The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:47 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
All we get is a lack of calm and rational discussion. Anyone trumpeting American democracy should read America's history and look at its current realities. A republic does not make a nation more democratic or egalitarian, or indeed safe from tyranny.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:53 AM
thomaspaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: new york, United States
Posts: 12
I am not advocating the american system.Virtually all countries using the american model have had tyranny at some point of time.What i am advocating is a non hereditary person replacing the monarch.

The reason i have chosen the Indian model for Canada and Australia is to have federalism where states can have a voice.

This leads to checks and balances.The upper house of India is known as Rajya sabha or house of the states where states have a check on the elected lok sabha aka the house of the people.Since states are also entities and individuals they are representated.


The fear of removing the monarch with an untested system will lead to chaos is just fear.India is not in tyranny or chaos.The Indian model has worked well.

Ireland model has also worked well where the president is directly elected.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 02-26-2011, 11:05 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,477
Okay, you are only talking about the British system then? - Initially it was against monarchies in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspaine View Post
First the definition of a constitutional republic means that even if 51% of the people force the govt to ban smoking,it will be declared unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights.
In the US system, yes. There are other systems in other countries, including my own, safeguarding the constitutional rights of the people. - Also very much so in monarchies, as is the case in my own country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspaine View Post
Your assumption of stating the democracy=law=republic is a contradiction
Secondly UK monarchy is not democratic at all or any other monarchy.
Or any other monarchy.
I see, well, I'll leave it to members with more knowledge about the British form of government to deal with the specifics you mentioned.
But to state that all other monarchies are not democracies, shows that you haven't checked your facts.
It's looks to me like you are declaring that all other forms of government, which you define as non-republic are non-democratic. - Oookay!

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspaine View Post
Your point stating that monarchies are not tyrants is another contradiction.Over time they have not openly disregarded the will of the people and now do it covertly via governor generals and other diplomatic means.
Is it now? I thought from a historical sense, that a ruler was declared a tyrant if he/she openly ruled regardless of the law, or was a little "too creative" about "interpreting" the law to his/her benefit. - Which again is the very reason why monarchs were careful about sticking as much as possible to the letter of the law. Especially as being declared a "tyrant" traditionally freed your subjects from allegiance.

I suggest you don't throw words like "tyrant" about, without really knowing what the word actually means in the minds of the people. They are the ones who matters, right?

According to your definition, any head of state could be declared a tyrant. Come on.

Perhaps you would point out a current monarch, who is head of state in a modern democracy, and who is also a tyrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspaine View Post
How many of you know that the Queen was responsible of removal of a duly elected PM kevin Rudd?
I urge you to read common sense and think that Does the British people truly want a unelected,unaccountable(tyrant like) system of govt where the royal family is not British.They are German aka house of Hanover.
King George III was the first king to speak in English,they just dont speak in German.

I find it ironic and laughable.
You are again taking things out of a historical context. The argument you are using has not been valid since the latter half of the 1700's.
If the British people accept and want their monarchy, what does it matter that a number of their kings were from a German family line (and as such spoke German quite a lot) more than 250 years ago?
Kings before and after the Hannovarian kings certainly spoke Excellent English (and French, and Dutch, and German, and Norse) and they felt English.
The concept of modern nationalism and national states did not become common until after the French Revolution and really only after the revolutions of the 1840's.
Before then allegience to a specific ruler usually took precedence before your national identity.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 02-26-2011, 03:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,537
It is people who make a successful government, not a government making successful people. The government here is the people. They make mistakes, but somehow over the a span of time, they figure a way to correct it. You are confusing American sytle government in what countries that brought tyrants? Isn't it that the tyrants were just held in place for efficacies sake. There was no democracy, no republic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 02-26-2011, 04:40 PM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
You are again taking things out of a historical context. The argument you are using has not been valid since the latter half of the 1700's.
Yes Muhler. Things are taken out of a historical context.

