The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 09-19-2015, 05:34 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: lockport, United States
Posts: 11
To separate from the monarchy is nor valid,democracy is a nice dream show us where it works,
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-19-2015, 06:49 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: lockport, United States
Posts: 11
A king or queen rules by divine right,democracy,too many chiefs not enough Indians,as the saying goes,look at the USA,another point is Luther,he had no right to establish his own church the true church is the Roman catholic church,and the Pope is infallible,in all ways,
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 09-19-2015, 07:02 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by augeron lafourche View Post
To separate from the monarchy is nor valid,democracy is a nice dream show us where it works,
Quote:
Originally Posted by augeron lafourche View Post
A king or queen rules by divine right,democracy,too many chiefs not enough Indians,as the saying goes,look at the USA,another point is Luther,he had no right to establish his own church the true church is the Roman catholic church,and the Pope is infallible,in all ways,
This is a huge thread-nap. However, I will say, in regards the bolded text above, I do believe the current Pope, being a good Jesuit, would disagree with your categoric statement on several points.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-19-2015, 08:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Interesting point of view. Never heard that democracy is not 'valid'. Interesting.

Fact is, the Founding Fathers of the US debated long and hard about instituting a monarchy. One of them, Alexander Hamilton, waxed eloquently for hours on the subject (he was in favor).

But outside an elected monarchy (which is just a matter of semantics), an inherited monarchy is riddled with problems and totally out-of-step with modern sensibilities. JMO.
The idea that the Head of State of a country should always be the firstborn son or daughter of a given family may sound outdated or even absurd in the 21st century. However, the fact that the monarch owes his/her position solely to an accident of birth and has no democratic legitimacy at all is paradoxically what forces the kings or queens in the modern European monarchies to withdraw completely from any active executive role leaving all responsibility for government decisions to the prime minister and the cabinet, who in turn are responsible to an elected parliament and, through parliament, ultimately responsible to the people.

By contrast, in parliamentary republics, especially when the president (i.e. the Head of State) is directly elected by the people, he/she ends up being most often partisan and, because the president has a democratic legitimacy of his/her own, he/she is far more likely to clash with the prime minister, particularly when the president and the prime minister belong to different political parties. I tend to think then that constitutional monarchies in the European style are better suited for parliamentary government as they provide a clearer and unambiguous separation between the ceremonial and non-partisan role of the Head of State (played by the monarch) and the partisan executive government led by the prime minister.

Changing subjects, I obviously disagree with the original poster's opinion on the "validity" of democracy. He has a point though about the American revolution, which is in a way legally valid. Since the 13 colonies were under the sovereignty of the British crown, the unilateral declaration of independence issued on July 4, 1776 without the consent of the British parliament was unlawful. US independence only became lawful when, following the Revolutionary War, the United Kingdom, as the former sovereign of the colonies, officially recognized their independence in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, relinquishing for the British crown and all its heirs and successors any " claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof".
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 09-19-2015, 08:55 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The idea that the Head of State of a country should always be the firstborn son or daughter of a given family may sound outdated or even absurd in the 21st century.
More than that, it's a feudal concept. It's a vestige of caste/class systems. It's slavery in a gilded cage.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 09-19-2015, 10:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
More than that, it's a feudal concept. It's a vestige of caste/class systems. It's slavery in a gilded cage.
The origin of the monarchies of countries like England, France or Spain certainly fits your description, but, over time, they either "modernized" and adapted to representative government, or disappeared and were replaced by republics. In countries like Belgium, on the other hand, the monarchy was already born from the start as a popular, constitutional monarchy (chiefly because it is a 19th century monarchy actually originating from a liberal revolution, and not a monarchy dating back to the Middle Age).

