Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Monarchies

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » Ship's Locker » Limbo » Purgatory: Monarchies (Page 1)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Purgatory: Monarchies

Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

Posted

In Ecclesiantics, PD said:

quote:

I am an instinctive monarchist, and my knowledge of history tells me that republics eventually collapse under their own weight, 300 years being about the usual life span.

How many monarchies have lasted much longer than that? Genuine question. (And don't say the UK, because it's only existed for just over 300 years and might not for much longer - we've already lost Ireland, or most of it.)

As a non-historian, ISTM that the main difference is not so much 'republican' vs. 'monarchist' (if you mean constitutional monarchist) but between large, all-encompassing states like the US and (on a smaller scale of course) the UK, and smaller more homogenous states like, potentially, Scotland, Catalunya etc. None of the latter are proposing total independence like opting out of the EU, and it's a big question how any government can be independent of international capitalism anyway.

But while there is a big difference between dictatorships and democracies, there doesn't seem much between a republic like France or Germany and a monarchy like Britain or the Netherlands.

I'd just like to see an end to the flummery, personally, but I can't get too worked up about it one way or another.

[ 28. January 2013, 23:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

Posted

Neither can I. I suspect that, like others, I think HM the Queen does a Jolly Good Job (though she is nowhere near as perfect as some newspapers would like us to believe...).

The members of the Royal Family, though, sometimes seem to be as dysfunctional as most other 'normal' families in the UK, and unworthy (IMHO) of the adulation and air-time accorded them. I no longer attend Sunday BCP Matins, partly (though not entirely) because of the unctuous State Prayers....

Let the whole lot of them be made to go out to work, pay taxes etc. like the rest of us, and let us have the media filled with Proper News!

Ian J.

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Inger
Shipmate
# 15285

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
In Ecclesiantics, PD said:

quote:

I am an instinctive monarchist, and my knowledge of history tells me that republics eventually collapse under their own weight, 300 years being about the usual life span.
How many monarchies have lasted much longer than that? Genuine question.

Well, Denmark is recorded as a monarchy as early as 950 AD, and has been one continuously ever since, that is for well over a thousand years.

I am what I suppose you might call a lukewarm monarchist myself.

Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009 | IP: Logged

Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

Posted

To stick to England and Great Britain for a moment (mainly because I don't know much about Danish history)--looking at the bigger picture, there have been at least six monarchies (if you distinguish them the way the French do Republics, by significant constitutional shifts):

[LIST] [*]1. Danish-Saxon (Canute-Harold) [*]2. Norman (William I-Stephen) [*]3. Early Angevin/Plantagenet (Henry II-John) [*]4. Late Angevin/Plantagenet (Henry III-Richard II) [*]5. Lancastrian-Yorkist (HenryIV-Richard III) [*]6. Tudor/Stuart (Henry VII-James II)

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

Posted

[Trying again after running afoul of the edit window]

To stick to England and Great Britain for a moment (mainly because I don't know much about Danish history)--looking at the bigger picture, there have been at least seven monarchies, possibly more (if you distinguish them the way the French do Republics, by significant constitutional shifts):

1. Danish-Saxon (Canute-Harold)
2. Norman (William I-Stephen)
3. Early Angevin/Plantagenet (Henry II-John)
4. Late Angevin/Plantagenet (Henry III-Richard II)
5. Lancastrian-Yorkist (Henry IV-Richard III)
6. Tudor/Stuart (Henry VII-James II)
7. Modern Constitutionalist (William & Mary-present)

They often but not always coincide with dynastic transitions--the current monarchy obviously begins with the Revolution of 1688. But I would venture to suggest that the stability of the current monarchy (far more stable than any of the others, none of which lasted close to 300 years) is due to the fact that it has increasingly come to approximate a Republic with a hereditary president. Liz II is not functionally a monarch in any sense that her premodern ancestors would recognize, or even her namesake. As one of my primary school teachers (a Glaswegian who proudly identified as a Liberal back in the days when kindest thing you could call the Liberal Party was "irrelevant"), she's England's highest-paid civil servant. She isn't even really sovereign in her own person any more, but a vehicle for the true sovereignty that belongs to the people. If the people decided to abolish the monarchy, she might argue that it was unwise, but I can't imagine her arguing that they didn't have a right to do it.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

Posted

quote:
How many monarchies have lasted much longer than that? Genuine question. (And don't say the UK, because it's only existed for just over 300 years and might not for much longer - we've already lost Ireland, or most of it.)