Thomas Paine was an US author, pamphleteer, and revolutionary.
Paine emigrated from Britain to the British American colonies in 1774 in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were a powerful, widely read pamphlet "Common Sense" 1776, advocating colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Bringing his writings into the context of the constitutional monarcies of 2011 is misplaced and doesn't achive anything.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 02-26-2011, 05:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,076
Over the years Willaim and Harry have always worn England colours during any rugby international games they have attended. IMO another example of how they just don't care about their position in life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 02-26-2011, 06:07 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspaine View Post
Secondly UK monarchy is not democratic at all or any other monarchy.
Could you expand on this for me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspaine View Post
How many of you know that the Queen was responsible of removal of a duly elected PM kevin Rudd?
I urge you to read common sense and think that Does the British people truly want a unelected,unaccountable(tyrant like) system of govt where the royal family is not British.They are German aka house of Hanover.
King George III was the first king to speak in English,they just dont speak in German.
1; Interesting, how do you know that Queen removed Kevin Rudd from office?
2; The British people seemingly have no problem with our monarchy, so why should you care?
Your comment is racist IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilla View Post
Thomas Paine was an US author, pamphleteer, and revolutionary.
Paine emigrated from Britain to the British American colonies in 1774 in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were a powerful, widely read pamphlet "Common Sense" 1776, advocating colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Bringing his writings into the context of the constitutional monarcies of 2011 is misplaced and doesn't achive anything.
Thank you for the background info Lilla.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 02-26-2011, 06:07 PM
rob2008's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 124
The monarch is representative symbol of the subjective right of the nation (Hegel). Paine ignores the role of the monarch as tribal fellow/ colleague.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 02-26-2011, 06:53 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,086
With regard to the issue of the royal family being German, it is worth noting that the so-called "indiginous" people of the United Kingdom are derived from Brythons, Celts, Scots, Picts, Welsh, Cornish, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and goodness knows what other ancient tribes. We would therefore be hard pressed to find a genetically "acceptable" monarch or indeed an electable British president with a fully representative genetic background.

With regard to monarchies not being democratic, in what sense is an elected head of state democratic? Exactly what defines democracy?
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-26-2011, 08:08 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lemuria, Kiribati
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspaine View Post
Anyways what i don't like about the Australian constitution ,is that all amendments are referred to a peblicite.
So you don't like the Australian constitution because it allows the people to have a democratic vote on any changes to it? That seems like an odd statement from someone who is saying a republic is more 'democratic'??

Oh, and the Queen had nothing to do with Rudd's "removal", that was all his own Party's doing.

Here's an interesting fact for you - the Queen herself has no power whatsoever in an Australian context. She has to do what her Ministers ask/tell her to do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,537
Thomas Paine was a very smart fellow for his time. He didn't live in the 20th, least 21st century. Constitutional monarchies are fine. The monarch has little or no power, they are a stage prop, which is what they are worth. Wave, cut ribbons, advise. Elected heads of "democracies" are voted out. Monarchs stay for most of their lives, good or bad. They are the window dressing of the countries life. Some are wonderful, some medicore, some bad.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-27-2011, 03:58 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilla View Post
Yes Muhler. Things are taken out of a historical context.

Thomas Paine was an US author, pamphleteer, and revolutionary.
Paine emigrated from Britain to the British American colonies in 1774 in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were a powerful, widely read pamphlet "Common Sense" 1776, advocating colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Bringing his writings into the context of the constitutional monarcies of 2011 is misplaced and doesn't achive anything.
Thank you, Lilla

Then this is political material from the 1770's?

Why does the starter of this thread believe it's relevant today?
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 02-27-2011, 06:31 AM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Thank you, Lilla

Then this is political material from the 1770's?

Why does the starter of this thread believe it's relevant today?

You are right Muhler. This is political material from the 1770's. As for why the starter of this thread belive it is relevant today - I don't know. IMO the relevans is lacking. It can be comparied to judging the eligibility of the Danish monarcy of today on the actions of King Valdemar Atterdag in the 1350's. Quit absurd

Different times - different circumstances.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-27-2011, 07:32 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia, United States
Posts: 62
The idea of an unelected office-holder without term limits does not necessarily mean that a particular form of government is undemocratic. The US constitution does enshrine the notion of very powerful unelected office-holders without term limits… Supreme Court Justices.

As an American, I appreciate our republican demoracy and would have it no other way. However, I do look fondly at those nations that do retain their constitutional monarchies, and it has become an interest for me. And not the gossipy part of what makes modern ‘royal watching’, you know… who’s marrying who and what the princess is wearing at this ball. But I am interested in how modern hereditary heads-of-state can be the 'embodiment and personification' for a whole people… especially in the modern, liberal, multi-cultural civic sense. For this reason, I am very much interested in the role the institution of monarchy plays in countries like England, Spain, and the Netherlands, each of which is comprised of many ethnicities and nationalities.

I think more then anything, it is important to have a state that observes the rule of law, democratic principles which not only enshrines the idea of government by the consent of the people, but encourages its practice with the protection of minority rights. So, within this broad sentiment, I think you can have both republican and (constitutional) monarchy government. For me, the illegitimate governments are those that do not enshrine the principle of government by the consent of the people along with protection of minority rights. And those illegitimate governments can be both autocratic monarchies (with "historic dynasties") or popular despotic republics.

I believe the Western oriented nations have more or less achieved the balance, and in truth I do not believe that the hereditary heads-of-state for Western constitutional monarchies could survive if they did not have the intrinsic support of their people. It has to be noted that in 1978 Spain had the chance to shrug off its monarchy, yet 88% of voters approved of the constitutional monarchy and since then, their monarchy has enjoyed a resurgence of public approval.
__________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-27-2011, 07:55 AM
Lilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
But I am interested in how modern hereditary heads-of-state can be the 'embodiment and personification' for a whole people… especially in the modern, liberal, multi-cultural civic sense.
Great post Keystone .