In any case, modern monarchies are by no means incompatible with democracy. Furthermore, my point again was that, in a system where the ceremonial role of the Head of State is strictly separate from the executive government, a constitutional monarch may be a better alternative than an elected president.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 09-20-2015, 03:44 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In any case, modern monarchies are by no means incompatible with democracy.
If you mean that it can work, yes. But at what a price, because there is a human cost. Anyone reading this chat site (and this is a fairly civil chat site) can see that the people born into those families are bound by strictures. Albeit cushioned by great privilege, growing up with a healthy sense of self and the world becomes a monumental achievement, rather than a norm. IMO it remains a vestige of a backwards economic model and blinkered political wisdom.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 09-20-2015, 03:53 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,527
The most liberal, democratic, tolerant, often also most wealthy, happy and peaceful nations are monarchies by accident: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. So it is a paradox that the most democractic and egalitarian societies are "ruled" (only in name) by the historic dynasty.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 09-20-2015, 04:07 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The most liberal, democratic, tolerant, often also most wealthy, happy and peaceful nations are monarchies by accident: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. So it is a paradox that the most democractic and egalitarian societies are "ruled" (only in name) by the historic dynasty.
There may be something to be said for the stability of one-family rule (though my back shivers at the thought for the US) when the heirs do not inherit actual power and have personally been a happy mix of duty bound acceptance, with a dose of sound ethics. However, monarchial rule across the globe does not fare well in comparison.

In short, it's more an issue of fair systems being upheld by ethical public servants (monarchs are one such type of public servant). In the US we have had political family dynasties, and they do well: the Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, the Udalls, the Kennedys - not all are perfect in every respect, but there is a sense of service and often very high calibre service, indeed. More recently we have had the Bushes, now the nuveau Clintons. But its better it all be by election than an inherited title. That feels so very creaky and antique, hard to envision for a country whose ethos is equality and anyone can be President.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 09-20-2015, 11:00 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
There may be something to be said for the stability of one-family rule (though my back shivers at the thought for the US) when the heirs do not inherit actual power and have personally been a happy mix of duty bound acceptance, with a dose of sound ethics. However, monarchial rule across the globe does not fare well in comparison.

In short, it's more an issue of fair systems being upheld by ethical public servants (monarchs are one such type of public servant). In the US we have had political family dynasties, and they do well: the Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, the Udalls, the Kennedys - not all are perfect in every respect, but there is a sense of service and often very high calibre service, indeed. More recently we have had the Bushes, now the nuveau Clintons. But its better it all be by election than an inherited title. That feels so very creaky and antique, hard to envision for a country whose ethos is equality and anyone can be President.

To you, an citizen of a democratic republic, it seems that way. To me, a citizen of a constitutional monarchy, it doesn't. What works for own country does not mean it's best for any other country.

Further, looking at the Democracy Index, 7 of the 10 most democratic countries in the world are constitutional monarchies - and of the top 5 spots, 4 of them are monarchies. The index sites only 24 "full" democracies in the world, 11 of which are constitutional monarchies.

Of the 24 "full" democracies, the US ranks 19th - with only 2 of the constitutional monarchies (Japan and Spain) falling lower.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 09-20-2015, 11:24 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,152
The U.S. is a representative democracy. People election people to run the government. People elect people to service in parliament and run the government in a constitutional monarchy. The monarch can't go against the elected parliament wishes.

Not everyone can become President of the United States. If you aren't a certain age or a natural born citizen you can't be President.

There has been one minority President, one Catholic president, no female Presidents, no Jewish Presidents. So the idea that everyone can be president is a good idea, in reality it will help you immensely if you are a rich, white, Protestant male.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 09-20-2015, 11:26 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Ish - Keep in mind the US is a pretty big country. It ranks third in the world in population, right behind the two behemoths of China at 1.4 billion people, and India at 1.2 billion. The US is at 3.5 million, a pipsqueak compared to those two, but far bigger than any of those constitutional monarchies you name. I think the 'success' of those constitutional monarchies is a function of many things, size being one, and a fairly homogeneous population. JMO. I'm sure there are more factors involved.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 09-20-2015, 12:39 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
There are considerably more factors involved. In compiling the Democracy Index 60 questions are asked of a question and are compiled to give a country a score out of 10 - with 10 being very democratic and 1 being very authoritarian. While it's large population can work against the US in some regards - particularly in regards to political participation - there are aspects of the American government and electoral process that work against it in terms of democracy - i.e. the two party system.

