Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:02 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
But in fact the great bulk of monarchies that existed in the modern era have not survived; they probably tell us far more about the pros and cons of monarchy in general than the relatively few that have survived.
This is true, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The great bulk of republics that existed in the modern era haven't survived either, enduring a revolution or coup de'ta within the same generation to give way to another republic.

And that cycle definitely tells us far more about the pros and cons of republics.
  #102  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:45 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,346
Indeed. There are plenty of republics that have failed over time. It's just that we're currently in an age where republics are the default form for a fresh state. Creating monarchies is out of vogue.

Turn the clock back a century and a half and the opposite was true.

We have no guarantee that the future brings inevitable tendency to more republicanism. Monarchies may return to vogue, or some new, entirely novel way of organising a state may be devised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #103  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:36 PM
Grim Render is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
This is true, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The great bulk of republics that existed in the modern era haven't survived either, enduring a revolution or coup de'ta within the same generation to give way to another republic.

And that cycle definitely tells us far more about the pros and cons of republics.
I suppose it would be possible to crunch the numbers, see how many republics have gone under compared to monarchies in say, the last century. And adjust for numbers started and maybe continent.

You'd need a strong knowledge of history or time on your hands though.
  #104  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:00 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I suppose it would be possible to crunch the numbers, see how many republics have gone under compared to monarchies in say, the last century. And adjust for numbers started and maybe continent.

You'd need a strong knowledge of history or time on your hands though.
You'd also have to draw your definitions carefully. How many republics have ruled what is now Pakistan since the end of the Raj, for example? Do you count the various various coups and military regimes as "new" or no?
  #105  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:53 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I suppose it would be possible to crunch the numbers, see how many republics have gone under compared to monarchies in say, the last century. And adjust for numbers started and maybe continent.

You'd need a strong knowledge of history or time on your hands though.
Not at all.
Three searches on Wikipedia. 15 minutes to prepare the post.

56 countries in the world in 1900

31 Monarchs in the world in 1900


Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
You'd also have to draw your definitions carefully.
Lets take as a crude base point that a countries government continues when executive authority it is passed on by hereditary succession, appointed successor, agreed/negotiated successor or popularly elected successor i.e. a peaceful (not necessarily cordial) transition of power and fails if there are tanks, guns and coups d'etat involved.

List of coups d'état and coup attempts by country

There are more successful coups d'état in "republics" listed in that cite than there were monarchies existing in 1900 before you get past countries whose name starts with "A".

130 counties, overwhelmingly republics, have had coups d'état since 1900. Not all succeeded, but most have had at least one successful coup and some are into double figures.

You can tweak the definitions howsoever you see fit but the number of failed republics is an order of magnitude greater than the number of failed monarchies.
  #106  
Old 06-15-2019, 01:03 AM
Go_Arachnid_Laser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Franco used it to turn Spain into a functioning democracy instead of continuing a dictatorship.
Not at all, Franco (well, most of his handlers, Franco was pretty far gone by then) wanted Juan Carlos to continue the "one party" system. Luckily, the tides of history prevailed there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Franco should be a great hero in Spain..
Yeaaaaahhh... You go live in a repressive dictatorship if you want that. Not for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
He kept Spain from disintegrating into a plethora of small nations
Gasp! S-small n- n- n- nations?!?! That sounds terrible. Clearly 40 years of dictatorship were worth it, so we can avoid such horror!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
from going Commie
Imagine that! Becoming a country controlled with an iron hand by a repressive State, having no freedom or rights. Phew! Luckily we dodged that bullet, eh?

Look, I'll take the "possibility" of Spain devolving into a commie dictatorship over the "certainty" of Spain becoming a Nationalcatholic one. Don't see that much difference either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
kept Spain out of WW2.
Nah, the Civil War leaving everything in ruins and needing stabilization kept us out of WWII. Even though Franco really, really wanted to join Hitler. Me, I'd take there being no Civil War and then the Republic joining WWII (on the Allies side) over the alternative in a heartbeat.

Last edited by Go_Arachnid_Laser; 06-15-2019 at 01:03 AM.
  #107  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:32 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 167
The point of modern constitutional monarchy is to set certain primary functions of state outside of electoral politics. It is a mistake, however, to imagine that the monarchy is not subject to democratic control.

The essential goal of any monarchy is to stay in position. Movements, parties, and politicians can gain power, lose it, and bounce back in the space of a few years. Monarchs and monarchies, once fallen, rarely recover.

And the key to staying in position? Popularity. Long term, broad based, and as far removed as possible from the turbulence of current events. A monarchy must think always in decades, training each new generation in how not to fuck up the sweet racket they've got going.

Our current monarch has proven herself a master of the art. There is nobody of political significance who's anywhere near her in terms of popular confidence and support. And while her children were a bit of a mess, her grandchildren look much more promising. Like her, they've taken lessons from Diana about how to use the media to bolster their popular support.

Is it good to have a monarchy? Yes, if it works like this. The Queen represents the nation better than any elected leader could. At this point, the monarchy is probably the most functional part of our constitutional settlement.
  #108  
Old Yesterday, 05:56 AM
Grim Render is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs McGinty View Post
A monarchy must think always in decades, training each new generation in how not to fuck up the sweet racket they've got going.
Well... about that. I've been in a position to see the inside workings a bit when in the armed forces. And its not what I would call a sweet racket at all. Royal families are very rarely poor on their own resources, belonging as they do to families that have been on top for generations or centuries. They could easily live the lives of the idle rich if not for their positions. Or, as they sometimes muse wistfully, do some normal job.

Instead they are on call 24/7 with little vacation time and no pension age, always in the public eye with the papers sniffing around for every bit of scandal. They have to live in drafty, ancient buildings. And getting funds for renovations can be a struggle (Our current monarch had some strong words about being required to live in a old dwelling he did not own with no-one willing to properly renovate it.) Things we take for granted having power over in our own lives like getting to pick the person we marry were years of struggle for him.

There is no real gain to it asides from he satisfaction of a duty done well. Little to no power, no real money compared to what they got. It is a terrible job all over, and no-one asked the current generation if they wanted it, they've just been raised to it.
  #109  
Old Today, 08:30 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Not at all.
Three searches on Wikipedia. 15 minutes to prepare the post.

56 countries in the world in 1900
There were a lot more than 56 countries in the world in 1900, as the most cursory glance at that list reveals. The fact some of them were not wholly independent doesn't mean they weren't countries. In 1900, Australia, South Africa, Canada and Algeria were unquestionably countries, even if they were not wholly independent states.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #110  
Old Today, 12:06 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Well... about that. I've been in a position to see the inside workings a bit when in the armed forces. And its not what I would call a sweet racket at all. Royal families are very rarely poor on their own resources, belonging as they do to families that have been on top for generations or centuries. They could easily live the lives of the idle rich if not for their positions. Or, as they sometimes muse wistfully, do some normal job.

Instead they are on call 24/7 with little vacation time and no pension age, always in the public eye with the papers sniffing around for every bit of scandal. They have to live in drafty, ancient buildings. And getting funds for renovations can be a struggle (Our current monarch had some strong words about being required to live in a old dwelling he did not own with no-one willing to properly renovate it.) Things we take for granted having power over in our own lives like getting to pick the person we marry were years of struggle for him.

There is no real gain to it asides from he satisfaction of a duty done well. Little to no power, no real money compared to what they got. It is a terrible job all over, and no-one asked the current generation if they wanted it, they've just been raised to it.
If it's really as bad as you say, then your monarchy is built on shaky foundations indeed. Got to keep the racket sweet for the royals, or you're just asking for trouble.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017