Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67

Thread: Monarchism

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Gefjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Married parent
    Posts
    1,435
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    338
    Thanked in
    190 Posts

    Monarchism

    n., pl. -chies.
    Government by a monarch.
    A state ruled or headed by a monarch.
    [Middle English monarchie, from Old French, from Latin monarchia, from Greek monarkhiā, from monarkhos, monarch. See monarch.]

    n.
    One who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right, especially:
    A sole and absolute ruler.
    A sovereign, such as a king or empress, often with constitutionally limited authority: a constitutional monarch.
    One that commands or rules: “I am monarch of all I survey” (William Cowper).
    One that surpasses others in power or preeminence: “Mont Blanc is the monarch of the mountains” (Byron).
    A monarch butterfly.
    [Middle English monarke, from Old French monarque, from Late Latin monarcha, from Greek monarkhos : mono-, mono- + arkhein, to rule.]


    What is Monarchism:

    Monarchists (Royalists) are adherents to the notion of monarchy and monarchic government. They hold that monarchy or government by a monarch is the best kind of government, just as republicans hold that a republic or government by elected representatives of the people is the best kind of government. In seeking to promote the notion that monarchy is the best form of government, monarchists often work for the re-ascension of particular royal lineages to the thrones they have lost due to revolution or other political upheavals. However, monarchists do not just seek to re-establish bygone monarchies. They also work assiduously to maintain and strengthen existing ones, believing that strong and viable living monarchies are the best arguments for the continuation and proliferation of the monarchic form of government everywhere.

    Not all monarchists are of aristocratic or royal blood themselves, but they all share the notion that aristocracy and monarchy (hereditary or otherwise) are superior forms of government. However, prominent monarchists are and have been of aristocratic and royal blood, and often have raised the standard of monarchism to keep the legitimate claims of their own lines alive, as well as that of monarchism as a form of government in general. The living members of the Romanovs, the Russian Imperial family, those of the Habsburgs, the Austrian Imperial family, those of the Hohenzollern, the German Imperial family, the houses of Orleans and Bourbon, the French royal families, and those of the Qajars (Kadjars) and the Pahlavis, the Persian and Iranian Imperial families, respectively, come to mind here, among others.

    Monarchy, that is rule by one who is a king or queen, is perhaps the oldest form of government in the world, and certainly the longest surviving form of government. Most of recorded history is the history of monarchic government, of one kind or another, up to and including our present century. Monarchy presents itself in a variety of forms and is associated with a number of related concepts such as Aristocracy, Absolutism, Primogeniture, Divine Right, Sovereignty, etc.

    Monarchy is also the subject at the core of political philosophy, in the West as well as in the East. From Plato's "Philosopher-Kings," to the divine kingship of Rama and Krishna, to the Mandate of Heaven of the Chinese Emperor, to King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, to the "Sun King" and even the "Lion King," the image of the monarch at the center of the social, political and moral universe has had an abiding and relevant presence in our imagination and in our daily discourse.

    Our noblest aspirations and our greatest hopes have been associated with the notion of kingship and monarchy. Often, however, the actual practice of monarchy has fallen short of these high ideals and has thus given the form of government and the concept of kingship a bad name.

    Monarchy, both ideal and actual, is the subject of our endeavour here. The outcome will hopefully be the promotion of better understanding of the notion of monarchic government and greater adherence to the notion that monarchy is the noblest form of government and worthy of greater support and propagation world-wide as we move towards the 21st century and beyond.

    In the spirit of remembrance of those who have been martyred for either their belief in Monarchy or their embodiment of it, we offer this quote from Edmund Burke on the occasion of the death of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, lest we forget!

    On the occasion of the death of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, Edmund Burke made the following speech in the House of Commons in 1793.

    It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the Queen of France, then the Dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, --glittering like the morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh! what a revolution! and what a heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream, when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.

    Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom! The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone. It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.

    Edmund Burke - 1793

    Click here to read more about it


    Do you support monarchism or do you think it's an outdated form of rule? Are you in favor of hereditarianism or elections?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    sophia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 28th, 2008 @ 03:31 PM
    Age
    35
    Posts
    334
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    I think, honestly, that hereditary position would work better than the current electoral system.
    However some electoral system (one with a longer term, stricter limits on who can vote and significantly more accountability) could potentially surpass both.
    A* I’m a dreadful reactionary, Mrs. Helena. I don’t like this progress one bit.
    H* Like Nana.
    A* Yes, like Nana. Does Nana have a prayer book?
    H* A big fat one.
    A* And are there prayers in it for various occurrences in life? Against storms? Against illness?
    H* Against temptation, against floods -
    A* But not against progress, I suppose?
    H* > I think not.
    A* That’s a shame.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Reid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 @ 08:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    Dominion of Canada Dominion of Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    64
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    I support a hereditary executive and upper house, although I am not reactionary enough to believe all power should be concentrated there - monarchy is a superior form of central government, but it needs to be tempered by regional devolution and, as yet not implemented, a technocratic arm of government.

    Those who doubt the basic efficacy of monarchy should ask themselves an allegorical question: who is likely to make the better caretaker of piece of land or property - a renter or an owner? Both are certainly interested in using their acquisitions for profit, but the owner has a vested long-term interest in the well-being and development of his property while the renter does not. The renter is more likely to over-use and run down the property as quickly as he can, and has no concern for its lasting value.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Soldier of Wodann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Posts
    771
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    I don't personally like the idea too much, it seems rather risky, albeit far better than democracy. Many European monarchs were good, but many bad as well, though I admit most were positive. I prefer a despotism instead though.

