Monarchy? Good or Bad??

[EdwardTking]

Getting rid of your monarchy. Look at the history!


Britain: Immediately replaced by Oliver Cromwell
War War (France & Ireland)

China: A generation later Replaced by Shank Hai Shek
civil war and then Mao Tse Tung
Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution:
Lots of Chinese dead

France: A few years later Replaced by Napoleon:
War War War: Lots of French Dead

Germany: A few years later Replaced by Hitler:
War War War: Lots of German Dead

Iraq: A few years later replaced by S Hussein
War War War: Lots of Iraqi dead

Ireland: A few years later civil war

Libya: A few years later Colonel Gadaffi

Russia: A few years later Replaced by Stalin
Purge Purge: Lots of Russian Dead

S. Africa: Apartheid, near civil war & racial purges.

USA: A century of slavery and then Civil War.


Keep your monarch and meaningful consultative
or elected bodies?

Who remembers the Australian civil war, the
Canadian civil war, the Danish civil war,
the New Zealand civil war, the Saudi Arabian,
the Thai civil war?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Ozz
Who was that?, We can make an opening for them in Canada
if your done with them. The G.G. is the Queen's representive,
you would have had a sober wimpy president (Republic) without the grace of Her Imperial Majesty.

It was Sir John "Wan" Kerr, and he is long dead. I'd like to think he died horribly, with a spike up his nethers, but such justice is not frequent in our modern age. We need a proper Governor General - not a communist judge, nor a Brisbane Lions-supporting priest. Someone aristocratic, arrogant, violent and evil, but with impeccable table manners and a mastery of parlour games.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Someone aristocratic, arrogant, violent and evil, but with impeccable table manners and a mastery of parlour games.

Been working on your table manners have you Simon?

 

[MrPresident]

USA: A century of slavery and then Civil War.

Are you blaming slavery and civil war on the fact that America had no monarchy. Are you ignoring the fact that slavery was started during British rule of America and that slavery was a major factor in causing the civil war.

Britain: Immediately replaced by Oliver Cromwell, War War (France & Ireland)

So there has been no war during the time Britain had a monarchy?

Germany: A few years later Replaced by Hitler: War War War: Lots of German Dead

Wasn't the First World War during the time Germany has the Kasier?

Russia: A few years later Replaced by Stalin Purge Purge: Lots of Russian Dead

Stalin and Tzar Alexander II used exactly the same methods. They were just as bad as each other. The Russian performance during WWI can easily be blamed on the Tzar. How about the centuries of Serfdom that kept the Russian peasantry in practical slavery and hindered the growth of Russia. Or did you conviently forget about this?

 

[EdwardTking]

Mr President

My view:

“Keep your monarch and meaningful
consultative or elected bodies?”

is in favour of a constitutional, not an absolute, monarchy.

1. “Wasn't the First World War during the time Germany had the Kaiser?”

True, and furthermore the Russians had a Tsar and the Austro-Hungarians had an Emperor. Although Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia all claimed to have some form of parliamentary equivalent bodies; what became clear was that these were NOT “meaningful consultative or elected bodies”.

2. “So there has been no war during the time Britain had a monarchy?”

Lots of wars. However there has been no major civil war since the restoration of Charles 2; i.e. Britain “Kept its monarch and meaningful consultative or elected bodies”.

There have been no major wars initiated by Britain against other countries since then.

[In this respect I don’t regard the Jacobite rebellions as a major civil war. It was an argument as to who should be King in which few English took part; although many Scottish people were involved.]

3. "Are you blaming slavery and civil war on the fact that America had no monarchy?"

Slavery was NOT legal in Britain (since Roman times). A monarch has subjects and is jealous of his subjects owning other subjects (i.e. slavery) as that replaces the relationship between the monarch and those otherwise subjects who are slaves. As such the existence of slavery in the USA was an anomaly and reflected the lack of monarchial control over the states in the first place. The more clear cut and quite disgraceful legalisation of slavery in the West Indies arose because the King’s representatives in the West Indies were reluctant to enforce slave owners so called rights; so the slave owners bribed the establishment to enact slavery laws.

