Monarchist Tropers

God save the Queen and all of her followers.

I couldn't find any other topic from this point of view so I made one myself. I am sick of being told Monarchism 'isn't viable' in this modern age, how could a system that has lasted two Milena be useless!

Royals don't play a meaningful role in modern society, and the idea of handing wealth and power to a handful of families we've arbitrarily decided are super duper special is revolting to many people.

I mean, I'm just a filthy yank. I don't mean to tell you how to feel and God knows I have no beef with any kings or queens or princes or princesses, per se. This is just why I think people are souring on the idea of a monarchy.

As someone who's in a sort of midpoint between the two viewpoints above (monarchist and anti-monarchist), I'd say I can see the appeal of monarchy in several ways, but I think in this day and age it is only useful in countries that already have monarchs or at least a monarchic tradition.

A monarch can have its functions. Queen Elizabeth works a excellent game out of making PR her bread and butter, and several Prime Ministers have mentioned that having someone with as much experience as her (and raised from birth to the job) makes her a invaluable political adviser.

In the post WWI age we have had a few interesting examples of monarchy working. King George VI's advices and relationship with Winston Churchill are well recorded, as is his effort in raising morale among the British people in this time of strife, so he shows a monarch (serving as a symbol of hope to the people and a experienced adviser above party lines to politicians) being useful.

You also have King Juan Carlos I of Spain, who played a key (perhaps the most important, even) role in restoring the Spanish democracy after Francisco Franco. So he is an example of the monarch as a last-ditch defense against tyranny (paradoxically).

Monarchs are a dicey proposition, but they have their uses.

@Great Kaiser Nui: I'm no monarchist so I'm not going to debate the subject, would go against the purpose of Covens, but I just want to point out the blatant appeal to tradition. Just because something has been around for a long time, doesn't mean it is good/can't be replaced with something better.

Not a monarchist here, but no longer an anti-monarchist for some time now.

When and where royals choose to support liberal democracy in their country while offering some continuity with tradition, they may spare the pains of revolution and even civil war.
It’s only when they cling to autocratic power and whatever divine right and other foolishness that they are a menace to the country and need to be removed.

I have much admiration for Juan Carlos I of Spain for greatly contributing to opposing the Fascist coup of the early ’80s, as well as the lesser known Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.
The latter was the king who brought modern democracy in the ’60s including civil and political rights to women, and for some ten years Afghanistan was more advanced than any of its neighbours and many others beyond.

edited 1st Mar '18 2:25:01 PM by AlityrosThePhilosopher

I think modern monarchs (in the West at least) are uniquely 'sanitized' compared to most monarchs who have existed throughout history in that they are largely symbolic and could easily be overthrown by the democratic government that actually runs the country. And as such I'm largely ok with the British Royal Family, since they do generally take their duties and service to the country very seriously, and do a lot of good.

I don't believe the argument that she's somehow too powerful since the Royal Forces swear allegiance to the crown and not to state or parliament, since I don't see the country ever reverting to the absolute monarchy style of government returning anytime soon, and I think she is constitutionally (as a result) the best check against a tyrannical government abusing parliamentary sovereignty to turn the UK into an authoritarian state. Plus, if she ever pulled that trick, it would be the English Civil War 2, which no-one wants.

Now then, I oppose them being my monarch on the grounds that I'm a Welsh nationalist and my monarchs were are killed centuries ago, but if I was an Englishman, I'd be ok with calling old Lizzy the Queen. I think republicanism in the UK is a lost cause for now.

But yeah, on the whole I'm ok with constitutional monarchies, since their powers are by definition limited and more often than not basically symbolic, but absolute monarchies as a system of government is just playing Russian roulette with entire nations at stake. Unreliable of producing a good ruler at best, and the real possibility of an extremely dangerous despot gaining complete control at worst. (That said, it should be noted there are and have been absolute monarchs who have been forces of good in their lands, but that doesn't change that it's not a great system of choosing leaders.)

edited 4th Jun '18 2:57:55 AM by GoldenKaos

The good thing about a constitutional monarchy is that there is no worry of the Head of State being swayed by donors and lobbyists. Just look what is happening in the US - aside from all his other enormous flaws, Trump originally was in favour of gun control, then the NRA threw money at him, and now he's all in favour of Guns 4 All.

As if the monarchy couldn't be swayed by lobbyists. Or there isn't another government body who actually makes the laws that could be swayed.

NO! Monarchy has not worked, at least not in any sense preferable for civilians. Ruling monarchs are historically crappy towards peasants and extremely brutal towards dissent. And that's not even going into civil rights issue. I shudder to think living in a country where only white people can rule.

BTW 2 millenia? White people didn't invent monarchy.

Edited by RAlexa21th on Feb 14th 2019 at 10:07:18 AM

I find myself becoming more and more of a monarchist or something like that with each passing day.

Would you consider Demarchism a form of Monarchism?

Ew. No thank you.