|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Monarchies
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
God knows I love the British Royals, but is there any hope for the Habsburgs, or the Wittelsbachs, or the Wettins, etc?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Takeaway: Canadians know and accept the role of twisting lightbulbs into sockets (the proper way to wave in public, per the Royal Family), and feel that if given the chance, they would like some formal public say in the process. Though the present system works well, the way a GG is selected by the PM is mysterious and suspicious.
Mind you, Superior Court/Queen's Bench judges and in particular Supreme Court judges are chosen by the PM as well, in a way that is opaque and mysterious, but works well. Nobody actually complains about the people on the bench, just the hazy method of putting them there.
I saw one post on another forum if you actually read Supreme Court rulings, particularly Charter rulings, the Supreme Court likes to say as little as possible and let the politicians work it out for themselves. The media usually makes mountains out of carefully constructed molehills.
Which is saying that everyone likes eating sausage but nobody wants to see how its made.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Foreign shipmates who wish to google image Mr Parizeau can see how he would easily fit into Asterix' cosmos.
Moneyandethnix?
link
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
God knows I love the British Royals, but is there any hope for the Habsburgs, or the Wittelsbachs, or the Wettins, etc?
For a while the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money had a feature called Sunday Deposed Monarch Blogging. There were specific entries on the Habsburgs, Wittelsbachs, and a cadet branch of the Wettins. The entries identified the current head of the deposed royal house and had a rough estimate of the chances of restoration for each.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
The path to a Canadian republic is indeed a tortuous (and torturous) one, and it probably wouldn't happen for quite some time. But Canada's history shows a progression from colony toward increasing independence: responsible government in 1840; Confederation in 1867; the Statute of Westminster in 1931, when Canada began to set its own foreign policy; Canadians becoming citizens of Canada rather than British subjects in 1947; Canada's Supreme Court becoming the court of last appeal in 1949 (rather than the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council); Canada adopting its own flag in 1965; and the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.
I can't speak for all Canadian republicans, but I think we've grown up enough as a country to move out entirely on our own and have a Canadian as head of state. And I say that as someone born in Canada, with deep roots in this country, including a dozen or more United Empire Loyalists in my family tree.
Augustine the Aleut: Thanks for the numbers. They are compatible with other, published polls -- many people are willing to consider detaching Canada from the monarchy, but they don't want American-style presidential politics and power (and who could blame them?). But, as Nick Tamen pointed out up-thread, an elected head of state with executive powers is not inevitable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
God knows I love the British Royals?
You can have 'em if you like. I've no use for 'em.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).
It would be interesting, in these demotic times, to see whether monarchy as practised by the Stuarts or the Hanoverians would get quite so much buy-in as the Windsors undoubtedly do. In other words, popular support might not persist if the bad practice of past generations were more obviously to re-emerge in the C21.
Anyway, we republicans will continue to be an irritant and argue our corner, despite the vitriol from the tabloids and the USA's fairy tale tourists.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
I'm not sure that I have ever been a republican. I might have said one ore two republican things when a teenager, to wind up my very monarchist, Diana PoW-obsessed mother (now sadly deceased), but for years now I have thought the monarchy to be the least-worst choice when compared to republicanism. I think the prospect of President Blair was a strong argument, in the early 2000s, against ditching the royals!
(I have got as far as changing my mind as to which side I'd suport in the (English) Civil War. I'd be with Oliver Cromwell now!)
[ 23. October 2012, 12:29: Message edited by: Alaric the Goth ]
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
The path to a Canadian republic is indeed a tortuous (and torturous) one, and it probably wouldn't happen for quite some time. But Canada's history shows a progression from colony toward increasing independence:
The monarchists have a silver bullet though- having a queen makes Canadians different from Americans.
quote:
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?
There's no reason the Windsors couldn't be voted out. They could still sit around in palaces wearing blocks of gold on their heads and everything. Really, it would change almost nothing- they could still be in tabloids and people could still buy ceramic thimbles to commemorate the baptism of one and heir if they wanted.
[ 23. October 2012, 12:45: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
There seems to be an assumption here that monarchies are only hereditary when in the past a lot of monarchies were elective. The Papacy is surely such a monarchy? Certainly the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland were.
Ken said that the German Empire only lasted 48 years but surely that was only the Second Reich the First Reich lasted a thousand years. And the Hohenzollerns although only providing emporers in the nineteenth century have been sovereign princes since the eleventh century.
