About Monarchy.

[FrisianDude]

This is not Game of Thrones that everyone kill each other.

what do you mean?

 

[Captured Joe]

For ****s sake, allow a man to make a typing error 

Well damn, allow a man to be confused

 

[Amman d Stazia]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Change is inherently good?

Does anyone have an opinion on my ,points re. The neutral head of state? Previous page ...

 

[Vicccard]

They're not neutral?

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Yeah, and to add to that if they lack power no one has to listen to them anyways. Certainly, at the moment I can't imagine that the Swedish people would rise up and follow the current King if he issued some statement, nor does the government have some obligation to listen to him.

Most of these arguments for the monarchy sounds like reading Tocqueville to me.

He suggested that democracy is bad because the average person is kind of an idiot and that it's better to have aristocrats/royalty in charge because they don't worry about the opinion of said stupid masses. He also argued that the nobility were better leaders because they were trained from birth to lead and that they were somehow by virtue of their upbringing/experiences more inclined to make the right choices.

The problem I have with that logic is that I don't think it makes sense given what we know about how human beings think and act on an individual/societal level.

Essentially, I don't buy the logic that being born with great privilege, being raised with great privilege and being conferred a position for life (guaranteeing that they will always be privileged) makes someone an inherently valuable representative of the state nor does it ensure that they will remain neutral.

 

[Heskeytime]

Essentially, I don't buy the logic that being born with great privilege, being raised with great privilege and being conferred a position for life (guaranteeing that they will always be privileged) makes someone an inherently valuable representative of the state nor does it ensure that they will remain neutral.

I dont believe it either, but if they end up neither of those things they're easy to remove. My point was that if you were going to have a permanent representative of the cultural side of a nation how do you choose one? If you were to choose one you would have to provide them with all of those things in their upbringing anyway, but how would you choose them in the first place?

Add to this that elected officials are generally born of privilege too. We may claim to be democratic, but it takes a lot of backdoor politics to get the candidate even remotely in position for a public vote on them, by coincidence it's generally people from wealthy families and a good school who get to that stage. We get little-to-no say on the candidates put forward, only on which we choose, that's hardly any better than having the 2 or 3 next-in-line to the throne stand and the public votes on which one should be the absolute ruler of the country.

I never suggested the Monarch should lead, and by their nature today any Monarch who made themselves unpopular or disregarded the will of the people risks having their entire position removed permanently from the nation. It's nice to have a symbol of permanence, and a ready-made figurehead for if things ever got really bad - eg. it's nice to imagine, but nobody's going to follow a randomer.

 

[Comrade Crimson]

Essentially, I don't buy the logic that being born with great privilege, being raised with great privilege and being conferred a position for life (guaranteeing that they will always be privileged) makes someone an inherently valuable representative of the state nor does it ensure that they will remain neutral.

I dont believe it either, but if they end up neither of those things they're easy to remove. My point was that if you were going to have a permanent representative of the cultural side of a nation how do you choose one? If you were to choose one you would have to provide them with all of those things in their upbringing anyway, but how would you choose them in the first place?

Add to this that elected officials are generally born of privilege too. We may claim to be democratic, but it takes a lot of backdoor politics to get the candidate even remotely in position for a public vote on them, by coincidence it's generally people from wealthy families and a good school who get to that stage. We get little-to-no say on the candidates put forward, only on which we choose, that's hardly any better than having the 2 or 3 next-in-line to the throne stand and the public votes on which one should be the absolute ruler of the country.

I never suggested the Monarch should lead, and by their nature today any Monarch who made themselves unpopular or disregarded the will of the people risks having their entire position removed permanently from the nation. It's nice to have a symbol of permanence, and a ready-made figurehead for if things ever got really bad - eg. it's nice to imagine, but nobody's going to follow a randomer.

Napoleon Bonaparte would beg to differ. He started out as a random artillery officer and became an Emperor. Chairman Mao would also beg to differ as he was born a peasant.

