Monarchy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 10:21 am
@Insty,
so close to having a parliamentary system like Britain. It not easy to break the monarchist tendency especially when our history is so intertwined in the system.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 12:17 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;
Yes i think i heard somewhere that Americans were originally going to call their head an Emperor.
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 01:26 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;129132 wrote:
I have the same. Not army though, but from schools.

Ha, ha! Summerschool in Kilkhampton...
Many years ago I was selected to be guard of honour for queen Willamina? I stood in the pouring rain for an hour in my trench coat only to see her pass us by, in her car, at twenty miles an hour. The squady language did her proud.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 01:29 pm
@xris,
xris;129378 wrote:
Many years ago I was selected to be guard of honour for queen Willamina? I stood in the pouring rain for an hour in my trench coat only to see her pass us by, in her car, at twenty miles an hour. The squady language did her proud.

At least she did not hit you, did you hear about the ding that Andrew gave to the policeman?
Do you think it his duty to put up with a bruise instead of crying about it to the papers?
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 02:04 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;129367 wrote:
VideCorSpoon;
Yes i think i heard somewhere that Americans were originally going to call their head an Emperor.


Now that would have been something. I don't think the framers would have gone so far as the title of emperor though since they were flat out against the notion of even having a king or anything like that (plus the whole inheritance thing would not have flown). But really thinking about it, during the United States own expansion west and colonial expansion in the 19th/20th centuries, I really wonder if, supposing we had a predisposition to a monarchic system, there would have been some imperial title given to the president. Queen Victoria for example accepted the title of Empress of India (although I don't think she was too fond of the title but it was out of necessity) even though it was contrary to her status. And the British empire was imperial

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 04:15 PM ----------

Thought this might be interesting to everyone as well;

Absolute monarchies (supreme power lay with the monarch):
Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, and Vatican City.

Constitutional monarchies (monarch functions as head of state under constitutional provision):
Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Vatican City.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 01:41 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;129336 wrote:
so close to having a parliamentary system like Britain. It not easy to break the monarchist tendency especially when our history is so intertwined in the system.

USA does have enough people, is militairy organized, still has it's territories and has an American ID. U just miss some kingdoms (fr. Hawai etc.) to make the step to an Empire. 2Bad|In Europe we have a president now, but we call him chairman.:whistling:
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 10:13 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;129076 wrote:

But what is the meaning of Monarchy today and is it all about yesterdays.


I feel that in the years to come this may (should) become much more of a debated topic.
And we may indeed see some change in political structures necessary moving back towards more of a Monarchical basis.

Because the "democracy' experiment is truly starting to exhibit some of it's potential weaknesses. Particularly that in order to have a well running democracy, you depend on an educated & informed voter base. You also depend on candidates be specially trained and skilled in the ways of ruling and law making.

Many of the current democracies (including the US) lack this now and the results are evident.

In the long run, it may prove more practical to educate & train a select SMALL group of leaders in the issues & skills necessary to govern wisely. The lessons learned from failing democracies can be used as basis for building protection from abuse of that power granted.

The workings of the world have become far too complex now for the average citizen without special training to grasp and make intelligent choices on.
I count myself even partially in that position. Not as much incapable as unwilling. It would consume far too much of my time to become properly knowledgeable of all the facets of wisely ruling in a global arena.
Better to grab a couple promising and willing students and let it consume their lives. I'll trust them until I have reason not to.

The old Monarchies had this structure in place. Rulers were literally trained from birth with the nuances required to someday assume the leadership.

GS
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 10:56 am
@groundedspirit,
groundedspirit;129989 wrote:
I feel that in the years to come this may (should) become much more of a debated topic.
And we may indeed see some change in political structures necessary moving back towards more of a Monarchical basis.

Because the "democracy' experiment is truly starting to exhibit some of it's potential weaknesses. Particularly that in order to have a well running democracy, you depend on an educated & informed voter base. You also depend on candidates be specially trained and skilled in the ways of ruling and law making.

Many of the current democracies (including the US) lack this now and the results are evident.

In the long run, it may prove more practical to educate & train a select SMALL group of leaders in the issues & skills necessary to govern wisely. The lessons learned from failing democracies can be used as basis for building protection from abuse of that power granted.

The workings of the world have become far too complex now for the average citizen without special training to grasp and make intelligent choices on.
I count myself even partially in that position. Not as much incapable as unwilling. It would consume far too much of my time to become properly knowledgeable of all the facets of wisely ruling in a global arena.
Better to grab a couple promising and willing students and let it consume their lives. I'll trust them until I have reason not to.

