Hmm, you could have those both an absolute leader and the need for a bloody revolution with a republic. North Korea is a republic, as is Zimbabwe, and their leaders don’t really take much notice of ballot boxes.
The important thing to have if you want an accountable government is democratic representation, and you can have that in both monarchies and republics. If the UK, or Canada for that matter, wanted to be rid of the Monarchy it would simply take an Act of Parliament, no blood necessary. It would be foolish for a government to commit to doing that without popular support, but it could. Another Act of Parliament could, of course, restore the Monarchy.
I’m very slightly pro-monarchy in the UK, but it is only because I don’t think I could stand to live in the RofGB&NI under President Boris. I think the OP is misguided, and I’m very glad that their opinions on monarchy are fringe and not mainstream.
Szlater – good point. Still, I’m talking about his admiration of the Shah, and how he seemed to believe that was preferable to a republic. Not necessarily. I wouldn’t neccesarily be opposed to a living under a system like the UK, where you have a constitutional monarchy. I just wouldn’t call myself a monarchist. More like anti-dictatorship. The OP seems to like monarchs, period.
I wonder how the OP feels about deposed royal families – in one case, Simon of Bulgaria ended up becoming prime minister of his country.
Weeping Wyvern speaks about “the blood of kings”, but one interesting factor is that in the past, there were problems with too little of that blood being spread around. Because royalty could only marry royalty, there weren’t too many to choose from, so people would marry their relatives. Then you ended up with someone like poor Charles II.
Or, if there were defective genes in one family, chances were it would spread to others – the famous case being hemophilia in Queen Victoria’s family. (Contrary to popular belief, hemophilia was not caused, by inbreeding, but because Victoria had such a large family, and many of them married into the various European dynasties, the condition ended up spreading. It would play a large role in the downfall of the Romanov dynasty)
Keep in mind too that not ALL monarchs had royal blood – the Serbian royals are the descendents of pig farmers.
Like I said, I find royalty a fascinating subject. I love reading about various royals throughout history. But I’m not necessarily in favor of a dynasty here in the U.S.
Refusing assent to the will of the people as expressed by the national legislature would spell the end of the monarchy and the first day of the Republic of Great Britain.
I have some sympathy for OP, at least if “hereditary monarchy with more than figurehead power” is modified to include “yet much less than absolute power.”
There are many relatively recent examples where revolution against a monarchy led to worse governance. I think many would agree that the strong, albeit constitutionally limited, monarchy of Thailand has helped that country to avoid the autocracy seen in Indonesia, Philippines, Burma.
I suspect that Kings bred from a long line of rulers may have a sense of tradition and respect for their ancestors that makes them more likely to be benevolent than an upstart dictator is likely to be. For that reason, it may be hard to start a worthy dynasty in a country without one(*). Even if Oprah would be a good Monarch for America, there’s little reason to think her child or grandchild would also be.
(* - Some European countries did select a foreign dynast to be their King. Greece chose a Prince of Denmark as their King in 1863. In 1886 Bulgaria offered its thrones to several European Princes, eventually settling for a cousin of the King of Portugal with only loose ties to Bulgaria.)
I propose we crown an emperor. Half-a-dozen to a dozen regions will get kings (Hawaii’s kingdom will be restored). States will get dukes. Counties will get counts. Municipalities will get barons.
Titles will carry absolutely no political power, nor legal authority. They will be auctioned off to raise money for the government:
Sorry, I meant, why haven’t you moved. To a country with a monarch, since you seem to feel so strongly about it.
And I don’t think it’s “degrading” at all, considering that he felt very determined to serve his country. That’s what a true monarch SHOULD be concerned with – his nation, not his status. Otherwise, he’s (or she), is not really fit to rule.
Did you know that at one time, at least before they were conquered by Russia, Poland elected its monarch?
[QUOTE=Szlater]
The important thing to have to have if you want an accountable government is democratic representation, and you can have that in both monarchies and republics. If the UK, or Canada for that matter, wanted to be rid of the Monarchy it would simply take an Act of Parliament, no blood necessary.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Weeping Wyvern]
Her Majesty would have to give Royal Assent to said Act of Parliament, of course…
[/QUOTE]
Neither statement is correct for Canada.