 

[crodio]

Stalin was the son of a shoemaker right? The Bonaparte were a corsican local noble family tho.
Yrigoyen, the first democratic president of my country was the son of a French inmigrant. Illia, italian inmigrants. Menem, son of syrian inmigrants.

 

[Heskeytime]

Napoleon Bonaparte would beg to differ. He started out as a random artillery officer and became an Emperor. Chairman Mao would also beg to differ as he was born a peasant.

Stalin was the son of a shoemaker right? The Bonaparte were a corsican local noble family tho.

So that humble Napoleon Bonapart started out as member of a noble family, that's some humble beginning. Chairman Mao was part of a privileged educated elite. The fact they may have had humble areas in their early lives are not the strongest cases to pitch for why randomers make good and compelling leaders, do we really have Napoleon, Mao and Stalin within 2 posts to try and justify why Monarchies are bad? Lol

In a glorious communist revolution where you're willing to backstab your way to power by controlling who enters your party by becoming the secretary, then kill your opposition with an ice-pick i'd say you're exempt from most normal circumstances. Also, he was not the one to bring about Communist Revolution, Stalin took control of the party and the party controlled the people - he didnt exactly come to lead the people as a randomer did he? Given he was a senior member of the leading party.

Noone voted for any of those people either, my point is the people we vote for as a 'democracy' were already chosen for us by the elite, we get no say in that. And they generally just so happen to be wealthy old money, which is sooooooooo much better than a monarchy. The fact that 3 separate unelected non-monarchical upstarts abused the politics of their day, used the power-vacuum left by an absence of monarchy and brought ruin to their own nations and those around them does not impress me that a monarchy is a bad thing.

 

[crodio]

My post about Stalin had nothing to do with monarchy. just pointing out examples of leaders with humble beginnings.
I don't really know a lot about the russian communst experience nor am a communist myself, so i guess i'll let Crimsonsky answer that to you.
Also you ignored muh presidents ;_;

 

[Bluehawk]

You said "nobody is going to follow a randomer", which presumably means legitimacy is derived from a long-established pedigree, and Crimson named a few examples of new rulers with no regal ancestry gaining widespread popularity. In context though, I believe you meant no one would accept a new, purely symbolic monarchy if the first king was no one of significance. Crimson was cherry picking.

The desire to remove a harmless figurehead because it is undemocratic, and the desire to keep one because it is culturally unifying, are both arguments for idealism. There is no use in discussing the practicality of either scenario when the concern is with the symbolism of the state and how it portrays itself in relation to the ethnos - and not with the distribution of power. Everyone in this thread is dead set in their ideological positions, and the facts, upon which we essentially already agree, can not persuade either party.

 

[Heskeytime]

You said "nobody is going to follow a randomer", which presumably means legitimacy is derived from a long-established pedigree, and Crimson named a few examples of new rulers with no regal ancestry gaining widespread popularity. In context though, I believe you meant no one would accept a new, purely symbolic monarchy if the first king was no one of significance. Crimson was cherry picking.

Ah, when i said ''nobody is going to follow a randomer'' i literally meant someone with no political position what-so-ever, regardless of their background. Ofc you dont need to be well born to be a leader xD i'm not that old fashioned.

I was particularly envisioning a scenario where the government/state/dictatorship was to be opposed, or an attempted coup had to be exposed. Short of finding a dissident from within that body it would be very difficult to find a figurehead people would be willing to trust or believe, and you certainly wouldnt just follow some guy on the street. Like it or not the presence of a monarch carries weight, perhaps not with everyone but often with either enough people, or with the more nationalistic elements likely to be embroiled. Like with the Juan Carlos in Spain.

Also you ignored muh presidents ;_;

Yeah, sorry about that. I wasnt saying you had to be well born to lead, but that as explained above you're not going to follow a total randomer as in some guy on the street. If a senior politician or other public figure like a monarch makes a significant statement, you may be skeptical of it but you're still more likely to think about it.