The Shah of Iran enjoyed a glorious reign of about 26 years after being divinely placed on the throne by a bunch of oil executives and Anglo-American spies.

And I can say that in Korea, almost nobody wants to see a return to the monarchy that was trashed by the Japanese before they annexed the peninsula. It's not so much that people dislike the monarchs(in fact, nationalist rhetoric is awash in praise of certain monarchs), just that they're not seen as particularly relevant to anything these days.

That said, as a Canadian, I consider myself to be a monarchist by default. I just don't see that abolition would accomplish anything that would justify all the paperwork required(eg. debating and concocting a new system, re-writing statutes, etc).

[ 21. October 2012, 23:50: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But while there is a big difference between dictatorships and democracies, there doesn't seem much between a republic like France or Germany and a monarchy like Britain or the Netherlands

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Liz II is not functionally a monarch in any sense that her premodern ancestors would recognize, or even her namesake.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And I can say that in Korea, almost nobody wants to see a return to the monarchy that was trashed by the Japanese before they annexed the peninsula.

One could argue that North Korea is functionally an hereditary monarchy, having recently completed its second inter-generational transfer of power within the Kim family (dynasty?). In fact, given the nepotistic mode of succession that seems to be preferred in a lot of cases we'd classify as dictatorships (e.g. Syria, Cuba, North Korea) I'd argue that the line between the two often a matter of taste. Is there a significant way in which Elizabeth II of England or Abdullah II of Jordan are monarchs while Bashar al Assad of Syria and Kim Jong-un of North Korea are not?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

Posted

quote:
One could argue that North Korea is functionally an hereditary monarchy, having recently completed its second inter-generational transfer of power within the Kim family (dynasty?).

Indeed. I am in the habit, common among Koreans themselves, of referring to the country as Korea, even when clearly talking about only the South.

As for example...

And you're right about North Korea's political system, and I would go even further, and say that North Korea is an old-style monarchy, in more ways than just the hereditary transfer of power. The ruling family has constructed a whole mythology around itself, complete with magical omens upon the birth of a heir apparent and whatnot.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005 | IP: Logged

ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

Posted

The kings of Iraq didn't last long. Nor Egpyt. Or Romania or Bulgaria. Yugoslavia and Albania didn't survive their first generation as monarchies. Brazil and Mexico both briefly had emperors.

As did Germany, but they lasted 48 years. Though they were in a sense the successors to the Kingdom of Prussia which was all of 170 years old at unification. (And yes they were the successors to the Dukes of Brandenburg, who took over from the Dukes of Prussia, who lasted almost a century, and they were the successors of the last Grand Master of the Teutonic Order - but then everyone has ancestors and kings tend to have posh ones)

The Kingdom of Italy made it to 75 - with a sort of dynastic prehistory in Sardinia and Savoy - which had spent the previous few centuries as a kind of peripatetic monarchy, often eclipsed by various conquerors (including at least one republic) and by the time they had taken over Italy most of their original territory had been incorporated into France.

That seems to happen now and again. The Mogul Empire (lasted just over 300 years) was founded by Babur who had already lost two other kingdoms - one inherited, one he conquered himself. Monarchies move around. They merge and split. Try looking at a map of Germany between about the 15th and 18th centuries. The states are fractal. The closer you look the more there are.

Some kingdoms and empires seem to last a very long time but they disappear and come back again. China, obviously. No continuity between one dynasty and another. Ancient Egypt. Even ancient Babylon. Rome managed to be an Empire for almost 1500 years, but there were many dynasties and splits and shifts in territory. And by the end of it it ruled over almost none of the territories it had started with, spoke a different language, had a different religion. Not that stable!

Record holder for one dynasty is probably Japan, though the royal family didn't actually rule anything for large chunks of its history. The only European(ish) royal family that can compete with that is the Armenian/Georgian one which has a plausible case to have been both the direct successors and actual descendants of the dynasty that ruled there before the Roman Empire. They still exist as minor central European aristocracy somewhere, but they don't rule any kingdoms. But then between the Romans and the Turks and the Russians they didn't for most of their history.

