The advantage of a Monarchy

[otago]

Since it seems like you're mainly interested in the monarchy vs. the American system of government, it might interest you to know that our president is addressed as "Mr. President" so as to not inflate his ego to that of a god.

[/QUOTE]

So why Mr President why not just president as we call the PM, prime minister?

 

[metatron]

[...]

 

[timtofly]

Equality through headship. That is a very zealous goal.

Only a human body can pull that one off, and not very efficient as some evolutionist would like to point out.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Also, nobody points out the obvious biological problem with monarchy:

If sustained long enough (Say, over 1500 years, if more), like the European monarchy, there'll be inevitably incest.

Incest leads to birth defects, which eventually leads to incompetence...

 

[timtofly]

The word dy-nasty, sounds about right.

I don't think that a kingdom was supposed to be about just one family. It probably needed to change hands every now and then, to keep it from stagnating.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Also, nobody points out the obvious biological problem with monarchy:

If sustained long enough (Say, over 1500 years, if more), like the European monarchy, there'll be inevitably incest.

Incest leads to birth defects, which eventually leads to incompetence...

After 1,500 years even two people directly descended from the same ancestor are not sufficiently similar, genetically, for a relationship between them to be incest. Bad genetics.

 

[History_Buff]

Also, nobody points out the obvious biological problem with monarchy:

If sustained long enough (Say, over 1500 years, if more), like the European monarchy, there'll be inevitably incest.

Incest leads to birth defects, which eventually leads to incompetence...

They hardly need to limit themselves to marrying only the upper elite. The only reason it was ever done in the first place was to secure political alliances, rather than some quest to preserve the upper class or something.

 

[wolfigor]

Anyway monarchy as political system is almost extinct:

 

[Jehoshua]

That map is a tad innacurate, it conveniently ignores that the United Arab Emirates is a confederation of monarchies, with its president being de-facto the Emir of Abu Dhabi, and its terminology is laughable (a declawed kitten of a constitutional monarch who doesn't use powers technically invested in the monarchical office is still head of state, even if not head of government)

It also misses the fact that Andorra is a diarchy (two monarchs) with the Bishop of Urgell and the President of France (via the King of France) sharing the role as co-princes of that nation, ditches completely Tonga, and doesn't address at all sub-national monarchies (like in Uganda and certain other African nations), and non-officially official monarchies like Samoa (Head of State is the O le Ao o le Malo, styled His Highness, customarily chosen from amongst the four highest chieftainships, but not constitutionally required)

 

[Antilogic]

Gotta love that little cluster of monarchism in the center of the map.

 

[Angst]

I haven't decided on whether I like the Danish monarchy or not.

I've been thinking a lot about abolishing monarchic wealth while having them preserve their power. As is, the Danish king would have to work somewhere "in society" instead of his current exterior function - one cannot argue that he is integrated within the working system, as he is basically fluff to the Danish state. The monarchy doesn't even have constitutional/institutional power at the moment - while our constitution says otherwise, it is only because of its datedness. It'd be interesting to have the monarch be integrated within society's institutions instead of being the only individual semiexcempt from them, and it'd be interesting having the possibility, as an everyman, to befriend the king on a more equal level.

 

[Traitorfish]

4. What is now the UK had a republic. Parliament killed King Charles I and established Cromwell as Lord Protector (effectively President-for-Life). England was mired in war and became a military dictatorship until the Restoration. Not a good record.

Man, why even bring up the historical record if you're just going to take a big steaming dump on it?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

The advantage of monarchy? It can pretend to be a democracy and also have colonies pretending they are in a commonwealth.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not too keen on the Commonwealth that Putin's being trying to establish myself.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

Putin for Tzar 2014!

...You know, to make it official

 

[NedimNapoleon]

What to do with countries whose Dynasty has died out? For example Bosnia...the Kotromanić are all dead (thank you oh dear liberating turk bastards).

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

I'm not too keen on the Commonwealth that Putin's being trying to establish myself.

Except that Putin is not a monarch and the only commonwealth out there is CIS, which is a joke from the start.

Eurasian Union they're "trying to establish" is still a fiction and there's no clear understanding of what it is supposed to be. Of course, you're convinced initiative comes solely from the Russian side and Putin himself, and the whole thing is an "imperialist" ambition to regain former "colonies" under authoritarian rule.

And you'll call it "nonsense!" if I tell you that there are a lot of people from different parts of the former Soviet Union who feel these states belong to each other and are one country and so they consider a good thing any integrative process here, an idea of confederation or even restoration of the Soviet Union itself.

In Kyrgyzstan, for example, officials have been talking of confederation with Russia and Kazakhstan since 00's. Accidentally, the country is prone to all those small and colourful revolutions ever since.

I'd recommend you to watch Born in the USSR (a show similar to the Up series). A good documentary to tickle Westerner's stereotypes. There is this ethnic Kyrgyz guy who deeply regrets USSR had collapsed and says that life there was better, while ethnic Russians in the series are mostly indifferent or even positive.

P.S. Feel free to pervert anything above any way you see fit!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

At which point does Putin cross the line from Monarch in all but name to actual Monarch, in your opinion?

To correct your skewed take on USA#1! and western cultures in general, I suggest:

Spoiler :

It's a very thorough documentary, one for the ages.

No but seriously, how is Putin not on the path to ruler-for-life?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

No but seriously, how is Putin not on the path to ruler-for-life?

Well, such great politicans and leaders of their nation as Urho Kaleva Kekkonen were not. So why Putin should?

And this guy mentioned was the president of Finland for 26 years and its prime minister for another 6.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Did they rearrange civil society to ensure permanent rule for themselves while they were at it? Did they work to destroy or build up democratic processes and institutions during their turn at the helm?

Or they did they work to ensure a virtual one-party, one-leader state and crack down on teh gayz?

Those are questions you should really ponder when referencing other long-term leaders.