Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Chris12 » Sat May 15, 2010 1:36 pm

Some country's in the world like Englend the Netherlands Spain?(dont know about that one) and belgium still have monarchy's.
They have gotten quite some critism in these time because they would cost to much money or are a thing of the past.
What do you think about them huge waste of money or a force that keeps the country togheter.

Personaly i'm a huge suporter of the royal family but thats probably because they have had a great role in our founding and entire history and i'm superr interested in history.

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Kyle » Sat May 15, 2010 3:37 pm

A symbolic monarchy, which is what much of Europe has today, seems kind of pointless if they don't really do anything. On the other hand, a monarchy with real power can be a very dangerous thing to have, especially if it's an absolute or near-absolute monarchy. So to me, monarchies are a bad thing all the way around.

But I wouldn't try to tell other countries what to do, and I guess they do serve a historical, nostalgic, and point of pride for a country.

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Nuclearo » Sat May 15, 2010 8:40 pm

I find the figurehead royal families to be a bit annoying personally. Why are these people gaining attention anyway if they're just the people who theoretically would've ruled the land if democracy was never adopted? It feels to me like keeping an old unused already replaced API class just because programs from the 80's used them, all of which don't work anyway because of some other reason. Are they kept in case the people decide to abandon democracy? I think the leader of that revolution is very likely to take the monarchy anyway.

Real monarchies are a completely different story. Let's say we could rate governments on a scale. A democracy (in today's model) would most likely land around the middle parts of good-bad. It takes very specific elections to go totally good or bad, and even then that assembly would probably be replaced in 4 years time. Monarchies on the other hand can go anywhere between golden age genius to outright failures. The problem is that to switch a monarch you'd need a whole revolution/assassination to take place. So why don't I condemn them and instead give this speech? Because I believe that with a good monarch, one who can run everything right and make the best decisions for his people, monarchies can outright trash any democracy I can think of. Think of 50 consecutive years of the land being run by a benevolent genius who keeps the economy running perfectly, provides excellent living conditions for all his subjects etc. without stealing all of the tax money to acquire solid gold toilet paper. Democracies can't usually provide this. Every some years, especially in unstable countries and eras the government changes while their progress is still ongoing. Projects are dumped in favor of new ones, leaving the people with many beginnings of projects, which means wasted resources still not reaching their desired outcome.
My main concern with a Monarchy is choosing a heir. Leaving the country to someone who's genetically similar to your great beloved genius-king won't always give you the right results. It can become near impossible to choose a person to succeed the throne after the ruler has passed away. We all know from past experience that it isn't wise to let the people choose an absolute ruler.. I myself don't really like democracies, but they're only known ruling system that works with human nature for long times.

tl;dr: Monarchy = won't work on this planet :\
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue May 18, 2010 11:29 am

I agree that monarchies do not work on this planet. The occasional benevolent monarch had done wonders for their countries in olden days, but these days I don't believe any country would ever get such a monarch!
Anyone want to image if George Bush Jr had somehow become the absolute monarch for life in the US? Or Sarah Palin?
Brrrrrr..... I sure don't!!! :shock:
Democracy has its flaws, but at least they can be rectified with some will on the part of the people. IMO an absolute monarchy ruled by an unscrupulous person would be far worse than anything we've EVER seen before.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Nuclearo » Tue May 18, 2010 3:47 pm

I think it's mostly human nature. Most people want to rule for the power and wealth, not to benefit their country. It's the same as why communism didn't work, people need to own their stuff. Well, that and the corrupt leadership, but the leaders are people too ;)
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue May 18, 2010 11:29 pm

Nuclearo wrote:I think it's mostly human nature. Most people want to rule for the power and wealth, not to benefit their country. It's the same as why communism didn't work, people need to own their stuff. Well, that and the corrupt leadership, but the leaders are people too ;)

Sucks, doesn't it? :twisted:
Maybe we'd be better if some aliens took the planet someday and kept us as pets!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Nuclearo » Tue May 18, 2010 11:32 pm

If they look like sexy female humans (or other less conventional attractive form) and like to tie and play dress-up with their pets I'll be first in line to snipe out our military defenses.
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue May 18, 2010 11:36 pm

That reminds me... I have a (Fictional, obviously) story about MY ideal of an alien abduction scenario.
I'll have to post it some day after I finish my story about my cousins.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Boundgal08 » Tue May 18, 2010 11:45 pm

I live In England, and I don't see the Monarchy as a major problem really, maybe people have different opinions for those who don't come from a country that has Monarchy.... The Monarchy is hopefully here to stay for centuries to come.... I cant see the big deal with having or not having monarchy in your country.... its not much of a difference really.
BOUNDGIRL!
Probably the kinkiest woman you will ever meet!
I am a switch, I like to put a man in ropes and also have a man put me in ropes!
I am the 'Queen of bondage'

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed May 19, 2010 12:00 am

Boundgal08 wrote:I live In England, and I don't see the Monarchy as a major problem really, maybe people have different opinions for those who don't come from a country that has Monarchy.... The Monarchy is hopefully here to stay for centuries to come.... I cant see the big deal with having or not having monarchy in your country.... its not much of a difference really.