Thais have been going for 800 years with one royal family. But then so had the Cambodians and Laotians and Vietnamese until they abolished them (with a little help from the French)

Of course it might be that stable political institutions, sort of by definition, change more slowly than unstable ones. And as most European nation states started off with monarchies the more stable ones just at random have been less likely to abolish them. So if it was true that monarchies have lasted longer than republics it might be an effect of their stability not a cause of it.

The way to be a stable monarchy in Europe these days seems to be not being too far from the North Sea. Except you can't count Belgium as stable, can you? Maybe you need an established Protestant church. There have been kings of Norway for a long time - though the current nation state of Norway is only just over a hundred years old. Became independent in 1905. For something like the sixth time.

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
But I would venture to suggest that the stability of the current monarchy (far more stable than any of the others, none of which lasted close to 300 years) is due to the fact that it has increasingly come to approximate a Republic with a hereditary president.

That's pretty much my own pet theory as well. England always was a constitutional monarchy. (As was Scotland, and so were most European monarchies in the late middle ages) In the early modern period European fashion shifted towards absolutism and the divine right of kings but that never really took hold here - the few kings that tried it got killed for it. And sometime between the Civil Wars and the early 19th century our consitution shifted to being de facto republican with the monarchy as a sort of figurehead rather than an ruler.

quote:

If the people decided to abolish the monarchy, she might argue that it was unwise, but I can't imagine her arguing that they didn't have a right to do it.

I doubt if Victoria would have either, or any of the kings since. And arguably not the Georges.

I'm really not a historian, but I think that even earlier than that many English jurists would have thought that Parliament had the legal right to decide who would be king, even if not to abolish the monarchy. That's clearly the case after 1688 but I'd guess that way of thinking goes back at least two centuries earlier.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

Posted

The Japanese Monarchy (I think they call the king an emperor, though it's not exactly an empire at the moment) has been around more or less for over a thousand years.

Of course, for most of that history, the emperor has been primarily a ceremonial role, which might help. The dynasties of the particular Shoguns tended to run for a few centuries each.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged

Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

Posted

In the democratic side of things, we've got the Icelandic Althingi, at 1,082 years. The Most Serene Republic of Venice made it to 1,100 years. Respectable even by monarchical standards.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

Posted

Republicans in Canada (the handful of them) argue about selecting a Governor General in a democratic fashion. The Governor General in Canada has Rideau Hall, which is not big at all and the fancy bits are the public rooms. It's like living in a conference centre and public guest house, with your personal residence attached to it. That's how my cousin described it when she worked there on a few band gigs, the band being the Governor General's Foot Guards.

The Governor General also has a residence at La Citadelle de Quebec.

Governor's General terms are five years, just like a presidency in a parliamentary system.

Anybody who thinks more than a minute about change realizes the present system gives us a figurehead who does good public relations (the present GG is a former University president, the previous two were media personalities) and change would not really change anything, and cost more money.

For historic and folk-memory reasons, Canadians are probably the most monarchist people in the western world. Even in Quebec the Royal Family is popular, not least because the present Royals speak French. The Queen, Charles and William have all demonstrated their French skills in public speaking.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

Posted

quote:
Even in Quebec the Royal Family is popular, not least because the present Royals speak French. The Queen, Charles and William have all demonstrated their French skills in public speaking.

Jacques Parizeau(for non-followers of Canadian politics, the most militant leader of the Quebec independence movement, and generally indifferent to the concerns of the anglo minority) is on record as saying he'd personally favour keeping the monarchy in the event of Quebec indpenendence.

Parizeau is British-educated, and cultivates a somewhat anglophile image, albeit filtered through a rather Hollywoodized idea of Britishness(he says "By Jove" when speaking English, for example). One doubts that his penchant for the Queen is shared to the same degree by most Quebec francophones.

[ 22. October 2012, 02:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005 | IP: Logged

orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

Posted

Apparently, the Republic of San Marino claims to have been going since 301 AD.

Even if that claim isn't taken at face value, they've certainly been going for a fair few centuries.

[ 22. October 2012, 02:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008 | IP: Logged

Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

Posted

I would challenge SPK on two minor points:

quote:
Governor's General terms are five years, just like a presidency in a parliamentary system.

