Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 4      1   2   3   4   Next
CondeDeLara

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #1 
   I am one to prefer traditional monarchy, but I know that this not the case for everyone. 

   I would like to see your opinion and why you prefer that form more. Find the pros and cons of it.  

__________________
"We do not come from kings for, in reality, kings come from us."

"My empire is the empire that never rests."

"Pure science is the doctrine and logic of fools, but pure religion and faith is the logic and doctrine of wise men."
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,788
Reply with quote  #2 
Interesting that you use different words in your post than in the title.  "Traditional" Monarchy and "Absolute" Monarchy are not necessarily the same thing. 

I support whichever form of monarchy it is practical to support.  It would be equally quixotic to advocate absolute monarchy in Sweden or liberal parliamentary "figurehead" monarchy in Saudi Arabia.  Generally, regarding countries that currently have constitutional monarchies, I defend the status quo and would not want to link monarchism too closely to a comprehensive counter-revolutionary agenda.  In places like France, however, where even a ceremonial constitutional monarchy appears highly unlikely regardless of what monarchists do, there is no harm in monarchists being as reactionary as they want to be. 
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 429
Reply with quote  #3 
There is also quite a range from figurehead-style constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy. My preferences fall in the middle, I'd say. Think Hapsburg-controlled Austria/Hungary. 

That's not to say, like Theodore, that I don't support constitutional monarchy where it exists -- I do. As I would if an absolute monarchy returned to, say, France. Saudi Arabia I have a much harder time with, though however vile the current regime is, I have little doubt that a democratically elected one would be worse.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #4 
The Traditional Monarchy of our people is one with a strong executive, AND a functioning Parliament. 

Sovereign, Lords, and Commons forever!


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,530
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CondeDeLara
   I am one to prefer traditional monarchy, but I know that this not the case for everyone. 

   I would like to see your opinion and why you prefer that form more. Find the pros and cons of it.  


I too prefer traditional monarchy, not the Renaissance heresy of absolutism!

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
NeasOlc

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
traditional monarchy

Like in the Middle Ages, centuries before the era of absolutism?
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,462
Reply with quote  #7 
Absolutism I think cut the branch off that the King was sitting on and paved the way for the French Revolution.   Absolutism came at the expense of the traditional corporate bodies and ranks of people that stood between the monarch and the people.   For example the French aristocracy formerly was a potent military force with great responsibility over the particular regions where they held title.   However, as the monarch became more absolute, the aristocracy was rendered less independent and treated more as fixtures of the royal court.   By the time of the revolution, they were less able to be of any use in defending the monarchy or themselves.  
   
So Absolutism contributed in leveling the society, which we have today.   I don't prefer an egalitarianism under a monarch (absolutism; or what you see mostly today, a symbolic monarch treated as a fixture of the democracy), but a hierarchy of traditional ranks and corporate bodies, in which the monarch acts partly as an arbiter between these individuals and groups.   

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,788
Reply with quote  #8 
My head agrees with you, but my heart is still drawn to the splendour of Versailles...
NeasOlc

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #9 
I've been to Versailles and the Summer Palace in Austria. To be honest, I like the latter better...

Neither have a king in 'em though. I wonder why? (Rhetorical question)

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,788
Reply with quote  #10 
There are lots of reasons why monarchies have been abolished (none of them good).  I think it would be simplistic to blame "absolutism" or any other one single factor, especially as all different kinds of monarchies have been toppled in modern times.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,462
Reply with quote  #11 
I certainly don't blame the magnificence of those absolute monarchs, which I think is one of their best selling points.   In fact, that's one of the main reasons they did it and we're fortunate still to witness their splendor.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
NeasOlc

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #12 
It was a rhetorical question - I wasn't really searching an answer. :|

Though in retrospect it does seem that I was blaming absolutism, which at that point, I wasn't. Now that I think of it, absolutism may very well have contributed to what went down in Paris. When the whole place is a one-man show and that one man is incompetent...




BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #13 
Exactly!

With the traditional system, one man's greatness would be little hindered (positive acts flow through hindered only by jealousy); yet one man's folly would be greatly limited (negative acts being caught up in Council and Parliament).


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
NeasOlc

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #14 
Well you're preaching to the converted in this case.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #15 
Ah,
Not preaching to the quire;
Supplementing the readings is all......


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.