Monarchy and the "general solution"

[Tahuti]

The USA recently pulled through a succession crisis with no aristocratic head of state and, not only no total war, but no war at all. What do you make of that?

Succession crises do not need to be violent in general, though when they are, the violence should be as limited as possible.

How is the aristocracy constituted in your polity? (since the monarch is drawn from that class) Is it hereditary? In this day and age, it might be a hard sell to get your underclasses to believe that there is intrinsically better blood. Or is it open? More of a meritocracy?

Aristocracy is for most hereditary, though exceptional commoners should be raised into the nobility as well. The best monarchies are elective ones, meaning that the aristocracy should elect monarchs. Most hereditary monarchies in Europe were originally elective monarchies, though it gradually bastardised into hereditary monarchies as the son was usually elected in practice.

And how much and what kinds actual power within the governance system does your monarch need to possess in order to exert this positive influence you say he'll have: of making the democratically elected legislature less susceptible to popular pressure?

At the very least, having a royal head of state that assents laws legitimises political decisions that may otherwise have been impopular. Though I favour a strong monarchy in which monarchies theoretically have unlimited powers. Theoretically, as monarchs will have an interest to delegate tasks to the aristocracy along regional lines. This allows for more personal governance. Rulers can be directly appealed by individuals.

 

[bhsup]

The USA recently pulled through a succession crisis with no aristocratic head of state and, not only no total war, but no war at all. What do you make of that?

We did? When?! I really don't think we could have a crisis over succession over here as it is clearly spelled out what happens in the Constitution and via the line of succession that Congress passed that kicks in after the Veep. It's quite orderly and automatic.

That said... what succession crisis did we have?

EDIT: Do you mean secession?? Even then, though, not sure what crisis we had in that regard either.

 

[Senethro]

its like those evangelical christian women who jet around the us earning loads on the lecture circuit advocating "family values" decriminalization of spousal rape and end to womens suffrage

bunch of irony deficient weirdoes

who would be a dog who pines for a master or a slave romanticising the shackle

 

[Snorrius]

its like those evangelical christian women who jet around the us earning loads on the lecture circuit advocating "family values" decriminalization of spousal rape and end to womens suffrage

Actually it is you who quite aggressively preaches republican superstitions. Calm down, we will get to the problem of universal suffrage too.

 

[Senethro]

"please calm down, you are being impolite even though i am trying to tell you how i have decided you should have no political rights"

my general solution to monarchy is to hang them from the lamp posts

"oh how nasty and violent, see what these leftists are like"

autocracies are violence because they require the continual threat of force you daft prick

Moderator Action: Please stay civil
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We did? When?! I really don't think we could have a crisis over succession over here as it is clearly spelled out what happens in the Constitution and via the line of succession that Congress passed that kicks in after the Veep. It's quite orderly and automatic.

That said... what succession crisis did we have?

EDIT: Do you mean secession?? Even then, though, not sure what crisis we had in that regard either.

Fairly sure the reference is to the disputed election of 2000...which as you say was handled in a very orderly fashion without having any monarchy to fall back on.

 

[Tahuti]

Actually it is you who quite aggressively preaches republican superstitions. Calm down, we will get to the problem of universal suffrage too.

Nah, ignore the flamers, we already spent way too much time on them.

Moderator Action: insulting
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gori the Grey]

Aristocracy is for most hereditary,

Well, that strikes me as impracticable, then. You’re not going to get buy in from the populace at large for the notion that some people are inherently better than others. You’re not getting the “all men are created equal” toothpaste back in the tube. It’s become axiomatic for humanity at large. Whatever stability you think aristocracy could impart, the unwashed are just going to have to find their way to do without.

Senethro's reaction gives you some sense for how the idea will go over!

 

[Senethro]

Nah, ignore the flamers, we already spent way too much time on them.

at least the useless and hopelessly naive college communists start from a position of high ideals! wanting more equality is pretty commendable whereas you are openly stating you want more inequality and less popular influence on government

here we are nearly 100 years on to the day when one of the largest wars in history finally broke out in large part due to a bunch of kings, half of whom were cousins, driving nations towards disaster

and we have some fanboy with a pseudonym invoking one of their titles saying monarchies are more peaceful

what can be said?