The type of Monarchy in England as it is now is fine; it's a nod to historical tradition and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if you don't mind the moderate financial cost for its upkeep. Tradition should have a place in any modern society anyway.
I think though not as many people would like it if England (or any modern country) were ruled by another very active monarch like Henry the Eighth. He actually did a lot of good for England but all everyone seems to remember are his six wives. Today's tabloids would either crucify him - or maybe vice versa. Hmmm... now that I think of it, maybe that last part wouldn't be so bad. :twisted: Someone like Henry Eighth would probably get things DONE, anyway. But would that be for the best of ALL OF US?
I don't know...
:geek:
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Chris12 » Wed May 19, 2010 6:33 am

Actually a monarchy is cheaper then having a president.

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Chris12 » Wed May 19, 2010 6:39 am

Jason Toddman wrote:
Boundgal08 wrote:I live In England, and I don't see the Monarchy as a major problem really, maybe people have different opinions for those who don't come from a country that has Monarchy.... The Monarchy is hopefully here to stay for centuries to come.... I cant see the big deal with having or not having monarchy in your country.... its not much of a difference really.

I think though not as many people would like it if England (or any modern country) were ruled by another very active monarch like Henry the Eighth. He actually did a lot of good for England but all everyone seems to remember are his six wives. Today's tabloids would either crucify him - or maybe vice versa. Hmmm... now that I think of it, maybe that last part wouldn't be so bad. :twisted: Someone like Henry Eighth would probably get things DONE, anyway. But would that be for the best of ALL OF US?
I don't know...
:geek:



Many good things about historical people are overshadowed by their bad qualities.
The only people who do not get this treatment are either national heroes or the guy who founded the nation but those people will have their bad actions and qualities overshadowed by their good qualities.

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed May 19, 2010 7:10 am

Chris12 wrote:
Jason Toddman wrote:
Boundgal08 wrote:I live In England, and I don't see the Monarchy as a major problem really, maybe people have different opinions for those who don't come from a country that has Monarchy.... The Monarchy is hopefully here to stay for centuries to come.... I cant see the big deal with having or not having monarchy in your country.... its not much of a difference really.

I think though not as many people would like it if England (or any modern country) were ruled by another very active monarch like Henry the Eighth. He actually did a lot of good for England but all everyone seems to remember are his six wives. Today's tabloids would either crucify him - or maybe vice versa. Hmmm... now that I think of it, maybe that last part wouldn't be so bad. :twisted: Someone like Henry Eighth would probably get things DONE, anyway. But would that be for the best of ALL OF US?
I don't know...
:geek:



Many good things about historical people are overshadowed by their bad qualities.
The only people who do not get this treatment are either national heroes or the guy who founded the nation but those people will have their bad actions and qualities overshadowed by their good qualities.

Quite true. Look at King David in the Bible. He was more ruthless than Henry the Eighth ever was! Even got his best friend killed in battle so he could take the poor guy's wife: a scheme worthy of Lex Luthor from Smallville! Even King Henry at his meanest would've probably drawn the line at THAT! Lots of other examples too. Power certainly corrupted King Davidm, but because the priests were all on his side, the story got glossed over... whereas King Henry and the Catholic Church were so much at odds that he kicked the Catholic leadership out of English religious life and created the Church of England (which was one of his more notable decisions good or bad but helped worsen his notoriety).
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Chris12 » Wed May 19, 2010 11:53 am

Its also pretty funny what they did to a Japanese daiymo named Oda Nobonaga in real life he was just a slightly ruthless general.
Every story of him that reached Europe made him seem like a insane killer with a love for violence and every modern depiction of him in books, game and TV makes shows him as the most evil person ever who just wants to kill everyone.

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Reidy » Wed May 19, 2010 1:25 pm

A waste of tax payer's money here in the UK. I read a fictional story where a Republican party got into power and sent the monarchy to live on a council estate. Reckon that would be interesting to see, it was quite funny in the book.

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby jb99 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:31 am

The UK monarchy only have ceremonial role and as such generate a large amount of income for the economy, mainly from tourists. If they were abolished and made to live on a council estate would you rather see people like John Prescott living in Buck House?
I personally don't see why Bishops should live in Palaces, they're the ones that should be in the council house!

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:02 am

cricks5 wrote:For for anyone here who has ever read "The Book of Mormon", King Benjamin there was one of the greatest peceloving kings of all time.

Did this as one of my first nontug related forum topics here. This is my example of what could possibly become a future event here in the United States.
./viewtopic.php?f=23&t=7687


Only problem with that is that most non-Mormons would dispute that King Benjamin ever existed. When you think of it, King Arthur (another supposedly peace-loving king) has a much better claim to having a basis in reality than King Benjamin (whom I think most people never even heard of) does. There is no known reliable historical account of King Benjamin dated prior to the Book of Mormon itself for a start, and most non-Mormons believe that in fact the whole thing was pure make-believe on Joseph Smith's part. Unfortunately non-existence in reality seems to be true of most other peace-loving kings too - including, again, King Arthur.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Chris12 » Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:42 pm

um....Arthur was by no means peace loving.