Whilst no system is perfect modern monarchies provide some of the most stable and prosperous nations in the world encompassing such countries as Britain, Norway, The Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Jordan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Belgium, Jamaica et al.
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.
Anyone who wants to do away with the British monarchy has only to cross the Channel to see what living in a republic would be like. Sarkozy or Hollande take anyone's fancy? President Blair? President Cameron? As for America the less said the better.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Thank you for our injection of vicious, histronical bile, Aumbry.
[ 23. October 2012, 13:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank you for our injection of vicious, histronical bile, Aumbry.
Yes
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?
I think the Wittelsbachs still reign in a sense. They seem to be very public and take part in most state ceremonies - at least that's the impression I get. Not so much the others.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.
I've always suspected this, too.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
There seems to be an assumption here that monarchies are only hereditary when in the past a lot of monarchies were elective. The Papacy is surely such a monarchy? Certainly the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland were.
Poland certainly, but surely in practice the Holy Roman Empire was hereditary through the Habsburgs for most of its history and the only deviation from that rule occurred simultaneously with the War of Austrian Succession?
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Takeaway: Canadians know and accept the role of twisting lightbulbs into sockets (the proper way to wave in public, per the Royal Family), and feel that if given the chance, they would like some formal public say in the process. Though the present system works well, the way a GG is selected by the PM is mysterious and suspicious.
Do I understand this correctly to mean that 60% or so of Canadians would support a process by which the governor general is elected or nominated, but still is viceregal representative for the monarch, and 25% would support a (parliamentary) republic with an elected president? (As opposed to understanding it as 60% supporting a parliamentary republic where the head of state is called governor general rather than president?)
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).
While American attachment to (fascination with?) the monarchy certainly can be sentimental and irrational, I'm not sure it is always. There is no perfect system, and I think at least sometimes what we we are attracted are is the perceived strengths in other systems that we lack.
In the US, we have a presidential republic. This, as opposed to a semi-presidential or parliamentary republic, is necessary for our system because of our insistence on separation of powers (as described by RuthW above). But a negative consequence of that is that our head of state is a political figure, and more often than not in recent memory a divisive political figure who mirrors the political polarization that is contemporary American life. Sure there's the pageantry, but I think that the value some Americans see in the monarchy is the value of a head of state who is above political labels.
[ 23. October 2012, 13:30: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank you for our injection of vicious, histronical bile, Aumbry.
Yes
Histronical? What does that mean?
I think you must have changed your message because that was not what I was answering. I thought it was well known that Woodrow Wilson was the proponent of doing away with the German Monarchy. It was hardly a British policy.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
"Histronical" because you have a fantasy history that conforms to your fascist predilections.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Sure there's the pageantry, but I think that the value some Americans see in the monarchy is the value of a head of state who is above political labels.
I'd go further, and say that there's value in having a head of state who is above politics itself.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd go further, and say that there's value in having a head of state who is above politics itself.
Indeed.
--------------------
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
Monarchs are above democracy. They are only above politics if they choose to be. You lot lucked out when your fascist king abdicated.
I didn't enter this thread having strong feelings against monarchy, but seeing this rubbish about how corrupt and unstable democracy is is doing a good job creating them.
[ 23. October 2012, 14:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Histronical" because you have a fantasy history that conforms to your fascist predilections.
As far as I can see there is no such word as histronical. And whilst my post could be considered reactionary I fail to see how it is fascistic. Sadly you are using words, or more precisely non-words, that you don't yourself know the meaning of.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.
I'm sorry, that's not correct. The Kaiser fled into Holland because his state collapsed from the inside. This happened when his army failed to stabilise the front after the Battle of Amiens and streamed back in retreat.
Since 1870 it has been rare for any political regime to survive defeat in war.
I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.
Nick Tamen, I'd agree with your reservations about separation of powers, but the most obvious flaws from outside aren't having an executive head of state. It's that:-
a. The legislature is not responsible for administration; so it isn't responsible for carrying out the laws it makes, and
b. The executive isn't from day to day answerable to anyone, (there's no President's Question Time) and so can only be challenged by triggering a constitutional crisis.
From outside, just as we'd be better off with their electoral system, as republics go I can't help thinking that the constitution of Eire works better than the US one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.