Living in a monarcy as I am, I find your observation quoted above of great relevans. This is what a constitutional monarchy is all about. Identity.

Just like you as an American appreciat your republican democracy and would have it no other way, I as a Dane appreciat our democratic constitutional monarcy and would have it no other way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 04-29-2011, 01:50 AM
thomaspaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: new york, United States
Posts: 12
A message from a person known as D.M
The existence of monarchs and succession unjustly imposes class distinctions by birth. Almost all cultures are guilty of supporting and maintaining class distinctions in which people are divided into upper and lower classes, rich and poor, white collar and blue collar, educated and uneducated, haves and have-nots, royals and commoners.

Just as it is despicable for anyone to be born into slavery and treated as a slave, it is abhorrent that some people should be born into royalty and allowed to lord over others. Slavery exists today, although it is hidden from the public. On the other hand, royalty is practised in the open even in this modern, democratic time. Even worse, people still accept their lot as commoners and bow to royalty. This outmoded, undemocratic, unjustified and unjustifiable practice should be abolished immediately. Nobody should be regarded as more worthy than another by incidence of birth or marriage.
All of the world's so-called royals should be stripped of their superior status by birth. They have unjustly ruled the world for far too long. How can this modern, space-age world accommodate an outdated, pejorative, egotistical system of castes? Nobody can really advance or regard themselves as free and equal if anyone actively or passively supports or condones the doctrine of royalty. Royals are no more chosen than anyone else on the planet; they have just imposed their “birthrights” and wills on their so-called subjects.

Australia will one day be free of the foreign monarchy that controls the country, and will be a free and independent nation. It remains to be seen whether Britain, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and other European countries, as well as those in the Middle East, Far East, and worldwide for that matter, can break the shackles of monarchy, which is the modern-day symbol of enslavement.
Britain is in the position of having a foreign monarchy leading its nation. The house of Windsor is just a make-over of the house of Hanover; it is predominantly a German line of royalty headed by those once known as the Hanover Electors.

The direct line is shown below:
Britain is presently under the control of the foreign royals; it is a prisoner itself. It has suffered under German domination since George I took the British throne in 1714. George I was a Hanover Elector who spoke German in the palace, as did his son, George II. George III broke ranks from his predecessors, and began speaking English in London instead of the family's native German. Over time, people forgot that the Hanover Electors were on the British throne. George IV was George III's son, who was succeeded by William IV, who was also a son of George III. Victoria succeeded her uncle, William IV. Edward VII succeeded his mother, Victoria. George V succeeded his father, Edward VII. The German lineage was hidden, as best as it could be, by George V, when he changed his surname. Edward VIII succeeded his father, George V, to the throne. Edward VIII abdicated and was succeeded by George VI, another son of George V. The currently reigning British monarch is Elizabeth II, who is the daughter of George VI. The line is unbroken and is distinctly German, regardless of whatever they have done to Anglicize their names and titles. To put it bluntly, Germans influence and control a quarter of the world using the English language.

The doctrine of the divine rights of kings should be totally eliminated. History proves that rulers are opposed to freedom, and that royal rulers are even more oppressive than elected ones. While it can be difficult to remove elected rulers, it can be almost impossible to remove royal rulers. Royalty established by succession is the worst of all. These are the tyrants in-waiting that are most likely to repress their people and are the most difficult to remove.

Some of today's monarchies rule by force, and others rule by subtle means. The passive-aggressive ones can be the most dangerous to freedom, because they can be perceived as harmless.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 04-29-2011, 01:52 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,226
[QUOTE=Lilla;1210717]Great post Keystone .

[QUOTE]

You think so....

And the above is absolute bullocks!!Rambling as in the very essence of that word!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 04-29-2011, 02:07 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
Clearly irony is not lost on some people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 04-29-2011, 03:19 AM
Smart's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Thank you, Lilla

Then this is political material from the 1770's?

Why does the starter of this thread believe it's relevant today?
Why do you believe ancient institutions (like Monarchies) are relevant today?
__________________
Supporter of global Republicanism and the Abolition of all Monarchies. With special attention to the Windsors.
Quote:
There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!
-John Hancock, upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 04-29-2011, 03:24 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,477
Here we go again...

You never responded to the arguments put against you the last time, ThomasPaine.
__________________

__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 884 11-02-2014 06:11 PM
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 316 08-06-2014 01:08 PM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 147 06-15-2013 07:14 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
Summer 2006 Newsletter: Featuring Queen Elizabeth II & The Duchess of Cornwall GrandDuchess Picture of the Month, Special Features, Blogs & Articles 56 07-25-2006 09:46 AM




Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]