The old Monarchies had this structure in place. Rulers were literally trained from birth with the nuances required to someday assume the leadership.

GS
Thats your fault for rebelling , you should have paid your taxes.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 02:37 pm
@xris,
Pepijn Sweep;129590 wrote:
USA does have enough people, is militairy organized, still has it's territories and has an American ID. U just miss some kingdoms (fr. Hawai etc.) to make the step to an Empire. 2Bad|In Europe we have a president now, but we call him chairman.

I think in the US in terms of having enough people and having an organized military is a quantifier for almost any type of nation. Territories are debatable because it depends on how those territories are acquired and administered. On Hawai, do you mean Hawaii? It's funny that you mention Hawaii because I was just remembering this neat little document called "the argument favoring the annexation of Hawaii" (55th congress,2nd session, doc no.214) written by John Dean Caton. If anyone has any curiosity as to how 19th century American politicians validated procurement of land within the context of law (and subsequent realty), read over this hilarious document. Talking points include absolute title to the land (under the Louisiana purchase), etc. Oh this is a good one, "It is not a question whether the moralist will approve of the manner in which that war (Mexican/amercian) was brought about. We have only to look at the results in the consideration of the questions of this kind. Some interesting stuff.

But funny enough, even though I would think that American has an imperialistic fascia, almost all academics do not agree that it is one. There is one in particular named Edward Said that essentially said that without direct control by a foreign administration, its not imperial. But I don't know about this because Britain had the East India Company, etc. which were essentially an independent administration. America functions more under a federal collective joined to state administrations. Although, there are American protectorates and what not, and a lot of countries who come under our nuclear umbrella. America the pseudo-empire? Maybe.

groundedspirit;129989 wrote:
I feel that in the years to come this may (should) become much more of a debated topic.
And we may indeed see some change in political structures necessary moving back towards more of a Monarchical basis.

Because the "democracy' experiment is truly starting to exhibit some of it's potential weaknesses. Particularly that in order to have a well running democracy, you depend on an educated & informed voter base. You also depend on candidates be specially trained and skilled in the ways of ruling and law making.

This almost sounds like you say we need to have a natural aristocratic base (people of sufficient education and degree). Is this the case?

groundedspirit;129989 wrote:
Many of the current democracies (including the US) lack this now and the results are evident.

Do they lack a sufficient level of competency? Education? Amount of interest?

groundedspirit;129989 wrote:
In the long run, it may prove more practical to educate & train a select SMALL group of leaders in the issues & skills necessary to govern wisely. The lessons learned from failing democracies can be used as basis for building protection from abuse of that power granted.

The history of ancient Greece, in particular Hellenic Greece, teach us that when you have a small group of people "chosen" as it were, does not tend to end well. Oligarchies are the bane of a democratic community. If anything, democracies fail because they descend into the abyss of oligarchic (and consolidated) rule.

groundedspirit;129989 wrote:
The workings of the world have become far too complex now for the average citizen without special training to grasp and make intelligent choices on.
I count myself even partially in that position. Not as much incapable as unwilling. It would consume far too much of my time to become properly knowledgeable of all the facets of wisely ruling in a global arena.

I can agree somewhat that not a lot of people fully comprehend the systems that they live within or the laws which govern them. I remember there was this survey on 1L law school students before they had any classes and a great deal more than half could not even remember a fraction of basic rights and privileges. And these are law students.
groundedspirit;129989 wrote:
Better to grab a couple promising and willing students and let it consume their lives. I'll trust them until I have reason not to.

This seems potentially problematic. Again, you really don't want to get into an oligarchy or some type of aristocratic boule type system.

groundedspirit;129989 wrote:
The old Monarchies had this structure in place. Rulers were literally trained from birth with the nuances required to someday assume the leadership.

And some of them turned out to be total dicks, like James II (who was actually said to be more "enlightened" than many other princes of the day), Henery the 8th, Charles XII of Sweden, and on and on and on.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 02:45 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
What great stories they tell by their allowance to be all powerful megalomaniacs. They give good examples of power and its corruption of the most well meaning of men. "Blood will have blood they say", how appropriate for the history of monarchy. No other stories of men and power can compete with English regal history. Possibly the Medici , though.
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 06:07 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;130057 wrote:

This seems potentially problematic. Again, you really don't want to get into an oligarchy or some type of aristocratic boule type system.


Maybe - maybe not.
If we want to continue democracy I believe a test should be devised to certify competency before being allowed to vote.