I'm sorry, that's not correct. The Kaiser fled into Holland because his state collapsed from the inside. This happened when his army failed to stabilise the front after the Battle of Amiens and streamed back in retreat.
Since 1870 it has been rare for any political regime to survive defeat in war.
I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.
Nick Tamen, I'd agree with your reservations about separation of powers, but the most obvious flaws from outside aren't having an executive head of state. It's that:-
a. The legislature is not responsible for administration; so it isn't responsible for carrying out the laws it makes, and
b. The executive isn't from day to day answerable to anyone, (there's no President's Question Time) and so can only be challenged by triggering a constitutional crisis.
From outside, just as we'd be better off with their electoral system, as republics go I can't help thinking that the constitution of Eire works better than the US one.
Yes - but I don't think the suggestion was that the Kaiser would continue as ruler merely that the Germans would continue with a new monarch in a reformed monarchical system.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
As far as I can see there is no such word as histronical. And whilst my post could be considered reactionary I fail to see how it is fascistic. Sadly you are using words, or more precisely non-words, that you don't yourself know the meaning of.
Then call your screeds against democracy and weak, corrupt democratic leaders whatever you like. Your fantasies where American republicanism led to the Nazis are so ridiculous, they speak for themselves.
[ 23. October 2012, 14:26: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?
IIRC some of the more prominent French royalists discredited their cause by aligning themselves rather too closely with Marshal Pétain. It doesn't help that there are two rival claimants.
Conversely, I recall that Karel Schwarzenberg, head of the (non-royal) Princely House of Schwarzenberg, is one of the most highly regarded politicians of the Czech Republic.
--------------------
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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
As far as I can see there is no such word as histronical. And whilst my post could be considered reactionary I fail to see how it is fascistic. Sadly you are using words, or more precisely non-words, that you don't yourself know the meaning of.
Then call your screeds against democracy and weak, corrupt democratic leaders whatever you like.
You have completely lost me there. What screeds against democracy and weak democratic leaders? Whether a system is monarchical or republican has nothing to do with it being a democracy or not.
Calm down dearie.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.
Ah, since most of the points assert the right to self determination of various European nations, which ones in particular are "high-minded drivel?" Is it the one against secret alliances? Or the League of Nations?
--------------------
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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.
Ah, since most of the points assert the right to self determination of various European nations, which ones in particular are "high-minded drivel?" Is it the one against secret alliances? Or the League of Nations?
It was described as American utopianism by Henry Kissinger of all people. Hardly noted for his anti-Americanisms.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Sure there's the pageantry, but I think that the value some Americans see in the monarchy is the value of a head of state who is above political labels.
I'd go further, and say that there's value in having a head of state who is above politics itself.
States are political entities. This kind of "let's take the politics out of politics" is just a backhanded endorsement of whatever status quo exists without coming right out and saying so.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?
In most of those cases the claimants were born in foreign lands and later returned to the country whose throne they theoretically have a claim to.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Whilst no system is perfect modern monarchies provide some of the most stable and prosperous nations in the world . . .
While prosperous on a per capita basis, I'm not sure Saudi Arabia or Bahrain are good political role models.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I don't care. Read the 14 points and tell me which ones are high minded drivel.
Crossposted.
[ 23. October 2012, 15:08: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It was described as American utopianism by Henry Kissinger of all people. Hardly noted for his anti-Americanisms.
No, but he was noted for being anti-democracy. (Chile, Argentina, South Vietnam . . . )
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I would agree though that a stable Europe would have had more prospect without the high-minded drivel of Wilson's 14 Points.
Ah, since most of the points assert the right to self determination of various European nations, which ones in particular are "high-minded drivel?" Is it the one against secret alliances? Or the League of Nations?
Because of the complex scattering of people in central and south eastern Europe during centuries when there had been free flow within large territorial units, he should have realised self-determination was only partially workable, if at all. The north eastern boundaries of Italy are still ethnically inaccurate, despite readjustment since, and both compulsory and de facto movements of population.
As it had lost, and there was nothing to hold it together, the disintegration of Austria-Hungary was probably inevitable, but has it really been a good thing? A supranational state in central Europe, and one that was fairly well run, has a lot going for it.
Serbia could only be given free access to the sea by forcing a number of other small nations to call themselves Serbs, and look what has happened to that.
Public diplomacy, and no secret agreements was particularly nonsensical.