While lieutenant-governors of provinces have terms of five years (sometimes extended) as provided for in Section 59, the Governor General serves at pleasure. Mind you, everyone, including His Excellency and the Prime Minister, seem to believe that this five-year convention has the force of law, but there is no basis for this belief. GGs Vanier and Michener had their terms extended by a few years.

I would challenge SPK's assertion that Prince William has significant French-language skills. I have heard him speak and only a generous examiner hoping for a decoration would give him a BBB. The Queen's French is good enough that she can undertake a 90-minute working session, and Prince Charles' French, although clunkier, is likely a CCB and quite serviceable. If William had taken a French bride, that might have improved his linguistic skills. O well.

In any case, as unanimous consent of the ten provinces will be required to change the system, I suspect that Canada will maintain the monarchy long after it disappears from the UK.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

Posted

Force of law, force of practice. I just wasn't going to muddy the waters. The US President had unlimited term eligibility until 1948, but that didn't stop 150 years of the practice being two terms.

So William is a little shaky. I'm a little shaky at times, but I can hold a conversation in French. I didn't say William had great skills, but he did read a speech on his last Canada Day visit in French.

I'm hoping for a BBB, it isn't the easiest either.

For everyone else on the thread, Augustine and I are discussing the language ratings given to Canadian federal public servants for their second language (English/French). You have to meet the language profile to get a job and there is a profile for every job. BBB is approximately "Can compose a sentence on the fly and it usually makes sense without too many errors".

[ 22. October 2012, 03:38: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

Posted

The royal house of Judah, descended from David, despite some very shaky occupants, lasted a great deal longer than the royal house of Israel, descended from 'Jeroboam son of Nebat who made Israel to sin'. His descendants were put off and there's a sorry series of military coups, short dynasties, and bloodthirsty eradications until the whole place disappears completely when the Assyrians invaded.

The longer something has been around, the more legitimacy it seems to have. If your ruler is a usurper, and you are stronger than he is, why not?

Legitimacy does seem to depend more on acceptance, smoke and mirrors, than dogma. There may be a royal house of Georgia that goes back to the time of the late Roman empire, but there isn't a king or queen sitting on a throne in Tblisi (or should I say Tiflis?).

Have shipmates noticed that there are two sorts of republic? There is one, like the USA, where the President really is the 'big cheese', 'head honcho', 'Padrone' or whatever. Then there are those where the President is more like a constitutional monarch. There's an interesting thread about an interview with Mary McAleese on RTE running at the moment.

The North Korean situation is a bit odd. 'There is a divinity that doth hedge a king', but doth it hedge a Kim?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008 | IP: Logged

Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

Posted

Hmmmm - there is that odd wobble in the middle where a child survives a purge (Josiah?) and then goes on to restore the rightful line. Always wondered who his parents really were.

And Timothy's comment earlier, about the Queen accepting it if the population decided to get rid of the monarchy, set me wondering. I may well be wrong, but she seems to accept the whole "servant of the people" thing more than some do who get voted into office, and then act as though the rules don't apply to them. Somehow can't see her calling anyone a pleb!

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555

Posted

I think it is at least arguable that the dynastic changes in England, and then Britain, since 1066 did not represent new monarchies.

--------------------
Refraction Villanelles

Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011 | IP: Logged

Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

Posted

I guess it depends what's meant by a republic or a monarchy coming to the 'end' of its existence. How many of the following count?

The country is conquered and overrun by its neighbours (e.g. 18th-century Poland)
The king is violently deposed and replaced by another king, who rules over what is essentially the same territory (e.g. Harold Godwinson)
The king is deposed and replaced by a republic that governs what is essentially the same territory (e.g. the French Revolution) or vice versa (the restoration of the French monarchy)
The dictator is deposed and replaced by another dictator, again without territorial changes (e.g. Batista / Castro)
The democratic government is overthrown by a coup d'état and replaced by a dictator, without territorial changes (e.g. Klement Gottwald, the Shah of Iran), or vice versa (e.g. Central Europe post-1989)
The country is absorbed into another country as a result of the family life of its monarch (e.g. Scotland, Bohemia)
The country breaks up, peacefully or otherwise, into its constituent parts (e.g. Austria-Hungary)
The country is absorbed into another country by the choice of its citizens (e.g. East Germany)
A bit of the country breaks off but most of it stays the same (e.g. Irish independence)
The key personnel and territory stay the same but constitutional changes alter the balance of power between them (e.g. Charles de Gaulle bagging all the power for the presidency)

The point is that there are so many variables that you'd have difficulty constructing a 'control group' to prove that republics are more or less stable than monarchies.