That's not to say that the US's democracy isn't successful. It ranks 19th on a list of 167 countries, which is no small feat. But saying that monarchical rule across the world doesn't fair well in comparison to a system like the US's is verifiably inaccurate - there are 9 countries with monarchies that rank higher in terms of democracy. Monarchies can be very successful at being democracies. So can republics. Neither one nor the other is inherently better.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-17-2016, 01:40 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Ish - Keep in mind the US is a pretty big country. It ranks third in the world in population, right behind the two behemoths of China at 1.4 billion people, and India at 1.2 billion. The US is at 3.5 million, a pipsqueak compared to those two, but far bigger than any of those constitutional monarchies you name. I think the 'success' of those constitutional monarchies is a function of many things, size being one, and a fairly homogeneous population. JMO. I'm sure there are more factors involved.
"Homogeneous" is the key word - too many ethnicities/races (=differences) in the US for king or queen at the helm, even if that person doesn't hold any real power. The US population, at this point in history, is too fractured and diverse for any one person to run it from within or represent it to the rest of the world.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-17-2016, 02:33 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
"Homogeneous" is the key word - too many ethnicities/races (=differences) in the US for king or queen at the helm, even if that person doesn't hold any real power. The US population, at this point in history, is too fractured and diverse for any one person to run it from within or represent it to the rest of the world.
The presidential role does a pretty good job on the whole. I don't see the necessity for anything else.

Fact is, methinks the European monarchies (inclusive of the British) will be facing extinction (dethronement) within this century. The current political realities, with emerging regional interests, and the influx of immigrants across Europe, are the harbingers of changes to governance that I think are inevitable. Europe is destined to become more 'Americanized' in the way of diversity.

I'm introducing 'big-picture' politics here, but the day-in-the-sun of the nation-state is on the wane imo, as regions emerge. It's global corporations that are the merging power centers now. All else (monarchy) is artifact.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-17-2016, 05:59 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
The presidential role does a pretty good job on the whole. I don't see the necessity for anything else.
On the contrary, I think the presidential system of government is notoriously bad. The role of Head of State, which is mostly ceremonial in nature and should be ideally non-partisan, should not be merged with the role of Head of Government, which, in a democracy, is necessarily political and partisan.

Quote:

Fact is, methinks the European monarchies (inclusive of the British) will be facing extinction (dethronement) within this century. The current political realities, with emerging regional interests, and the influx of immigrants across Europe, are the harbingers of changes to governance that I think are inevitable. Europe is destined to become more 'Americanized' in the way of diversity.
I fail to see what diversity of the population has to do with a country being a monarchy or a republic. In fact, looking at recent real-world examples, the European royal families, e.g. in Sweden, have been the state institution that seems to have best connected with newly arrived immigrants since the current refugee crisis began. Furthermore, there are also monarchies like Australia and Canada with very diverse populations (over 20 % of the population actually born overseas).

Being just a figurehead, the monarch is not involved in policy decisions, e.g. on immigration, health care, education, employment, etc. that may be divisive and cause friction between different social groups. The monarch can be a symbol that unites persons of all social classes, races or ethnic backgrounds, in a way that a controversial elected politician like a president or a prime minister could never be. In that sense, the more diverse a country is, the more it makes sense for tha country to be a constitutional monarchy, not the opposite.