    We are born to fight and to die and to continue the Flow
    The Flow of our People


    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Reid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 @ 08:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    Dominion of Canada Dominion of Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    64
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier of Wodann View Post
    I don't personally like the idea too much, it seems rather risky, albeit far better than democracy. Many European monarchs were good, but many bad as well, though I admit most were positive. I prefer a despotism instead though.
    Despotism is far more dangerous because despotic leaders have much more control over society than monarchs. Monarchs tend to maintain their rule through private wealth, and their precarious position is exactly what restrains them from assuming totalistic power. At the same time, monarchs command a more authentic loyalty, and are better able to unite their people in times of war and emergency. Despots more closely resemble democratic leaders in their both their totalitarian tendencies and the way they sow disunion in society (Robespierre or Jackson anyone?).

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Soldier of Wodann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Posts
    771
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Despotism is far more dangerous because despotic leaders have much more control over society than monarchs. Monarchs tend to maintain their rule through private wealth, and their precarious position is exactly what restrains them from assuming totalistic power. At the same time, monarchs command a more authentic loyalty, and are better able to unite their people in times of war and emergency. Despots more closely resemble democratic leaders in their both their totalitarian tendencies and the way they sow disunion in society (Robespierre or Jackson anyone?).
    They do have more control (in some cases), but the intent is not usually to take advantage of the people, in a true despotism. For example, the group and leader of the group which overcame the previous system would of course be the new leaders, who would have probably overthrown the previous system for non-personal issues. After this group begins dying off from old age or by resignation, they should appoint people who they trust to rule the country and so forth, and so long as the potential for greed is strongly checked, I think the system would work.

    Monarchy can breeds inept leaders, like Peter III, Catherine the Great's husband, whereas an experienced leader choosing his successor seems much less likely to have bad results. And in many societies, like France and Russia, the monarchs had a very very strong control, probably more than a lot of despotisms. Despotisms can easily be checked by analysis of the principles for which the despotism stands for and their actions, whereas a monarch isn't accountable for anything, as it is their Divine Right to rule, regardless of their success.

    We are born to fight and to die and to continue the Flow
    The Flow of our People


    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Loddfafner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 26th, 2018 @ 11:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    European Blood, American Soil
    Ancestry
    English, Swedish, Scottish, Irish, German, Welsh
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    New Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Beyond left and right
    Religion
    Odin/Thor/Freyr
    Posts
    947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Monarchy is appropriate for countries that are vast in relation to the methods of communication, in other words, in a past time. It is a system where responsibility for a task such as running a country or region is charged to a family, and the skills are passed down through that family.

    In the present day, it makes no sense to start a new country off with a monarchy, or to switch to one. As for existing monarchies, I believe they are worth maintaining as a break against the tendencies of modernity and capitalism to erode tradition.

    I am atttaching the image of my favorite twentieth-century monarch.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, April 26th, 2010 @ 04:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    646
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier of Wodann View Post
    Despotisms can easily be checked by analysis of the principles for which the despotism stands for and their actions, whereas a monarch isn't accountable for anything, as it is their Divine Right to rule, regardless of their success.
    False. Divine Right is always in conformity with the sacred law. If in opposition to the eternal doctrine then it is a heresy.

    Monarchy has no meaning in the modern world because the people no longer understand tradition and metaphysics. There is no sacerdotal and royal elite properly so called.

    Flesh and blood alone doesn't rule; the divine intellect does.
    "The human state is an exit." -Frithjof Schuon

    "Make me immortal in that realm where they move even as they list, in the third sphere of inmost heaven where lucid worlds are full of light." -Rig Veda IX.113

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    DanseMacabre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 6th, 2008 @ 10:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    American
    Ancestry
    English and German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Kansas Kansas
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Idealist
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    237
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    I prefer a meritocracy where the leaders are chosen because of ability not heredity. As long as the Aristocracy/Monarchy was chosen according to merit however I'd have no problem with it.
    “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs-Jon Jay, Federalist Papers

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    SwordOfTheVistula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 1st, 2012 @ 12:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    50% German, 25% English, 25% Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Construction, writer/editor
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    2,989
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    74
    Thanked in
    74 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Those who doubt the basic efficacy of monarchy should ask themselves an allegorical question: who is likely to make the better caretaker of piece of land or property - a renter or an owner? Both are certainly interested in using their acquisitions for profit, but the owner has a vested long-term interest in the well-being and development of his property while the renter does not. The renter is more likely to over-use and run down the property as quickly as he can, and has no concern for its lasting value.
    Wouldn't this be an argument for a form of Republican government in which the landowners have a vote?

    Generally I view monarchy as a bad thing, since it is not chosen on merit but basically rolling the dice. Additionally, the privileged status of the monarch's upbringing will ensure that he/she is out of touch with the common citizen and detached from reality to at least some extent, which will hamper the monarch's decision making. The best rulers, such as Adolf Hitler and Andrew Jackson, tend to be people from modest backgrounds who reach the top spot due to merit.
    Contact Congress on immigration
    Contact Congress to reject banker bailout
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin

Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sine Nomine on Monarchism
    By Gundahar in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 04:57 PM
  2. Republicanism v's Monarchism
    By Bridie in forum Australia & New Zealand
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: Friday, September 15th, 2006, 04:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •