RoyalistRiley

She will be queen on day, No doubt about that. I wish I lived in Aussie then i'd have access to all the magazines, i know most of the artciels aren't true but i'd still like to read them :)

Yes it is. Thats hot for us over here
But it should be 25 celcius this weekened so sunbathing alright.

Aww thank you very much :)
How are you?

Alexander II did free the serfs in 1861 and was assassinated many years later.

His son, Alexander III, then became even more repressive than earlier tsars. Alexander II died in the palace, after having been rushed there after the bomb went off. One of those in the palace who saw him die was his 11/12 year old grandson, who learnt from his grandfather's death that you can't be gentle - to a certain extent anyway.

Year 10 can be very annoying at times, as in NSW we have limited scope timewise to cover the every side of the argument but to me, and to most teachers in NSW we do try to present both sides (although some teachers have a personal bias and simply won't present it fairly).

Most general histories will say the monarcy in Russia in the late 1900s was bad and it is hard to agree with them when you look at the repression etc. That isn't the same as saying Nicholas was evil but the system of government over which he presided could be argued that way.

I teach History and won't ever attempt to conduct a debate.

However, History in NSW requires the students to consider multiple interpretations so I am used to having to argue and support my point of view, as well as explain it.

Part II: For as long as I've been alive pretty much half the country *hates* the president no matter who it is. That makes it very hard for a country to come together even in times of crisis; if it's not "their" guy in office the other side always suspects the motives of the president no matter what he does. It's just all too political I guess would be the simple way to put it. Then of course there are the reasons of history, tradition, religion etc that most countries have. Monarchies have a far higher "style" than republics ever could and, even if the monarch has no "real" power they still provide a valuable service by keeping certain powers out of the hands of other people. That's probably the best short answer I could give.

There's enough to make them hard to sort through. I don't find it ideal that the choice of Head of State is the result of a popularity contest in which about half the country is going to be opposed to the guy. I don't like such an office to be gained through vote-buying, lies being told, promises being made, special interest groups being catered to etc. At the same time, being from a country where the Head of State is also Head of Government, I don't like how the President never has to answer the tough questions while in office by the opposing party (something like PM's Questions would be unthinkable for a US President to endure) and I don't like how divisive the presidency is, especially these days.

For a variety of reasons I simply see monarchy as being right, maybe it takes first hand experience with republicanism to see the shortcomings. Even Texas (which was a republic during our era of independence) has historically been monarchist far longer than it has been republican. We were claimed by the Kingdom of France for a time, were part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain for centuries and were also part of the short-lived Mexican Empire. I'm also right on the Texas-Mexico divide so I have a foot in each camp. I also tend to always be contrary which helps; in my school days I gave my teachers plenty of aggrevation by taking the side of the Tories when learning about the American Revolution. I could also look at that conflict a little more dispassionately since it had nothing to do with Texas; we had our own War for Independence and only joined the Union in 1845 (by treaty) and that was, interestingly, after a brief flirtation with joining the British Empire!