In countries like Australia and Canada, things are more complicated since the monarchy could only be abolished by a constitutional amendment. In Australia, a constitutional amendment is automatically submitted to a popular referendum and must be approved by a majority of voters nationwide and by a majority of voters in a majority of states. In Canada, there is no formal referendum requirement a priori , but a constitutional amendment to abolish the monarchy would have to be passed by the Senate and the House of Commons (the two houses of the federal parliament) and by the Legislative Assemblies of all 10 Canadian provinces. Again, that is a very high bar.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-17-2016, 12:38 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patra View Post
The US would never have a monarchy, our country was founded as a revolution against a monarch!
The American loyalists who opposed the revolution founded their own country: it is called (English) Canada !
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-18-2016, 02:55 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,459
Several off-topic posts have either been deleted or edited. This thread is not about the reluctancy or suitability of heirs to the British throne. Further off-topic posts will be deleted without notice.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-18-2016, 03:26 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The American loyalists who opposed the revolution founded their own country: it is called (English) Canada !
Speaking from the viewpoint of a person that was born, bred and buttered in Detroit, Michigan, and using my own time warp in my brain, back then, it wasn't Canada, US, British. Detroit was originally a French colony and the city was named by French colonists, referring to the Detroit River (French: le détroit du lac Érié, meaning the strait of Lake Erie), linking Lake Huron and Lake Erie; in the historical context, the strait included the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. More simply put, the three rivers.

There was no Americans back then. There were different sides to different factors. French vs. Native tribes. British forces vs colonists, Colonists vs. Native tribes and making alliances when needed for the greater good and all the while it was the French vs. the system and the French vs. Britain. Europeans brought to North America the allies and adversaries of the continent. Coupled with the dog eat dog survival mindset, this affected all the land we now know as the US and Canada. Much more can be said about the US and Mexico but that's another history lesson I'm still to learn more about.

It was a time when the French revolted against monarchy as much as the founding fathers of the US revolted against the laws and the monarchy of the British's George III and Parliament.

Canada and the US evolved from all of this. Each in their own time and their own space and in their own convictions.

There is a series of books that really encompasses the history and the different feelings and emotions of that time era. Although a well researched historical saga that is fictional, its easy to grasp what actually happened historically back then. Check out Diana Galbadon's series of books starting with Outlander. You won't be disappointed. BTW: in the early books it also delves deeply into the Scottish side of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the battle of Culloden. The entire series encapsulates one couple's dealings with the world around them. The time travel part is the whimsical.

I don't know how old you are or what you've grown up with but I do know that with 20/20 hindsight vision, we need to be objective and seek to understand how things were at the time.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-19-2016, 07:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The American loyalists who opposed the revolution founded their own country: it is called (English) Canada !
Not true, Mbruno - many of my ancestors were founders of Acadia. Their descendants were thrown out of what is now Nova Scotia in 1755 at the beginning of the Seven Years' War, aka the French and Indian War. The British did not want them there because they were Roman Catholic and would not swear allegiance to King George III. They made there way to pro-Catholic Spanish territory in what is now the state of Louisiana in the US. So not exactly true - many of my ancestors were thrown out of Canada.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
monarchist, politics, royal, royalist tea party, united states


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
British Royalty and the United States ysbel British Royals 63 11-20-2014 04:04 PM
King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia's Visit to the United States: May 8-11, 2013 Lumutqueen King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia 42 05-28-2013 05:10 PM
United Arab Emirates and The Gulf States kashmiri Royal Genealogy 26 03-05-2013 12:11 PM
Prince and Princess of Asturias's Visit to the United States: June 20-23, 2012 lula King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 78 07-15-2012 02:20 PM




Popular Tags
abdication althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names bangladesh british royals chittagong cht clarence house diana princess of wales dragons dubai duke of cambridge dutch earl of snowdon facts family life future games hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama history house of glucksburg imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma kids movie list of rulers mail mountbatten nepalese royal jewels norway palestine pless prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri princess ariane princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen louise queen mathilde random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon spencer family thailand thai royal family tracts uae customs unsubscribe wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×