[ 22. October 2012, 10:34: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004 | IP: Logged

Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

Parizeau is British-educated, and cultivates a somewhat anglophile image, albeit filtered through a rather Hollywoodized idea of Britishness(he says "By Jove" when speaking English, for example).

Hollywoodized? Sounds to me like he's been overdosing on Asterix Chez Les Bretons (Asterix in Britain)

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

Posted

Foreign shipmates who wish to google image Mr Parizeau can see how he would easily fit into Asterix' cosmos.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The royal house of Judah, descended from David, despite some very shaky occupants, lasted a great deal longer than the royal house of Israel, descended from 'Jeroboam son of Nebat who made Israel to sin'. His descendants were put off and there's a sorry series of military coups, short dynasties, and bloodthirsty eradications until the whole place disappears completely when the Assyrians invaded.

The longer something has been around, the more legitimacy it seems to have. If your ruler is a usurper, and you are stronger than he is, why not?

Legitimacy does seem to depend more on acceptance, smoke and mirrors, than dogma. There may be a royal house of Georgia that goes back to the time of the late Roman empire, but there isn't a king or queen sitting on a throne in Tblisi (or should I say Tiflis?).

Have shipmates noticed that there are two sorts of republic? There is one, like the USA, where the President really is the 'big cheese', 'head honcho', 'Padrone' or whatever. Then there are those where the President is more like a constitutional monarch. There's an interesting thread about an interview with Mary McAleese on RTE running at the moment.

The North Korean situation is a bit odd. 'There is a divinity that doth hedge a king', but doth it hedge a Kim?

I'm certainly much more comfortable with the Irish model of Presidency than with the idea of nearly unlimited power concentrated in one person, and it was no co-incidence that the powers of the Irish President mirror those of the Queen, despite the Irish constitution being a written one.

And Irishman though I am, albeit with dual British/Irish citizenship, I should be most disappointed if the British monarchy wound down any time soon. Cf. Sober Preacher's Kid for my feelings on the matter, when I visited Canada for the first time this year I felt in many ways I had come home.

--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)

Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005 | IP: Logged

Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I think it is at least arguable that the dynastic changes in England, and then Britain, since 1066 did not represent new monarchies.

Unless you argue (and it is arguable) that the Union with Scotland was an imperialist takeover of the smaller nation, then a new monarchy must date from then, surely?

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

Posted

The Irish presidency is interesting in that it was intentionally modelled on the idea of a constitutional monarch, and the powers laid out in both the 1922 and 1937 constitutions outlined the contemporary understanding of King George's role and approach to his office. While I am no fan of de Valera, he carefully prescribed limits so that the president's power within those limits could not be circumscribed. In setting out a 7-year term, he made it clear that the presidential mandate was not identical to that of the Taoiseach.

Mind you, in my five years in Ireland, I saw four presidents come and go, including a very major presidential constitutional crisis.

Monarchies, if you've got them, provide an excellent way to chose the president in a parliamentary democracy. They also provide a way of showing that the state and its institutions are not identical to that of a party or faction and, as we have seen in Spain and the UK (e.g., Labour in 1922 and 1945), a way of ensuring a broad acceptance of radical change.

A Canadiuan quirk is that new citizens swear allegiance to the Queen (at lest for now, as variations on the oath are flitting around corridors at Citizenship and Immigration)-- I once had a conversation with a Romanian immigrant on this and she said that, in her 50 years, she had enough of declaring her allegiance to abstractions which meant nothing; she rather liked swearing allegiance to a human being.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I think it is at least arguable that the dynastic changes in England, and then Britain, since 1066 did not represent new monarchies.
Unless you argue (and it is arguable) that the Union with Scotland was an imperialist takeover of the smaller nation, then a new monarchy must date from then, surely?

