Once again: Do you believe that Monarchies are legitimate?

[JanMichael]

As in, "I belive that they have a "god" given right to exist.", because that's where they come from if you read their self aggrandizing justifications.

The Saudi's are a very good example.


Do you?

If so, why?

[JohnKleeb]

1. Heavens no

I hate Monarchies its one of the reasons why my ancestors left I assume. You mean what is called divine right is what you are talking about. I hate the way how some people in the past would hold grudges against certain peoples just because the monarch did.

[coralrf]

2. no

no again..I am an American.

[Against ME]

3. No,

but Jean Jaque Rousseau did, he thought it was the best possible government, and especially for large countries.
They don't have a "God" given right to exist, but if a country decided to have an election based Manarchy, I wouldn't try and stop them.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. I have no problem with constitutional monarchies.

If Bush were only the head of government, instead of the head of government and the head of state, he'd be easier to remove. For details, I refer you to Mr. Blair.

Spending a few score million on the ceremonial trappings of a monarchy to, in effect, increase the accoutability of the executive branch of government strikes me as an eminently defensible trade-off.

The problem is, the Saudis are emphatically not that sort of monarchy, though.

[aquart]

51. How about, does MY country have the right to decide

how other nations are to be governed?

If the Saudis don't like their government, they can overthrow it, like we did the British.

Your question reeks of the arrogance that caused us to invade a sovereign nation which had not attacked us.

If the Saudis or British believe kings are the way to go, exactly how is that your business? Or mine?

Should George call the Grahams about arranging a nice holy coronation, however, I will have many strong things to say about the government of MY nation.

[Maple]

5. The divine right of kings

was discredited centuries ago.

[Redleg]

6. NO, nor do I believe we should preemptively remove their king.

I suppose if the people of Saudi Arabia prefer the present system then that is what they should have.

[mitchum]

18. I doubt that the people of Saudi Arabia prefer that present system

The US military presence in the kingdom is there to keep Fahd and his family of jackals in power

[Against ME]

7. Monarchies are more efficient,

and if it is election based with constitution, then there is no concievable problem with it.

[Maple]

8. Who elects

monarchs??

[Against ME]

10. The citizens of the country.

Monarchies do not have to be inherited.

[Maple]

12. And who does this?

.

[Against ME]

22. Who does what?

If you mean holds an election? Probably a group selected by the previous Monarch, or in the constitution it would specify.

[Maple]

24. In other words

nobody in the world elects a monarch.

[Against ME]

56. What's your point?

Real life example's are irrelevant.

[leftofthedial]

9. no

that's the core problem with Bushco. they think they are entitled to rule.

[Clete]

11. The Saudis

are still living the way they did a thousand years ago. Back then they lived in tents and the fortunes of the Sheiks were pretty much the fortunes of the lowest slave. By that I mean they all starved together or prospered together. Now the modern world has made that way of life obsolete. They need to recognize that and change.

[Maple]

13. Obviously you are unaware

of the computers and sat dishes or the university educated Saudis.

[Clete]

15. I am so aware.

Because they have computers and sat dishes and university educated Saudis, they need to get a constitutional monarchy at the very least and preferrably just retire that whole corrupt Saudi family at the most, then maybe the Arab people can move into the twenty first century and out of the eleventh. And, if there was ever a nation that needed NOW besides Afghanistan, this one is it. Oh, and I don't buy the "it's their culture argument" when it comes to women's rights. We are fully human and the same species as the men.

[Maple]

16. Well that's kinda

up to the Saudi's to decide I would think. No one else.

[Clete]

19. Yez, maam or sir whatever you may be.

I don't think I said otherwise. JanMichael's question on monarchies was about their usefullness,like the Saudis. Not being able to write a carefully documented and boring tome on a short post, I think my post was clear. When tribal chiefs shared the fortunes of their people it was a practical way of life. Now it isn't in the modern world.

If you are a Saudi, I don't think your women will ever rise from the abusive position they are under until it is done from the outside hopefully by other Saudi women and men who believe it is time for change.

[Maple]

20. Well Queen Elizabeth II

doesn't begin to share the fortunes of her people, but England isn't about to give up the monarchy.

Saudi Arabia will have to change from the inside...outside interference usually hardens any attitude.

And I am female.

[Clete]

21. Funny Canadians are all still thrilled with the Queen.

The Brits I know aren't all that enthralled and would rather that the monarchy passed into history. I believe personally Queen LizII will be the last official monarch and this medieval institution will cease, officially anyway, unless they move to Canada.

[Maple]

23. The crown is still quite popular in the UK

and will be even more so with Prince William coming of age.

The Brits have always shown irreverence to the monarchy, but always turn down the chance to eliminate it.

