Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Horthy
Being completely realistic the chances of establishing a new monarchy, let alone reestablishing
a deposed one, is extremely unlikely in the 21st century.

Electing a resident Windsor monarch in a Commonwealth realm isn't establishing a new monarchy. It's electing a new monarch in a current monarchy.
Establishing a new monarchy isn't entirely impossible in the 21th century, because a lot of countries are family dictatorships. A family dictatorship is a de facto monarchy. In North Korea, the constitution has even been amended in order enshrine hereditary Kim rule. Syria, Azerbaijan, Singapore, Togo, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea are hereditary dictatorships as well. Kazakhstan may become a hereditary dictatorship as well, because Dariga Nazarbayeva, the daughter of Elbasy Nursultan Nazarbayev, is the chairman of the Senate of Kazakhstan. If Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the current President of Kazakhstan dies or resigns, Dariga Nazarbayeva will become President of Kazakhstan.
Some of the dynasties of hereditary dictatorships are actually of royal or noble origin. The Nazarbayevs are descendants of Genghis Khan, and the Assads belong to the Alawite nobility of Syria. I will support making a Nazarbayev the Khan of Kazakhstan or an Assad the King of Syria.
Concerning reestablishing a deposed dynasty, I wouldn't rule out the monarchies of Russia, Georgia and Iran being restored, because a strong monarchist current exists in Russia, and some prominent pro-Putin politicians, such as Sergey Aksyonov, the governor of Crimea, and some prominent Russian Orthodox clergymen, such as Vsevolod Chaplin, are monarchists. The patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church strongly supports restoration of the Georgian monarchy. In Iran, Reza Pahlavi enjoys significant popular support. In addition, the monarchy was partially restored in Montenegro in 2011, when the head of the royal dynasty of Montenegro was granted a salary equivalent to that of the President of Montenegro and was made an official representative of Montenegro.
The Orthodox Christian countries are the countries, where restoration of monarchies are most likely to happen, except Iran. The former monarchies of Western Europe being restored is extremely unlikely to happen.


azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #17 
On this forum, I have noticed some complacency regarding current monarchies. DavidV has claimed, that Australian republicanism is dead, because Labor lost the Australian general election in May after having promised a republic referendum, and other members have claimed, that the Spanish monarchy is safe. But Australian republicanism will inevitably resurface, when Queen Elizabeth dies, and republicanism is far stronger in Spain than in the other European monarchies. It is important to be vigilant regarding threats to current monarchies. I consider Australia and New Zealand becoming republics inevitable due to the desire for a resident head of state, unless a resident Windsor monarch is elected. But the Spanish monarchy can still be saved.
To me, saving the Spanish monarchy is far more important than saving the monarchies of Australia and New Zealand, because saving a resident monarchy is far more important than saving a non-resident monarchy. The Windsors will still reign in England and Scotland if Australia and New Zealand become republics.
It's understandable, that Aussies and Kiwis prefer a resident for president to having the British monarch as the head of state. But I still prefer the British monarch remaining the head of state of Australia and New Zealand to Australia and New Zealand becoming republics. The British monarch being the head of state of Australia and New Zealand is hardly unacceptable, because the non-indigenous cultural heritage of Australia and New Zealand is of British origin, and the Australian Aboriginals and the Maori are after all minorities. In addition, the Maori voluntarily swore allegiance to Queen Victoria.
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 64
Reply with quote  #18 
“ I consider Australia and New Zealand becoming republics inevitable due to the desire for a resident head of state, unless a resident Windsor monarch is elected.”

You might consider it so but I’d suggest you speak to more Australian’s or New Zealander’s and leave your anti-British bias out of the Constitutional matters of HM’s Realms.

Sprouting your biases, born out of a perceived injustice a century ago in the Middle East, and advocating the break up of the Commonwealth Realms does nothing but artificially inflate the republican position.

As an Australia living in New Zealand I have a unique perspective. Absolutely no-one in New Zealand is talking about heads of state or a republic. While the issue crops up every now and then in Australia, mostly on public holidays, it isn’t a mainstream issue and will always face fierce opposition and needs a triple majority in a referendum to become a reality.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROO86
“ I consider Australia and New Zealand becoming republics inevitable due to the desire for a resident head of state, unless a resident Windsor monarch is elected.”

You might consider it so but I’d suggest you speak to more Australian’s or New Zealander’s and leave your anti-British bias out of the Constitutional matters of HM’s Realms.

Sprouting your biases, born out of a perceived injustice a century ago in the Middle East, and advocating the break up of the Commonwealth Realms does nothing but artificially inflate the republican position.

As an Australia living in New Zealand I have a unique perspective. Absolutely no-one in New Zealand is talking about heads of state or a republic. While the issue crops up every now and then in Australia, mostly on public holidays, it isn’t a mainstream issue and will always face fierce opposition and needs a triple majority in a referendum to become a reality.

I don't want Australia and New Zealand to become republics. I prefer Australia and New Zealand keeping the British monarch as the head of state to Australia and New Zealand becoming republics. Opposing the British monarch being the head of state of Australia and New Zealand doesn't make sense to me, because the non-indigenous cultural heritage of Australia and New Zealand is of British origin, and the Australian Aboriginals and the Maori are after all minorities.
I agree, that Australia and New Zealand are unlikely to become republics during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. But according to a recent opinion poll, 55 % of New Zealanders want New Zealand to become a republic, when Queen Elizabeth dies, while 39 % of New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy. 76 % of New Zealanders aged 18-30 want New Zealand to become a republic, when Queen Elizabeth dies. Jacinda Ardern claims, that New Zealand becoming a republic is inevitable, and Malcolm Turnbull want to postpone making Australia a republic until Queen Elizabeth dies. Bill Shorten committed a grave mistake by proposing a republic referendum during the lifetime of Queen Elizabeth.
It's true, that I want Great Britain to support Kurdish independence from Iraq in order to repent of its crimes against Kurdistan, but I don't hate Great Britain. It's the Iraqis, not the Britons, who have oppressed us. I'm less of an Anglophile than most members of this forum, but that's hardly surprising. I'm after all of Central Powers origin (I'm a Kurd, who is descended from East German nobility. The Kurds were loyal to the Ottoman Empire during World War I, and the Ottoman Empire was an ally of Germany in World War I). I dislike nostalgia for British colonialism in India, Africa and the Middle East, but Great Britain was no worse than the other European colonial powers. The Spanish Empire was even worse than the British Empire. But I like the British monarchy, because of its long history, its great traditions and its pageantry, and Great Britain saved Germany from itself during World War II together with Russia and USA. I admire Queen Elizabeth for having fulfilled her duties impeccably, and I actually like Prince Charles, because he is a traditionalist and an environmentalist. I like his support for organic farming and traditional architecture.
But to me, defending non-resident monarchies such as the monarchies of Australia and New Zealand is far less important than defending resident monarchies such as the monarchies of Great Britain and Spain, and restoring the Russian and Iranian monarchies is also far more important to me than defending the non-resident monarchies of Australia and New Zealand.

TuiMangareva

Registered:
Posts: 49
Reply with quote  #20 
New Zealand/Aotearoa already has resident royalty in the person of the Maori King, King Tūheitia and his family. A New Zealander friend told me that there has been suggestions in the past that, if the country decided to "ditch the Windsors"  that the he should be head of state.
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 64
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

But according to a recent opinion poll, 55 % of New Zealanders want New Zealand to become a republic, when Queen Elizabeth dies, while 39 % of New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy. 76 % of New Zealanders aged 18-30 want New Zealand to become a republic, when Queen Elizabeth dies. Jacinda Ardern claims, that New Zealand becoming a republic is inevitable, and Malcolm Turnbull want to postpone making Australia a republic until Queen Elizabeth dies. Bill Shorten committed a grave mistake by proposing a republic referendum during the lifetime of Queen Elizabeth.




I’m not sure which pill you’re referencing? The latest poll I could find, from May, was commissioned by the NZ republican movement...clearly not a credible source. Even then the numbers differ to those you’ve quoted above. Regardless, it’s not an issue being discussed in NZ, similarly to Australia where it’s not discussed outside the inner city elites, politicians and MSM.

Like any claims by Turnbull and Shorten, Ardern claiming a republic is inevitable does not make it so. The republicans were saying it was inevitable in 1999 and look how that turned out!
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROO86


I’m not sure which pill you’re referencing? The latest poll I could find, from May, was commissioned by the NZ republican movement...clearly not a credible source. Even then the numbers differ to those you’ve quoted above. Regardless, it’s not an issue being discussed in NZ, similarly to Australia where it’s not discussed outside the inner city elites, politicians and MSM.

Like any claims by Turnbull and Shorten, Ardern claiming a republic is inevitable does not make it so. The republicans were saying it was inevitable in 1999 and look how that turned out!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_New_Zealand#Public_opinion
I like Jacinda Ardern, who is the Corbyn of New Zealand. I'm a social democrat, who is strongly opposed to neoliberalism. I like the economic policies of Jacinda Ardern. The government of Jacinda Ardern has restricted the right of foreigners to own real estate in New Zealand and has expanded the public social welfare system in New Zealand. In addition, Jacinda Ardern supports compulsory teaching of the Maori language in schools, which I like, and Jacinda Ardern supports limiting immigration to New Zealand, which I like. If I was a citizen of New Zealand, I would vote Labour. I actually vote for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is a social democratic, secularist and Kurdish nationalist party, which was pro-Soviet during the Cold War, and which is pro-Russian today. But despite my support for Jacinda Ardern, I will still support keeping the Windsor monarchy, if a republic referendum is held in New Zealand.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,576
Reply with quote  #23 
I am sick of the faux-monarchist republicans with their schemes to save monarchy! If, God forbid, HRH doesn't succeed to the Throne of any of the Commonwealth Realms, it will not be a cadet branch of the Royal House that replaces him. It will be a full blown republic!
__________________
'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!
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 64
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_New_Zealand#Public_opinion
I like Jacinda Ardern, who is the Corbyn of New Zealand. I'm a social democrat, who is strongly opposed to neoliberalism. I like the economic policies of Jacinda Ardern. The government of Jacinda Ardern has restricted the right of foreigners to own real estate in New Zealand and has expanded the public social welfare system in New Zealand. In addition, Jacinda Ardern supports compulsory teaching of the Maori language in schools, which I like, and Jacinda Ardern supports limiting immigration to New Zealand, which I like. If I was a citizen of New Zealand, I would vote Labour. I actually vote for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is a social democratic, secularist and Kurdish nationalist party, which was pro-Soviet during the Cold War, and which is pro-Russian today. But despite my support for Jacinda Ardern, I will still support keeping the Windsor monarchy, if a republic referendum is held in New Zealand.


Ah OK. Good thing you don’t have a vote in either the UK or NZ then.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROO86


Ah OK. Good thing you don’t have a vote in either the UK or NZ then.

Why do you hate Labour? If I was a British citizen, I would actually vote Conservative because I prefer Boris Johnson's policies on Brexit. But I admit, that I dislike the neoliberal conservatives of the Anglosphere. I dislike free-market capitalism, and I dislike Communism too. That's why I'm a social democrat. I dislike Blair too, because he embraced neoliberalism. But Ardern rejects neoliberalism. I support tuition-free university education, universal health care and a strong social safety net. I like restricting the right of foreigners to own real estate, because rich foreigners buying real estate makes real estate less affordableto the working class. Free-market capitalism oppresses and exploits the working class. 
Voting for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan doesn't make me a Communist. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan has never been a Communist party, despite being pro-Soviet during the Cold War. India was pro-Soviet during the Cold War, despite not being ruled by Communists.
DEATH TO CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM! LONG LIVE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,033
Reply with quote  #26 
From various things you have said, you appear to believe that the state should be the sole owner of all means of production, distribution and supply within a country and sole employer of the population. That is not social democracy, which is the pursuit of social goals within a mixed economy and free market. It is, at best, democratic socialism, a model which has never been tried and would likely be indistinguishable in practice from outright communism.

Support for a social safety net is not confined to socialists and was not even originally a socialist idea. The first modern social security system was established in Germany under Bismarck's chancellery. I do not think too many people would classify him as a closet socialist. In Britain, though many, perhaps most, people are under the misapprehension that Labour introduced social security provision this is not the case. The system was first set up by Liberal governments before, during and after the First World War, at a time when Britain had yet to have a Labour government. Personally I believe no civilised country should ever allow any of its people to starve, to live in absolute poverty or to be homeless. Such beliefs are I would think general throughout the political spectrum.

I will never under any circumstances vote Labour. This is because every Labour government has without exception been economically incompetent and in numerous ways damaging to the country. Which is not to say that no Conservative government has not been the same, but at least they have not all been. Corbyn as Prime Minister would be worse than all the previous Labour governments put together, the country might quite literally never recover. He is a very, very bad man, as half even of his own party seem to agree, and should never be let anywhere near No. 10; he might never be got out again.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
From various things you have said, you appear to believe that the state should be the sole owner of all means of production, distribution and supply within a country and sole employer of the population. That is not social democracy, which is the pursuit of social goals within a mixed economy and free market. It is, at best, democratic socialism, a model which has never been tried and would likely be indistinguishable in practice from outright communism.

Support for a social safety net is not confined to socialists and was not even originally a socialist idea. The first modern social security system was established in Germany under Bismarck's chancellery. I do not think too many people would classify him as a closet socialist. In Britain, though many, perhaps most, people are under the misapprehension that Labour introduced social security provision this is not the case. The system was first set up by Liberal governments before, during and after the First World War, at a time when Britain had yet to have a Labour government. Personally I believe no civilised country should ever allow any of its people to starve, to live in absolute poverty or to be homeless. Such beliefs are I would think general throughout the political spectrum.