Also what may have confused this conversation is that at the same time i was labouring the separate fact that in many countries the vast majority of politicians come from very similar or privileged backgrounds. And that for all anti-monarchs applaud the merits of democracy, usually they get very little actual choice and are just presented with a selection of candidates they had no say over and are forced to pick between just 2-3 serious candidates to lead the country.

If a monarchy picked the 2 next in line as 'candidates', eg. Charles and William in Britain, and then asked the public to vote on who should be the next ruler out of those 2, in theory that'd be a democracy lol.

 

[Vicccard]

Depends on what you mean by 'democracy'. As you can only choose between picked candidates, it doesn't really pass the definition of a liberal western Democracy with Rule of Law.

 

[Foeurdr]

It's great to see topic like this dicuss about moderns monarchy, as a french it isn't something I heard often, we often stop at the revolution when we speak about it albeit we had a short experience again soon after (and I'm not speaking of the two empire).

I found a bit strange this idea of a representative head of the nation incarned by the king/queen. I guess it's a matter of how people refer themselves to their country, I mean there is more than a century we didn't have in France any royal figure in the light of the political scene and most people this day don't even know the man who could be the king, plus the fact that we like to say how we came to be free of the tyranny that was the absolutism (A little nice story with a lot of sugar coat feel good, no ? ).
In the other hand it's seems like in some sountry the figure of a monarch is a essential thing to the country identity like the Queen in England even if it's purely symbolical.



I saw something about the Red Cross somewhere in this topic that stated (if I remenber correctly) it was religious at the beginning, just wanted to say it wasn't, the symbol of the Red Cross is just the swiss flag inside out (correct word ?) even if it's often interpreted wrongly as a christian symbol.



I also saw a quote of Diderot, I always found amusing how almost all the philosophers ot the time were criticizing the absolute monarchy (and not the principle of the monarchy itself like many people think) but totally integrated in the system of the period, Diderot is one of them !

 

[Amman d Stazia]

Red Cross has more to do with cheese than religion.
Swiss cheese.

It was founded by a Swiss, Dunante, because he was appalled by the lack of care for wounded and POW.
To my knowledge, he was not particularly religious.

Actually, I'm ambivalent on monarchy.  I just have no respect for most of the elected heads of state going around.
The bigger the franchise, the worse they are, OR they are nobodies castrated by a constitution, leaving the first minister as head of state in all but name....  Which is the case in BRD

 

[Heskeytime]

Depends on what you mean by 'democracy'. As you can only choose between picked candidates, it doesn't really pass the definition of a liberal western Democracy with Rule of Law.

Only 'democracy' in the sense that for many countries this is exactly what they have and call it democracy, i'm struggling to think of an example where the candidates are not already chosen by some 'elite' before the actual public has a say.

It's great to see topic like this dicuss about moderns monarchy, as a french it isn't something I heard often, we often stop at the revolution when we speak about it albeit we had a short experience again soon after (and I'm not speaking of the two empire).

I found a bit strange this idea of a representative head of the nation incarned by the king/queen. I guess it's a matter of how people refer themselves to their country, I mean there is more than a century we didn't have in France any royal figure in the light of the political scene and most people this day don't even know the man who could be the king, plus the fact that we like to say how we came to be free of the tyranny that was the absolutism (A little nice story with a lot of sugar coat feel good, no ? ).
In the other hand it's seems like in some sountry the figure of a monarch is a essential thing to the country identity like the Queen in England even if it's purely symbolical.

Given the worst extremes of historic monarchy i can certainly understand why casting them off would be a great symbol of freedom.

I like modern Monarchy in theory due to a few examples and my general cynicism of the democratic process in my country, it pleases me that any political upstart needs to contend with a little old lady in a nice hat before they can take formal leadership of the country xD (if we still had a monarch in the traditional sense i'd probably be the first in line for revolution, it doesnt fit with modern values for sure). Of course i do not speak for my whole country, i'm sure there are others who have no trouble having a concept of 'England' or the 'United Kingdom' without it.