The League of Nations was never going to go anywhere once the state whose President insisted on its being set up, refused to join.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[/qb]
While prosperous on a per capita basis, I'm not sure Saudi Arabia or Bahrain are good political role models. [/QB][/QUOTE]
The Arab monarchies, which should also include Morocco,Jordan, Oman and the Gulf Emirates as well as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, are havens of peaceful conexistence in comparison to a lot of the Arab republics. Whilst you are right in saying that Saudi is not a good political role model it stands a better chance of peaceful change than the Baathist socialist republican systems in Syria and formerly in Iraq, or Gadaffi's Libya. As to other Middle Eastern republics I would not consider the Islamic Republic of Iran a political role model either.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).
It would be interesting, in these demotic times, to see whether monarchy as practised by the Stuarts or the Hanoverians would get quite so much buy-in as the Windsors undoubtedly do. In other words, popular support might not persist if the bad practice of past generations were more obviously to re-emerge in the C21.
Anyway, we republicans will continue to be an irritant and argue our corner, despite the vitriol from the tabloids and the USA's fairy tale tourists.
(i) A lot of monarchists- myself included- don't even pretend that the primary reasons for monarchy, in the modern world, are rational, although there may be a rational case for reatinming them in some countries where they exist, on the argument that it's not usually worth the effort and trouble of abolishing them. The point is that they do appeal to that sentimental, irrational, visceral side which is there and which you can't just, Dawkins-like, wish away- c.f. the point upthread about the Romanian Canadian who said that it was good to be able to swear allegiance to a person rather than to an abstract idea.
(ii) Of course Stuart/ early Hanoverian monarchy would get less buy-in now than the current Windsor model. Institutions do, and should, change over time and place. one might easily imagine Anglicans who are perfectly happy with episcopacy as practised by yourself, Pete, but who would not be so happy with say a Laudian or trad RC model. Similarly, there are no douibt republicans who are much happier with one of a modern French, German, or US version of republicanism than they would be with either of the other two, or with republicanism as practised in, say, C16 Venice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I should have known to not get into this argument when it became "We need a strong, stable unelected leader to save us from corrupt and weak democratically elected leaders." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While prosperous on a per capita basis, I'm not sure Saudi Arabia or Bahrain are good political role models.
The Arab monarchies, which should also include Morocco,Jordan, Oman and the Gulf Emirates as well as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, are havens of peaceful conexistence in comparison to a lot of the Arab republics. Whilst you are right in saying that Saudi is not a good political role model it stands a better chance of peaceful change than the Baathist socialist republican systems in Syria and formerly in Iraq, or Gadaffi's Libya. As to other Middle Eastern republics I would not consider the Islamic Republic of Iran a political role model either.
Coming back to a point I made earlier, given the hereditary transfer of power in Syria (and likely in Iraq had history not intervened) is there any reason to not consider these nations effectively to be monarchies, regardless of whatever they prefer to call themselves?
And of course "peaceful" is a fairly subjective term.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
The diffence is that although power passes from father to son in some of these republics it is not part of their constitutional set up that power passes that way. I can imagine that if this went on for long enough though then they might morph into something like a monarchy.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Nick Tamen asks:
quote:
Do I understand this correctly to mean that 60% or so of Canadians would support a process by which the governor general is elected or nominated, but still is viceregal representative for the monarch, and 25% would support a (parliamentary) republic with an elected president? (As opposed to understanding it as 60% supporting a parliamentary republic where the head of state is called governor general rather than president?)
It appears that 60% of Canadians would support a presidential republic provided that it is not called that, and that we have an elected governor general and the Queen remains as Head of the Commonwealth (as she is for republics such as India, Trinidad, Zambia etc). There is strong opposition to having a presidential republic by that name. One commentator noted that we already have a presidential republic, with monarchical windowdressing and the president, as in some other countries, effectively nominated by party leaders.
My own approach, which was snorted at with derision, was that we simply declare that the Act of the Protestant Succession and the Act of Union with Scotland (which form part of the Canadian constitution, to the confusion of many) will not prevail over the charter and so, at some point, an princess older than a prince will get the job, or someone of the blood royal who is married to an RC will succeed. Eventually we would get our own monarch, who would name themselves as GG, and we would carry on much as we do now.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I should have known to not get into this argument when it became "We need a strong, stable unelected leader to save us from corrupt and weak democratically elected leaders."