I will never under any circumstances vote Labour. This is because every Labour government has without exception been economically incompetent and in numerous ways damaging to the country. Which is not to say that no Conservative government has not been the same, but at least they have not all been. Corbyn as Prime Minister would be worse than all the previous Labour governments put together, the country might quite literally never recover. He is a very, very bad man, as half even of his own party seem to agree, and should never be let anywhere near No. 10; he might never be got out again.

I don't believe, that the state shall be the sole owner of the means of production. I support private enterprise, and I'm strongly opposed to expropriation of private property without fair compensation. But I support nationalization of public utilities, natural resources and perhaps banks. In addition, I'm a strong opponent of tuition fees at universities, because it makes it more difficult for academically gifted young people from poor families to obtain an university education. I call myself a democratic socialist, because the term social democracy has been associated with the Third Way, which Blair and Gerhard Schröder supported. I dislike Blairism, because it embraces neoliberalism. I'm strongly opposed to neoliberalism. I like traditional social democracy, and I admire Helmut Schmidt, Clement Atlee, Jawaharlal Nehru and Lula. I vote for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is a Kurdish social democratic, secularist and nationalist party.
It's true, that Bismarck introduced the first social security system, and it's true, that Bismarck wasn't a socialist. I admire Bismarck, because he introduced the first social security system and unified Germany. But traditional conservatives like Bismarck are very different from neoliberal conservatives. Most conservatives in the Anglosphere, such as Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Scott Morrison, John Key, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz are neoliberals, and Blair, Malcolm Turnbull, Justin Trudeau and the Clintons are neoliberals too. Trump rejects neoliberalism concerning foreign trade, but supports neoliberalism concerning domestic economic policies.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
I am sick of the faux-monarchist republicans with their schemes to save monarchy! If, God forbid, HRH doesn't succeed to the Throne of any of the Commonwealth Realms, it will not be a cadet branch of the Royal House that replaces him. It will be a full blown republic!

Claiming, that I'm a faux-monarchist republican is slander. I support keeping all current monarchies, and I support restoration of the Russian and Iranian monarchies. I prefer Canada, Australia and New Zealand keeping the British monarch as the head of state to Canada, Australia and New Zealand becoming republics. 
But I'm far more willing to accept Canada, Australia and New Zealand becoming republics than to accept Great Britain and Spain becoming republics, because Canada, Australia and New Zealand lack a resident monarch.
It's understandable, that you don't want to advocate for Canada to make a cadet branch of the Windsors the new royal house of Canada, because you fear such advocacy will weaken the monarchy of Canada and strengthen republicanism. You may be right. But do you as a Canadian monarchist honestly prefer Canada having the British monarch as its head of state to Canada having its own Windsor monarch, if both options were realistic options? Despite liking the Ottoman Empire, I would as a Kurdish monarchist definitely prefer Kurdistan having its own Osmanoglu Shah to the Shah of Kurdistan being the Sultan of Turkey.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,269
Reply with quote  #29 
Social democracy is no better than neoliberalism. They are both corrosive of family, community, environment. Chesterbelloc, Henry George, and E. F. Schumacher had much better solutions than the socialist Atlee or Schmidt.

Arden is a dolt, clearly, but I wouldn't go as far as to compare her to Corbyn. Heck, I wouldn't compare Trump to Corbyn. Corbyn is the worst major Western leader or opposition leader I know of.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Social democracy is no better than neoliberalism. They are both corrosive of family, community, environment. Chesterbelloc, Henry George, and E. F. Schumacher had much better solutions than the socialist Atlee or Schmidt.

Arden is a dolt, clearly, but I wouldn't go as far as to compare her to Corbyn. Heck, I wouldn't compare Trump to Corbyn. Corbyn is the worst major Western leader or opposition leader I know of.

I disagree with you. I like modern centralized states, and distributism appears to be too decentralized and too based on Catholic social teaching. I'm a secularist, and I dislike the principle of subsidiarity. In addition, distributism lacks significant popular support, unlike social democracy. Distributism appear utopian to me, and I dislike Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, who were anti-Semites and Islamophobes. The family, the local community or charities having to take care of the poor is a bad idea. The state taking care of the poor is the best practical solution, because it establishes a strong and reliable social safety net. But I agree, that the family ought to take care of the children and the elderly. The Nordic model, which sends children to day care, and the elderly to nursery homes, is flawed. In Kurdistan, families remain strong, and most married women don't work outside the home. But the state ought to provide tuition-free university education, health care free of charge, unemployment benefits, disability pensions and old age pensions. The state ought to regulate the economy in order to rein in the excesses of the market, and public utilities and natural resources ought to be owned by the state. Local communities are unable to rein in the excesses of the market.
Even if you prefer distributism to social democracy, claiming, that social democracy is no better than neoliberalism is wrong. Social democracy is far better for poor people and the working class than neoliberalism is. 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.