A significant proportion of the slave owners were the younger sons of aristocrats; their elder brothers inherited the estates with indentured servants; so to compensate themselves they became new world slave owners.

I think that Republics are more prone to slavery than many of their proponents realise. Consider the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, USA and what about the Boers who undertake their great trek to establish the Orange Free State republic because the British had decided to abolish slavery?

4. "Are you ignoring the fact that slavery was started during British rule of America and"

Was there ever real “British rule of America”. The states had become quasi independent long before the American War of Independence. Pilgrim Fathers went in Mayflower because they wanted to rule themselves.

5. "that slavery was a major factor in causing the civil war".

Re (5) Yes; I fully agree that slavery was a major factor in causing the US civil war.

6 “Stalin and Tzar Alexander II used exactly the same methods. They were just as bad as each other. The Russian performance during WWI can easily be blamed on the Tzar. How about the centuries of Serfdom that kept the Russian peasantry in practical slavery and hindered the growth of Russia. Or did you conveniently forget about this?”

The Tsars were an absolute monarchy.
There were no “meaningful consultative or elected bodies”.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
True, and furthermore the Russians had a Tsar and the Austro-Hungarians had an Emperor. Although Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia all claimed to have some form of parliamentary equivalent bodies; what became clear was that these were NOT “meaningful consultative or elected bodies”.

I think you've lost it a bit there.

Russia, up until fairly recently had never really exprienced democracy in the sense that we know it, yes.

However, Germany and Austria did make a rather decent transition to parliamentary democracy post-WW1.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Lots of wars. However there has been no major civil war since the restoration of Charles 2; i.e. Britain “Kept its monarch and meaningful consultative or elected bodies”.

Precisely.

The reason being, of course, was that the monarchy as an institution got a tremendous kick up it's backside from the realisation that the people were not going to stand for excessive conservatism and a monarch that was there simply to defend aristocratic intrests as opposed to governing for the nation's intrests.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
There have been no major wars initiated by Britain against other countries since then.

See above ^

Also, I don't think that's entirely true.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
The Tsars were an absolute monarchy.

Regarding your little 'history', thing:

Monarchies have been often replaced by rather unpleasant regimes because of monarchical mismanagement: The poor adminstration of the country by the monarch(s) over an often continued period leads to a revolution by the people, which leads to a power vacuum, which leads to nasty people taking power. You get the picture.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Germany: A few years later Replaced by Hitler:

No.

Germany had a viable parliamentary system for over 10 years after WW1. granted, it was a horribly designed, often poorly working system, but it was there.

What really gave Hitler the chance to succeed was the weakining of the parliamentary system by the old elite such as Hindenburg (Who, surprise, surprise, were Kaiser-day relics) who effectively destroyed the parliamentary system after 1930 and imposed a sort of semi-autocratic government between then and Hitler taking power in 1933.

And of course the fact that German voters were voting for non-democratic parties en-masse may have had something to do with it, let us not forget.

You cannot blame the loss of the monarchy in Germany for the rise of Hitler. Perhaps if the elite hadn't started WW1 in the first place...

Also, you seem to forget that Cromwell was very sucessful militarily, heh. Whatever you think of his ethos, he was a rather good commander.

As for Russia, France etc, see my point above about power vacums.

You do seem to have a rather decent graps of some history, but you have overtly-simplified to a horrible degree some other areas.

btw, I am totally opposed to the monarchy. Arf with their heads.

 

[MrPresident]

Keep your monarch and meaningful consultative or elected bodies?”

Why both?

A monarch has subjects and is jealous of his subjects owning other subjects (i.e. slavery)

Wasn't the Spanish Empire built on the use of slavery, also the same for the Portugase. A slave is not a subject of its master it is a slave. Also the Britain may not have made slavery legal but that didn't stop it becoming rich off of the trade.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


It was Sir John "Wan" Kerr, and he is long dead. I'd like to think he died horribly, with a spike up his nethers, but such justice is not frequent in our modern age. We need a proper Governor General - not a communist judge, nor a Brisbane Lions-supporting priest. Someone aristocratic, arrogant, violent and evil, but with impeccable table manners and a mastery of parlour games.

Being dead, he's still better than what we got now.