Under the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982, any change to “the office of the Queen” requires unanimous consent from the federal House of Commons and Senate, and all of the provincial Legislative Assemblies, by way of resolution.
As well, since the amendments are made by resolution, and not by Acts, the Queen does not have any role in constitutional amendments and does not have to give her assent to any constitutional amendment.
Yes, thar’s right - since she is an integral part of the federal Parliament and all 10 provincial Legislatures, all 11 need to agree. In the UK, it’s just the one Parliament (I don’t think either of the devolved legislatures in Wales or Scotland have the authority to alter the monarchical principle.)
Sadly, no. Although he was absent from SF for several years before becoming emperor. Perhaps there was a tragic romance during that time.
To those wondering how to choose a ruler, I say that Emperor Norton did it right. He simply proclaimed himself emperor and started issuing proclamations and currency. That’s the American way.
Haha well I would certainly love to move to England, were some kind benefactor willing to supply necessary funding.
There’s truly an important place for humility among royalty. Noble birth is no excuse for acting like a snob. But I view running for elections as the very opposite of humility, since democracy basically consists of candidates trying to outboast each other.
Indeed; as does the Vatican today. But those are rather different sorts of elections.
Well it matters in the very practical sense of that unhappy populations are likely to revolt.
That seems to be what Mormons believe. But as for me, I draw a sharp distinction between what God permits and what He ordains. Civil government taken as a whole is certainly ordained of God. And the U.S. government was recognized as the legitimate authority in the Colonies by George III in the Treaty of Paris in 1783, so I now have an obligation to obey it. But that doesn’t change the fact that the original act of rebellion in 1775 was odious sacrilege.
Heh. Have you read Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly? His Majesty’s attitude and policies toward the colonies would be an embarrassment to any high school civics class, even counting the bored kids. “Sacrilege” against such stupidity, selfishness, and bullying is a badge of honor, sir, and you might want to think twice before tarring your God with responsibility for the King’s side.
I’m an atheist, but fairly familiar with the Bible. Where do you find anything supporting monarchy there? The most relevant quote I can remember is when Jesus says that stuff about giving the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, which doesn’t give the impression that he was all that interested in secular government.
George III might have been the stupidist and selfish politician alive, and it wouldn’t make a difference. Since he was not commanding the Colonists to do anything intrinsically evil, the “We must obey God rather than man” loophole to Romans 13 does not apply.
To begin with, there can be no doubt that God is himself a monarch. He is called “King” and “Lord” countless times in both Testaments. But the Bible calls for human monarchs as well, in addition to the heavenly one. For how can Christ, titled “King of kings and Lord of lords” (I Tim. 6:15, Rev. 17: 14), be the “King of kings” without lesser kings over which to reign? Lest any suppose that the title is simply a way to demonstrate Christ’s superiority over earthly rulers, without implying they are part of his plan, look at this passage from the Revelation to St. John the Divine:
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Now I suppose the objection could be raised that while God does indeed establish civil government among men, he does not demand any particular form of this government, in which case the many references to kings exist simply because they were the commonest type of ruler in the prevailing cultures in the time. And in fact the execrable heathen traitor Thomas Paine claimed in his woefully-misnamed pamphlet *Common Sense *that the institution of monarchy is contrary to the scriptures (scriptures in which he himself disbelieved), using the example of the prophet Samuel’s warnings against the Israelites’ call for Saul to reign as king.
But Paine can be disproved on many counts. First of all, despite Samuel’s misgivings, God did eventually command him to “Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king” (I Sam. 8:22), which could never have happened were monarchy evil in itself. And if you look back to the Torah, you will see very specific instructions for the duties of the Hebrew king whom God foresaw would one day rule (Deut. 17: 14-20). However I think the greatest example of God’s support of monarchy, which shows that said support by no means ended with the Old Testament, comes from the human lineage of Christ. Paine says in Common Sense that “the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God’s own heart” - but this is a vile lie. In the Gospel according to St. Luke we see the angel Gabriel addressing the Blessed Virgin with these words:
*
“Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”*
The divine regime is not merely a monarchical system, but in particular a *hereditary * one. Christ is King because (as God) he is the Son of the Almighty Father, and also because (as man) he is the lawful heir of the Royal House of David. Why should Christians emulate any lesser system in their government?