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:06 pm

Chris12 wrote:um....Arthur was by no means peace loving.

Depends on the version you hear.
In my case, I guess I was thinking of the 1990's cartoon version of Prince Valiant, which you probably never even heard of over there let alone saw; it was good in some ways but rather obscure.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:11 pm

cricks5 wrote:If you want to argue for fun Jason, I can easily set up a new thread for it.

But I am quite knowledgeable about the Holy Bible and about the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearel of Great Price. My family likes to calll me "The Scriptorian" because of I remember the people and stories within.


Call it a debate for fun (rather than argue) and I may take you up on that someday. I enjoy a healthy debate with you, as opposed to the rather nasty arguments I have had with others on this board. Those are neither healthy nor fun. Arguments never are, unlike debates.
However, I would never try to sway you to change your beliefs (nor disrespect them), whatever they are, whether we ever debate such issues or not.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Chris12 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:39 am

So where getting a new king here for the first time in 100 years which has kind of brought the discussion back again so your thoughts?

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:15 am

Something that Britain's Queen Elizabeth II should've done many years ago. Probably doesn't dare to though with a son like hers, and her grandsons are beginning to look as if they aren't any better suited either!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby the other one » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:27 am

Chris12 wrote:So where getting a new king here for the first time in 100 years which has kind of brought the discussion back again so your thoughts?


You guys should become republic.

There is nothing more to tell.
“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”


Bertrand Russell

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:58 am

the other one wrote:
You guys should become republic.

There is nothing more to tell.

Just because you don't understand their system doesn't give you the right to knock it. At least the Dutch don't have to put up with the agonizing presidential election season every four years to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. They DO have elections, but (afaik) without all the dirty politics and baggage the American system has. Sensible of them, I say. Why should they change?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Chris12 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:30 am

Oh, we still have those when electing our prime minister but just not as vile as with you guys.

You guys should become republic.

There is nothing more to tell.


Because of....? There is more to tell :D The majority of us thinks we should keep our monarch and i agree.

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:17 pm

Chris12 wrote: The majority of us thinks we should keep our monarch and i agree.

Since the majority agrees, why should you change? You seem happier with your system than we are with ours in the States, so keep it just the way it is!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby the other one » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:23 pm

Jason Toddman wrote:Just because you don't understand their system doesn't give you the right to knock it. At least the Dutch don't have to put up with the agonizing presidential election season every four years to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. They DO have elections, but (afaik) without all the dirty politics and baggage the American system has. Sensible of them, I say. Why should they change?


I think I know a bit about it.
In one period you have to elect several times, because the government crashes.
The monarch isn't just representiv, he can activ intervene into the political process.

Here some general things about monarchy.
The monarch can do everything, even if nobody agrees with him.
Arbitrariness might rule.
The people can't decide anything. In Netherlands they can at lest elect someone with a bit of political power.

And no Jason. I wouldn't suggest them the strange structure, that the Americans call democracy. Because that system isn't much different. I would suggest them a real democracy. Which means much more than just to elect some people. The people should be able to participate actively at the political decisions and decide them-self, what should happen.

Chris are are you sure that the majority stays behind the monarchy? I wouldn't say, this is so clear.
“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”


Bertrand Russell

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:04 pm

the other one wrote: Here some general things about monarchy.
The monarch can do everything, even if nobody agrees with him...

You're talking about an absolute monarchy. The Netherlands (nor the British) haven't had one of those in centuries. The system they have now is completely different from that. Queen Elizabeth has little political power, and the Dutch monarch has even less if anything. So comparing the Dutch system with an absolute monarch is imo quite unfair.
Their system isn't all that much different than a democracy's, and probably is better is some ways. After all, considering what misinformed idiots many 'regular' people are (climate change deniers, Creationists, conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landings were a hoax, people who believe in Astrology, and the list goes on and on) they probably shouldn't be trusted with decisions of any real importance; even if they could reach a consensus any better than Congress does.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby chu.joelle » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:15 pm

I do have to agree with "the other ones" statement on democracy in america. It isn't a full democracy, all you have to look at is the electoral college. whats fun is when we are voting for president if these people on the electoral college vote in a different way then guess what that is the winner. Lets say popular vote went to McCain say 90 percent to ten then say the electoral college vote went to Obama 51 to 49. Obama wins that election. And yes this has happened before (albiet not as drastic numbers)

The elections of 1876, 1888, and 2000 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive the plurality of the nationwide popular vote

Re: Monarchy's good or bad

Postby drawscore » Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:00 am

It largely depends on whether the monarch is benevolent, or a total asshole.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely,"

Drawscore