VideCorSpoon;130057 wrote:
And some of them turned out to be total dicks, like James II (who was actually said to be more "enlightened" than many other princes of the day), Henery the 8th, Charles XII of Sweden, and on and on and on.


And of course we have no "disks" in our current system ? Problem is we seem to have so many it's impossible to get rid of them all. Because there's an equal number of "dick" ignorant (in the pure sense of the term) willing to leave them there.

If we only had 3 or 4 to deal with - how much easier the solution.

Smile
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 08:21 pm
@groundedspirit,
groundedspirit;130129 wrote:
Maybe - maybe not.
If we want to continue democracy I believe a test should be devised to certify competency before being allowed to vote.

As far as oligarchy goes, very rarely does the scheme work out well. To tell the truth, tyranny seems to have more success than aristocratic collective rule if history is any judge.

As far as any test being devised to measuring competency before being allowed to vote, I don't think that would be a good idea. Voting is the essential element of United States citizenship, and withholding such a basic right like voting would not bode well for anyone. What about people who do not know how to read and/or write, yet own property, pay taxes, etc.? The minute you begin to restrict rights in favor of one class compared to another, you come up with something potentially as bad as segregation for example.

groundedspirit;130129 wrote:
And of course we have no "disks" in our current system ? Problem is we seem to have so many it's impossible to get rid of them all. Because there's an equal number of "dick" ignorant (in the pure sense of the term) willing to leave them there.

If we only had 3 or 4 to deal with - how much easier the solution.

 
Camerama
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 09:19 pm
@sometime sun,
Why is it that you love your queen?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 01:57 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Vatican City is not the same as the Holy See
Have more or less same territory

I don't see why the Papa should be in the United Nations? What nazionality is he representing? We could as well give the Dalai Lama a seat! And so on.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 04:18 am
@Camerama,
Camerama;130183 wrote:
Why is it that you love your queen?
Why do you love your mother ?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 06:38 am
@xris,
xris;130225 wrote:
Why do you love your mother ?


Last night our ministers resigned over Irak/Afghanistan.

Luckily we have the Queen as Head of Goverment.

It's a pity she is off skiing in Lech.

The rest of the royals are to the Olympics.:detective:
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 06:53 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;130233 wrote:
Last night our ministers resigned over Irak/Afghanistan.

Luckily we have the Queen as Head of Goverment.

It's a pity she is off skiing in Lech.

The rest of the royals are to the Olympics.:detective:
So should they sit at home and eat cake?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 03:37 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;129396 wrote:
Now that would have been something. I don't think the framers would have gone so far as the title of emperor though since they were flat out against the notion of even having a king or anything like that (plus the whole inheritance thing would not have flown). But really thinking about it, during the United States own expansion west and colonial expansion in the 19th/20th centuries, I really wonder if, supposing we had a predisposition to a monarchic system, there would have been some imperial title given to the president. Queen Victoria for example accepted the title of Empress of India (although I don't think she was too fond of the title but it was out of necessity) even though it was contrary to her status. And the British empire was imperial---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 04:15 PM ----------

Thought this might be interesting to everyone as well;

Absolute monarchies (supreme power lay with the monarch):
Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, and Vatican City.

Constitutional monarchies (monarch functions as head of state under constitutional provision):
Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Vatican City.


How can Vatican City be an absolute & constitutional monarchy? I think you mean the Holy See in one of the cases.

In the Holy Roman Empire a candidate for the title Emperor Elect had to have 4 grandparents who were count(ess) at the least. So there was generations of experience for the young Emperor.:whistling:
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 10:06 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;130629 wrote:
How can Vatican City be an absolute & constitutional monarchy? I think you mean the Holy See in one of the cases.

I thought so too for a long time, but apparently the Vatican has both. The pope fulfills two roles in state function; head of state and head of government. As a head of state, the pope functions as the national sovereign pontiff, which is to say he is both a figurehead and an elected high official (which he serves commensurate with his primary role as both the bishop of Rome (the holy see that you mentioned) and God's go-to guy. As head of government, the pope is the elected executive over the state (as in the state itself under the Lateran treaty of 1929).
Pepijn Sweep;130629 wrote:
In the Holy Roman Empire a candidate for the title Emperor Elect had to have 4 grandparents who were count(ess) at the least. So there was generations of experience for the young Emperor.
neat, and I'm sure a lot more if the conditions were so specific.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:51 am
@xris,
xris;130235 wrote:
So should they sit at home and eat cake?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 01:13:38