Some symbolic elements are so striking, it's been years but i remember when i was able to visit Bayeux in France and see the original copy of the Bayeux tapestry there - on one panel it depicts King Harold's coronation where he holds an orb in his open hand and a sceptre in his other with the crown being placed on his head, this is something every monarch since then has done including our current Queen, for 1000 years. And though this is the first depiction of it, it makes you wonder how much older that tradition is and how much further back it goes. As a history/archaeology nerd it's amazing to see such a clear continuity over 1000 years, in my mind that's what a country is made of.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Amman d Stazia]

You do realise, I hope, that the current dynasty dates back barely 200 years?
The myth of the long continuity of the British royal lineage is rather laughable ...

Saxon dynasty- ends in 1066
Then the Plantagenets Tudors and Stuarts all ended in mess and bloodshed, being replaced by the least offensive candidate put forward by the most powerful nobles.
The succession of the Hanoverian dynasty was an election of a dynasty by parliament, quite unusual, but again based on the lack of offence or power in the candidate.
They lasted until the death of Victoria of course, and the saxecoborggothe dynasty was disowned by George at the outbreak of ww1, and the Windsor dynasty founded.

One thing which the various dynasties did remarkably well was women's lib.
Look at the matriarchal inheritances. Elizabeth and Mary Stuart were queens in their own right, rather than wives of kings.  Victoria and Elizabeth again in the last 200 years.
Most other monarchies until the last century could not survive without male heirs, and absurd lengths were gone to to find some grandnephew or other to take the crown.

 

[Heskeytime]

You do realise, I hope, that the current dynasty dates back barely 200 years?
The myth of the long continuity of the British royal lineage is rather laughable ...

Saxon dynasty- ends in 1066
Then the Plantagenets Tudors and Stuarts all ended in mess and bloodshed, being replaced by the least offensive candidate put forward by the most powerful nobles.
The succession of the Hanoverian dynasty was an election of a dynasty by parliament, quite unusual, but again based on the lack of offence or power in the candidate.
They lasted until the death of Victoria of course, and the saxecoborggothe dynasty was disowned by George at the outbreak of ww1, and the Windsor dynasty founded.

One thing which the various dynasties did remarkably well was women's lib.
Look at the matriarchal inheritances. Elizabeth and Mary Stuart were queens in their own right, rather than wives of kings.  Victoria and Elizabeth again in the last 200 years.
Most other monarchies until the last century could not survive without male heirs, and absurd lengths were gone to to find some grandnephew or other to take the crown.

I do realize, thank you for asking. I'm pretty sure that's something anyone in Britain who attended year 7 history, lesson 1, will be able to tell you.

What sort of deluded person would think it was one continuous line? I very deliberately said it was the tradition and symbolic position that was such a strong continuity, why would i care whether or not it was the same bloodline? At the rate those things spread 1000 years later it wouldnt be anything special to meet someone with the blood of an old monarch, hell even the current Prime Minister has some royal blood in him from the current line (take that democracy!).

I wasnt aware there was any myth about our current Royal bloodline having a long continuity, perhaps it's something invented by people outside of Britain but it certainly isnt believed over here. I think you're missing the point.

 

[Untitled.]

The desire to remove a harmless figurehead because it is undemocratic, and the desire to keep one because it is culturally unifying, are both arguments for idealism. There is no use in discussing the practicality of either scenario when the concern is with the symbolism of the state and how it portrays itself in relation to the ethnos - and not with the distribution of power. Everyone in this thread is dead set in their ideological positions, and the facts, upon which we essentially already agree, can not persuade either party.

Sums it up pretty nicely.

 

[Amman d Stazia]

He sky... I'm glad you know.  It's a myth put forward time and again, hand in hand with how England has repulsed every invasion since 1066...
The recent docudrama on the digging up of rick the third even threw in a line about how His descendants are still On the throne today.
Then there was a 'better together ' remark quickly parroted by a royalist " yes" campaigner, about how the Queen's inheritance is traced back to Alfred the Great and Kenneth McAlpine.... Where these turkeys get their history is beyond me.