 

[Phrossack]

We did? When?! I really don't think we could have a crisis over succession over here as it is clearly spelled out what happens in the Constitution and via the line of succession that Congress passed that kicks in after the Veep. It's quite orderly and automatic.

That said... what succession crisis did we have?

EDIT: Do you mean secession?? Even then, though, not sure what crisis we had in that regard either.

Most likely he means the last election. The US has gone through nearly 240 years with only one violent dispute over succession (and secession), which kinda belies the whole "republics are inherently unstable" thing.

 

[Tahuti]

Most likely he means the last election. The US has gone through nearly 240 years with only one violent dispute over succession (and secession), which kinda belies the whole "republics are inherently unstable" thing.

Yet the American Civil War was extremely violent. As was the Spanish Civil war. Was there anything like it in the heydays of monarchies? I retract the argument that monarchist succession wars are less violent than democratic counterparts if you can show me one.

 

[bhsup]

Well, there was that time some Frenchies lost their heads. Oh, and Charles got a close shave too.

 

[Traitorfish]

Plus there was that whole 1914-1918 business, which ended with several major monarchies tearing themselves apart.

 

[bhsup]

Is that really down to monarchies, though, or rather just your typical European bloodbath that they loved to throw every 40 years or so?

 

[Snorrius]

Plus there was that whole 1914-1918 business, which ended with several major monarchies tearing themselves apart.

Less-monarchy featured rise of totalitarian states, WW2, bloody de-colonization, mumerous civil wars, coup d'Etats etc. And this business was not about succession crises or civil wars.

 

[Phrossack]

Yet the American Civil War was extremely violent. As was the Spanish Civil war. Was there anything like it in the heydays of monarchies? I retract the argument that monarchist succession wars are less violent than democratic counterparts if you can show me one.

War of the Spanish Succession. War of the Austrian Succession. War of the P0l!$h Succession. There were a lot of wars over succession, and while these particular squabbles may have been less violent than the ACW, that's more because of differences in strategy, weapons, tactics, and scale than something that magically makes republicans more bloodthirsty than monarchists.

I mean, if you're going to lay the blame for every bad thing that happens in a democratic country on its political system, then monarchy is responsible for virtually all wars in Europe prior to 1919.

Of course, not all of these wars were caused solely or mainly by monarchism. Correlation isn't necessarily causation. But some wars, like the Wars of the X Succession, were directly caused, at least in part, by monarchism. To elaborate, both the German Peasants' Revolt and the French Revolution were largely triggered by commoner frustration with the systematized, codified oppression of them by the nobility, monarchy, and clergy. So were most peasant revolts in Europe in the Middle Ages through to the 18th or 19th century. And wars involving republics aren't necessarily because commoners got to vote. The ACW, for example, probably would have happened if America were a monarchy and a king (wrongly) suspected of wanting to end slavery had succeeded to the throne.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is that really down to monarchies, though, or rather just your typical European bloodbath that they loved to throw every 40 years or so?

Well, Kaiserguard already established that correlation is iron-clad, indisputable, God-given proof of causation (but only of the causation I want to exist), so it seems self-evident to me.

 

[Senethro]

Yet the American Civil War was extremely violent. As was the Spanish Civil war. Was there anything like it in the heydays of monarchies? I retract the argument that monarchist succession wars are less violent than democratic counterparts if you can show me one.

hey look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_conflicts_in_England

lots of pages lots of categories so many conflicts

rebellions too which are a contesting of soverignty

now im sure you've got those goalposts all greased up and ready to slide so lets remember that many of these occurred pre-gunpowder with 1/10th of the population of the modern country and can look superficially minor

not that war casualties tell anything like the full story given that this is pre-industrial farming and before refridgeration so the food supply is always precarious and the penchant of soldiers for raiding and raping the locals where their army passes means theres a lot of hardship and misery to go round

 

[Snorrius]

"Democracy" and civil wars...

I just leave this here.

 

[Phrossack]

"Democracy" and civil wars...

I just leave this here.

Good luck counting every war that's happened in a monarchy. You'll have to go from the present back to, I dunno, six thousand years ago.