Monarchies are not antithetical to democracy nor republics to autocracy and your description of the arguments on this thread is a nothing more than a travesty.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The diffence is that although power passes from father to son in some of these republics it is not part of their constitutional set up that power passes that way.
I disagree. Hafez Assad and Saddam Hussein deliberately constituted their nations/governments in such a way to facilitate exactly that kind of inter-generational transfer of power.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I can imagine that if this went on for long enough though then they might morph into something like a monarchy.
Is that the "Holy Roman Empire" rule? Parent-to-child transfer of political power is "republicanism" if not part of the official constitution, unless it goes on long enough. Then it's "monarchy". How many transfers qualify as "enough", and does that retroactively make previous intra-familial power transfers monarchical, or are the first couple successions still counted as "republican"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
It appears that 60% of Canadians would support a presidential republic provided that it is not called that
I've heard it from more than one Canadian that the primary charm of the monarchy for Canadians is that the United States doesn't have one.
--------------------
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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The diffence is that although power passes from father to son in some of these republics it is not part of their constitutional set up that power passes that way.
I disagree. Hafez Assad and Saddam Hussein deliberately constituted their nations/governments in such a way to facilitate exactly that kind of inter-generational transfer of power.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I can imagine that if this went on for long enough though then they might morph into something like a monarchy.
Is that the "Holy Roman Empire" rule? Parent-to-child transfer of political power is "republicanism" if not part of the official constitution, unless it goes on long enough. Then it's "monarchy". How many transfers qualify as "enough", and does that retroactively make previous intra-familial power transfers monarchical, or are the first couple successions still counted as "republican"?
I do not follow the Holy Roman Empire point but I believe there were republics in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth century that gradually morphed into monarchies. Wasn't Florence one of them going from rule by a republican oligarchy to rule by the Medici dynasty?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That is the problem. If you've got royals, I don't see how you can get rid of them apart from having a revolution. If you just retired them, they'd still be there, still be invited to be patrons of charities and name ships.
Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?
In France only among far-right weirdo fruitcakes.
Many German royal families either conveniently died out in a blaze of absinthe and decadence sometime between 1866 and 1914 or else became British or Spanish. Or ran away to Switzerland to be bankers. But there are a few around.
The granddaddies of them all, the Hapsburgs, still exist and are still involved in Austrian politics. but show no signs of wanting to be kings or emperors anywhere again. I wouldn;t be at all surprised if some of their relatives occasionally get dreessed up and go to parties where minor dukes curtsey in theur general direction or whatever it is that minor dukes do around Hapsburgs.
Plenty of countries have non-reigning monarchs who get some voluntary respect from the peopel their ancestors used to rule. Ghana has the Asantehene for example, who Asante can choose to treat as king if they want but no-one else does. Elaborate court ceremony and all. Uganda has about half a dozen little kings, though the history of their involvment in post-independence politics has mostly varied from sad to disastrous.
Us decent republicans have no objections to purely voluntary monarchies. As long as you leave us out of having to bow or scrape or pay for them.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[ Parent-to-child transfer of political power is "republicanism" if not part of the official constitution, unless it goes on long enough. Then it's "monarchy". How many transfers qualify as "enough", and does that retroactively make previous intra-familial power transfers monarchical, or are the first couple successions still counted as "republican"?
It happened to that bastion of liberal democracy, the Netherlands. The Dutch Republic drifted into monarchy sometime between 1688 and 1848. William III of England was never King of the Netherlands, just its semi-hereditary Statholder, a sort of Prime Minister. He was also also William III of Orange - but Orange wasn't in the Netherlands it was where it always had been, somewhere in the general region of the south of France. Yes, there was de facto Protestant Dutch dependency stuck in Catholic France duing the Wars of Religion - technically a free city of the Holy Roman Empire I think but in practice almost independent of it.
William IIIs predecessors, William the Silent and the notoriously grave Maurice had been more or less appointed by the representatives of the various United Provinces (I think in law they were representatives of the Emperor to start with, sort of like regents or agents or something, but in practice they were at war with the Emperor, and please nopbody mention the Grand Pensionary. Or Wiliam II who I have forgotten entirely - these things are somethimes more fun when you don't look them up) But his succesors - a series of increasingly ineffectual if well-meaning princelings one of whom was cruelly caricatured in the Sharpe series on TV - a great programme and a great advert for monarchy ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) - got themselves made hereditary Stadtholders, then got booted out by Napoleon (happens to all the best royal families) and when they came back decided to call themselves kings after all and remained deeply unpopular for about a century until they got a good voiceover role in One of Our Aircraft is Missing and became instantly heroic, if not quite as instantly heroic as the King of Norway.