On that basis, the Union with Ireland in 1800 is the date. However, in both cases, the same monarch was sovereign of both kingdoms before and the united one after.

Also, there are no separate alternative claimants to both thrones. Indeed, since the death of Cardinal Stuart in 1807, there isn't any real alternative claimant to either.

I think it is fairer to say that EII is the current occupant of the thrones of both Cerdic and Kenneth MacAlpin. Though in the latter case, it seems to be a bit unclear whether the Stuarts were descended from him, Matilda was.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008 | IP: Logged

Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Have shipmates noticed that there are two sorts of republic? There is one, like the USA, where the President really is the 'big cheese', 'head honcho', 'Padrone' or whatever. Then there are those where the President is more like a constitutional monarch.

I think there are actually three types of Republics:

Full presidential republics, where the president is both head of state and head of government with all executive powers (like the US);
Semi-presidential republics, where the (usually popularly-elected president) is head of state but shares governmental/executive powers with a prime minister (by whatever name) and/or legislature, and where the president's cabinet appointments may be subject to legislative control (like France of Russia);
Parliamentary republics, where executive functions are lodged with a prime minister/legisature and the president functions mostly as a ceremonial head of state (like Ireland or Germany).

There are, of course, variations on these three models, and the lines can be blurred, but I think these are considered the three basic types of republics.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009 | IP: Logged

Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

Posted

I'm a republican who finds constitutional monarchy to be a jolly good hobby in moderation. Someone has to grace all the commemorative crockery! I'd give the British monarchy a break for the Act of Union, since it was a peaceful and uncontroversial (among the electorate anyway) switch. The Civil War shortly afterwords wasn't so much. The Glorious Revolution I would count as a change in government because, while not violent, it was a drastic power grab by parliament.

Though the Japanese dynasty might get the record for the longest reigning in history, the monarchy's place in Japanese government has changed dramatically over time. So no stable government award.

Monarchies have their civil wars and violent changes in government too. This chatter about making more stable governments is malarkey.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I think it is at least arguable that the dynastic changes in England, and then Britain, since 1066 did not represent new monarchies.
Unless you argue (and it is arguable) that the Union with Scotland was an imperialist takeover of the smaller nation, then a new monarchy must date from then, surely?

Surely you mean 'an imperialist takeover of the larger nation'?

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

Posted

Hmm, I see what you mean! But the fact remains, it wasn't 'the same' monarchy either way.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

Posted

Didn't Jimmy have a pretty credible claim to the English throne anyway?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Didn't Jimmy have a pretty credible claim to the English throne anyway?

Sure, but he only united the crowns. Scotland and England were still separate countries, albeit with the same king. The Union of the two countries didn't take place until 1706, under Anne.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009 | IP: Logged

Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'd give the British monarchy a break for the Act of Union, since it was a peaceful and uncontroversial (among the electorate anyway) switch. The Civil War shortly afterwords wasn't so much.

I presume by Civil War you mean Cavaliers and Roundheads? (This being what most Brits would understand.)

If so I think you're confusing several different events. When James VI of Scotland became king of England in the 17th century this created a personal union between the two countries but it did not make them into a single country, any more than Canada and the UK are one country, or the UK and Hanover were one country when the Georges were on the throne.

The Act of Union to which angloid occurs took place somewhat later, and was the point at which the Scottish Parliament was dissolved and subsumed into Westminster. I understand this was not without controversy, and that the Scottish government, having bankrupted themselves attempting to colonise Panama, were rather forced into the position by the English.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Force of law, force of practice. I just wasn't going to muddy the waters. The US President had unlimited term eligibility until 1948, but that didn't stop 150 years of the practice being two terms.

1953 actually. Since the Twenty-Second Amendment was passed during Truman's presidency the U.S. Constitution's provision against ex post facto legislation meant that it wouldn't take effect until the next president (Dwight Eisenhower) took office. This is actually explicitly acknowledged in the amendment's text.

quote:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

So technically Truman could have run for another term in 1952. Realistically he couldn't have been re-elected in 1952, but he was Constitutionally eligible.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'd give the British monarchy a break for the Act of Union, since it was a peaceful and uncontroversial (among the electorate anyway) switch.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... the Scottish government, having bankrupted themselves attempting to colonise Panama, were rather forced into the position by the English.

quote:
Originally written by Robert Burns:

Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English stell we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

O would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

Posted

I had thought Saint Bess putting Saint Jim on the throne of England was the Act of Union. Turns out it weren't. Who knew?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

Posted

In fact there were two Acts of Union, 17-thingy and 1800.

