I ask what changed your mind?

Someone else educated in that section of history? its a secret history of a sect of Christians. Public School wants to do Elizabeth I , Puritan Pilgrims, but no, the Christian sect of it is about then what happened, the Commonwealth, it fell down because all of Europe was hostile to a Republic, an upstart, Cromwell a nobody, not a name a farmer, the merchant farmers are now peaking in at them. Then the Killing times the persecution Charles II is back. Then William Nassau from Netherlands and 1688 this is the Glorious Revolution or the return of Reformed Christian governance. Which must be said, after 1700 is on decline again, the line of George's the Neo-Catholic-Anglican Oxford school anyone heard of this, new high church in Anglicanism, we are familiar on Victoria's German husband Albert , introduced Christmas, A Christmas Carol, a public face on sweeping catholicism. How do you come about this? Was it really a time of world renown or not? I was not aware of that, in government it is upheaval, I always heard Germany saw religious strife and pillage and the Thirty Years War.
#15241074
Unthinking Majority wrote:Monarchy is a system where there is at some point in time a power struggle, where one faction led by one person wins and solidifies power and rule. This person, declaring themselves "monarch", is human and will therefore die at some point, and therefore must find a successor. Just like where a person gives their wealth to their children when they die, so too does a monarch want to give their power to one of their children when they die.

Thus, a monarchy is typically a country ruled by genetics rather than competency. The nice thing about democracy is that competency is typically much more of a deciding factor. Obviously the most competent person in a country is not the national leader because not all members of a society wants to be a public leader, nor is any democratic system or political party so free of corruption that the most competent person rises to the top of a particular political party. However, a democratic system where those who are ruled get to view the resumes and job interviews (public debates etc) of those who want to rule them, and then pick their favorite candidate along them via national referendum, seems a more just and competent system than any monarchy would hope to be over the longterm.

What about "The Council" and they are all vampires? How French. It looks French. The Council stars Napoleon Bonaparte, George Washington, John Adam's daughter, the Pope, I can't remember why they all trust the eternal vampires but they end up at the eternal vampires lair where you unravel the plot before they are vampire food. I liked the religion room. Overdone religious portraits you know all the ones some broken backed artist died for hilarious right Saint Thermolothemew , and, a bible scripture passage linkage game. tim 4:22 or was it luke 2:11
Balkan and Elections

Oh, geez, every single one of you little Zelenskys[…]

No they did not. How often do we have to tell you[…]

Legal Anarchy

Abuse is motivated by this pursuit of sabotage […]