But then what do you expect from a nation state that was founded as a ruse by Charles V to keep his less favourite sons out of Belgium, and became both Protestant and independent due to a sneaky deal between some English pirates and a local gang of mercenaries.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
... I believe there were republics in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth century that gradually morphed into monarchies. Wasn't Florence one of them going from rule by a republican oligarchy to rule by the Medici dynasty?
The technical term is "coup" I think. Or possibly takeover, theft, conquest, appropriation, subjugation...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I do not follow the Holy Roman Empire point but I believe there were republics in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth century that gradually morphed into monarchies. Wasn't Florence one of them going from rule by a republican oligarchy to rule by the Medici dynasty?
I'm not sure that it was that gradual, organic or that it was acquiesced in by all.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
There seems to be an assumption here that monarchies are only hereditary when in the past a lot of monarchies were elective. The Papacy is surely such a monarchy? Certainly the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland were.
Ken said that the German Empire only lasted 48 years but surely that was only the Second Reich the First Reich lasted a thousand years. And the Hohenzollerns although only providing emporers in the nineteenth century have been sovereign princes since the eleventh century.
Whilst no system is perfect modern monarchies provide some of the most stable and prosperous nations in the world encompassing such countries as Britain, Norway, The Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Jordan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Belgium, Jamaica et al.
If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.
Anyone who wants to do away with the British monarchy has only to cross the Channel to see what living in a republic would be like. Sarkozy or Hollande take anyone's fancy? President Blair? President Cameron? As for America the less said the better.
The United Kingdom shares an open land border with a Republic that drives on the same side of the road and speaks the same language. Not that different from the UK really. And you can get the Daily Telegraph in every newsagents..
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I do not follow the Holy Roman Empire point . . .
It was a callback to a point made by Ricardus (in response to you so I thought you might have remembered it) that although the official constitution of the Holy Roman Empire in theory allowed the election of anyone as Emperor, in actual practice it was just one long line of Habsburgs (and before them Hohenstaufens). This is directly relevant to your claim that it doesn't count as a monarchy if power transfers aren't officially via family relationship. My question is simple. How many Habsburgs in a row does it take before we acknowledge constitution-in-fact, regardless of what constitution-in-theory has to say on the matter?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nick Tamen, I'd agree with your reservations about separation of powers, but the most obvious flaws from outside aren't having an executive head of state. It's that:-
a. The legislature is not responsible for administration; so it isn't responsible for carrying out the laws it makes, and
b. The executive isn't from day to day answerable to anyone, (there's no President's Question Time) and so can only be challenged by triggering a constitutional crisis.
Valid points, though I think they may both be flip sides of the separation of powers coin. As I said, no system is perfect. A society decides which principles are most important to it -- and of those you noted above, American society decided that separation of powers was the most important -- and then lives with the downsides of that decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick Tamen asks:
quote:
Do I understand this correctly to mean that 60% or so of Canadians would support a process by which the governor general is elected or nominated, but still is viceregal representative for the monarch, and 25% would support a (parliamentary) republic with an elected president? (As opposed to understanding it as 60% supporting a parliamentary republic where the head of state is called governor general rather than president?)
It appears that 60% of Canadians would support a presidential republic provided that it is not called that, and that we have an elected governor general and the Queen remains as Head of the Commonwealth (as she is for republics such as India, Trinidad, Zambia etc). There is strong opposition to having a presidential republic by that name. One commentator noted that we already have a presidential republic, with monarchical windowdressing and the president, as in some other countries, effectively nominated by party leaders.
Thanks, AtA.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The path to a Canadian republic is indeed a tortuous (and torturous) one, and it probably wouldn't happen for quite some time. But Canada's history shows a progression from colony toward increasing independence:
The monarchists have a silver bullet though- having a queen makes Canadians different from Americans.
Ah, but now that we've got universal health care we don't need her anymore to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours ![[Biased]](wink.gif) . The second amendment is also handy.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