No, looking at Wikipedia to check the dates, there were four - because each had to be passed in two separate Parliaments. And two Treaties of Union as well.

There was a whole lot of Uniting going on in the 18th century.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

quote:
ken: Brazil and Mexico both briefly had emperors.

As did Germany, but they lasted 48 years.

I just wanted to mention that the Empire of Brazil lasted longer than that (67 years).

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

Posted

posted by Angloid:

quote:

....we've already lost Ireland...

We were never a fucking prize for you to claim! Poor phrasing I hope.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008 | IP: Logged

The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321

Posted

I wonder how long the UK moarchy will survive the death of Queen Elizabeth 11. The Prince of Wales is a very strange character, with odd ideas, and a determination to interfere. If this behaviour continues when /if he inherits, there could be fireworks!

Long Live The Republic!

PS, I say 'if' he inherits, because QE11 seems immortal!

--------------------
Still missing the gator

Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006 | IP: Logged

Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

Posted

I think it will skip a generation - using the convenient excuse of Charles' age at accession. (Well technically he'd reign but only for a few weeks until he announced that "he" had decided to abdicate in favour of his eldest son.)

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005 | IP: Logged

Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Republicans in Canada (the handful of them) ...

More than a handful, I would say ...

quote:
In May 2010, a poll by Angus Reid found that more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada's head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, while only 32% oppose doing so.

from Wikipedia article

--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery

my blog

Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
More than a handful, I would say ...

quote:
In May 2010, a poll by Angus Reid found that more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada's head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, while only 32% oppose doing so.
from Wikipedia article

In the spirit of a "something for everyone" kind of compromise, have you considered inviting one of Elizabeth II's three non-Charles children to form a cadet branch of the royal family as monarch of Canada? You've already got a Windsor, so just build a castle there (or wherever else seems appropriate), install the new sovereign, and in a couple generations a native born Canadian is your head of state while still retaining the monarchy. Or at least a monarchy.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

Posted

Andy spent a year at Lakefield College School, near Peterborough ON in the 1970's. We already have Rideau Hall and La Citadelle de Quebec. La Citadelle is the closest thing we have to a castle in Canada.

Angus Reid. [Disappointed]

Ask Canadians if they want a President and watch the poll plummet.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
... I say 'if' he inherits, because QE11 seems immortal!

Shush- you'll let the cat out of the bag! Don't you know we're on our fourth QEII already?

It's all a Templar plot, of course. You don't think it's a coincidence that the institute where Dolly the Sheep was cloned was just down the road from Rosslyn Chapel, do you?

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Andy spent a year at Lakefield College School, near Peterborough ON in the 1970's. We already have Rideau Hall and La Citadelle de Quebec. La Citadelle is the closest thing we have to a castle in Canada.

Angus Reid.

Ask Canadians if they want a President and watch the poll plummet.

It's not just Angus Reid, if that's what your smilie is disapproving of -- from the same article:

quote:
An August 2009 poll commissioned by "Canadian Friends of the Royal Family" found that the majority of Canadians, more than 60%, felt that a constitutional monarchy was outdated

The article lists polls over the recent years from a variety of sources show that anywhere from a third to two-thirds of Canadians are not in favour of the monarchy, find it outdated, etc.

My point was, and is "not a handful". Wishful thinking is no match for broad statistical evidence (unless you've got a majority in Parliament, as our dear leader knows well).

Care to provide some support for your assertion about a Canadian president? I don't see any relevant info on the Monarchist League's website, for example (which is where you'd expect to see such data). I'd be interested to see that, especially the phrasing of the questions.

A Canadian president would not have anywhere near the powers of the American one, assuming that our parliamentary structure remains the same. In the most plausible scenarios, a non-monarchical head of state would have the same powers as the Governor-General -- mostly symbolic and ceremonial.

--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery

my blog

Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010 | IP: Logged

malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437

Posted

If the British monarchy was dropped by the British (i'm not getting into the complications of what if Scotland is no longer part of the UK at that point), in reality what would Canadians be most likely to do? Would one or more members of the Windsor family be likely to move to Canada? What if none of them wanted to move? In such a case perhaps might the consensus turn out to be that, "Well, we would be happy to keep the monarchy but since they've lost their job in Britain and it's just really too complicated to keep it here, so lets just go to a parliamentary republic"? (definition of parliamentary republic up-thread)

If i were a legal resident of Canada, i know i would be, like another member of the Ship, a socialist monarchist (or is it monarchist socialist).

[ 22. October 2012, 21:26: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.

Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006 | IP: Logged

Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Angloid:

quote:

....we've already lost Ireland...

We were never a fucking prize for you to claim! Poor phrasing I hope.

Indeed! Heartfelt apologies for (I hope) an uncharacteristic lapse. I don't usually refer to the UK as 'we', being an anti-imperialist supporter of nationalist movements.

But if my comments were rephrased I think my point stands, that the UK was a different country after the establishment of the Irish Republic (or even the Free State), and hence the monarchy is not the same thing before and after.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Have shipmates noticed that there are two sorts of republic? There is one, like the USA, where the President really is the 'big cheese', 'head honcho', 'Padrone' or whatever. Then there are those where the President is more like a constitutional monarch. There's an interesting thread about an interview with Mary McAleese on RTE running at the moment.

The North Korean situation is a bit odd. 'There is a divinity that doth hedge a king', but doth it hedge a Kim?
I'm certainly much more comfortable with the Irish model of Presidency than with the idea of nearly unlimited power concentrated in one person, and it was no co-incidence that the powers of the Irish President mirror those of the Queen, despite the Irish constitution being a written one.

I'm not sure this is quite what you meant, but in case it is ... the US presidency does not concentrate nearly unlimited power in one person. Not even close. Congress makes laws and holds the purse strings, and the courts interpret laws. The president can issue executive orders, but that only goes so far. He has to negotiate with Congress, and while he gets to appoint people to the Supreme Court, once they're in office justices don't necessarily do what he expected them to do.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
If the British monarchy was dropped by the British (i'm not getting into the complications of what if Scotland is no longer part of the UK at that point), in reality what would Canadians be most likely to do? Would one or more members of the Windsor family be likely to move to Canada? What if none of them wanted to move? In such a case perhaps might the consensus turn out to be that, "Well, we would be happy to keep the monarchy but since they've lost their job in Britain and it's just really too complicated to keep it here, so lets just go to a parliamentary republic"? (definition of parliamentary republic up-thread)

If i were a legal resident of Canada, i know i would be, like another member of the Ship, a socialist monarchist (or is it monarchist socialist).

@Lothiriel- I have seen internal government polls which compare Canadian readiness to have an "elected Governor General" at about 60% but have president at 25%. I do not think that they were ever made public although the Association for Canadian Studies did similar polls.

Should the UK abolish the monarchy tomorrow, this would have no effect whatsoever on Canadian law and constitution. Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada etc etc continues operating. In about 3 years, the Prime Minister would write to Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, c/o Mrs E Mountbatten, Windsor, and ask her to commission Jane Siberry (or whoever) as the next Governor General and Commander in Chief of Canada. Over the ages, letters would go to Admiral Charles Windsor-Mountbatten and then to A/Squadron Leader Bill Windsor.

The alternative is to have a constitutional amendment, which must be agreed to by All Ten Provinces (I capitalize this to underline the mythical and miraculous aspect, and PEI, Ontario and New Brunswick have already said they wouldn't assent), which would devise a replacement (which we would likely call Governor General because the word president is too problematic), the selection mechanism would have to be universally accepted (no PM would want a popular vote, and no province would agree to a federal appointment, as is currently the case, unless they get to appoint lieutenant governors in return). It goes without saying that at least three provinces would lunge at the opportunity to get something at the constitutional table for their vote and, moreover, two must by law submit it to popular referendum (BC and Alberta). The prospect of all of this is a nightmare to anyone dealing with federal-provincial relations. An internal document was prepared during Paul Martin's ministry, but I was insufficently exalted to ever see it.

And did we mention getting the assent of the First Peoples' organizations? No. I forgot that part. O brother.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website