Canada has it's monarchists as well, and it's worked nicely for us. Americans have a tendency to treat their presidents as royalty.

Queen Elizabeth is queen of more than the UK and Canada btw.

And of course there are quite a few other monarchies in the world that remain popular.

[Clete]

25. The demographics of the UK are changing just like in the

US. Many of the more recent immigrant first and second generations in England do not agree with a small part of the population leading a life of privilege, while the rest of them slog away. It's what they were trying to get away from. Also, why are there so many Arab immigrant communities here in the US if they were so happy with their kings?

Also, most of us more progressive types are trying to move toward a more Democratic society both here in the US and worldwide. There is no room for kings in this kind of society. I have been reading "A Peoples History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. He describes in detail the Iroquois society that the English Settlers found here. It was communal and matriarchal, I mean the women ran things and very well. The men including the chiefs had to be approved by the women. While the English starved, the Iroquois had plenty of food because of their social structure.

[Maple]

28. You sure have

strange ideas about monarchies.

Demographics have little to do with it. Canada is multicultural, and accepts enormous amounts of immigrants every year.

There are Arab communities in Canada and the UK as well.

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium are all democracies, and all have monarchs.

And I would remind you that the Iroquois lost.

[Clete]

50. Gee I didn't know that. I never read a newspaper or a book,

or traveled to another country. <sarcasm off>I have to come to this board to have a monarchist tell me that I don't know about monarchies. Monarchies are wrong. PERIOD. Having your leaders thrust in your face without an election because they were born into that position is WRONG. In Europe those monarchies you mentioned are constitutional monarchies and you know that. I am sure those people will get tired of supporting them eventually because of tradition and they too will go. The monarchy in Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy and has no place in the twenty-first century.

So I guess you think that a government is good because it beat a bunch of people whose technology was not what the conquerers is. That is why the Iroquois lost, not because their system was bad.

[pfitz59]

30. Uh, House of Saud has ruled for less than 100 years.

"Saudi Arabia" is an Anglo-US creation. Built to legitimize ARAMCO. Ibn Saud was just one Sheikh among many. King of Jordan has a stronger hereditary claim to rule Hijaz (Mecca), but his great-grandfather was back-stabbed by the conniving Brits!

[Clete]

52. True, but the tribal sheik system goes back so far

that it probably was in place in the Stone Age. I used the thousand year cut off because there is more written history from then. So we know for sure it was in place then. As a matter of fact the early Hebrews probably had a similar system. The patriarch Abraham, whom both Arabs and Jews claim decent was a tribal leader, or a sheik. It really is a matter of words, not substance.

[MissMarple]

14. Recognized governments have a right to exist. Now, define "right".

Is this a moral, ethical right, or is it a legal right, or a defacto right? Are you talking about North Korea, which calls its self a communist nation, but is not, or the UK, or whatever nation that has a monarchy, but has a representative system as well?

Simplistic questions can lead to nonsensical answers. The fuedal system is largely, but not entirely dead. Monarchies, loosely defined, are not. The middle east is in political chaos. And since governments tend to reflect the societies they govern, God/dess protect us from our human condition. It is certain that no government can consistently do that.

And, no government has a god given right to exist. Governments are compacts between humans to create an envirnonment that fosters a haven from anarchy and chaos. Our relationship with the deity is on an individual basis, not as a collective state. For those who think otherwise,... that's bad theology.

That's my opinion, perhaps you might believe otherwise. :evilgrin:

[JanMichael]

46. Call it simplistic if you'd like.

Which it is.

But it served it's purpose...

[mitchum]

17. NO

[jayfish]

26. Monarhcies Are Legitimate As...

their subjects willingness to be subjugated by them. The same goes for dictatorships, republics, democracies and any other form of government.

Jay

[not systems]

27. no, against monarchy

Monarchy as a form of government should
be part of history, only found in books.

Blaa Blaa stable blaa blaa unity blaa ...

I find feudalism to be right out.

[devarsi]

29. In A Perfect World, Yes

Because then we could have perfect Kings and Queens, making perfect laws, passing perfect judgement, and being perfectly fair to all.

Alas, humans are flawed, and can not be trusted with the powers that monarchy's allow.

Of course, you could also say that since humans are flawed, why should they be allowed to choose a leader by popular vote?

After all, flawed voters deliver flawed officials, correct?

The answer is that in a democracy, you can peacefully remove the official if he/she is dangerously, seriously, or even annoyingly flawed. You could not do so in a monarchy.

Democracy is, by its nature, more peaceful than a monarchy.

[Maple]

33. Many democracies have

monarchs as well.

Tony Blair can be removed.

Can Bush?

[devarsi]

35. Clever!

But Tony Blair is not a monarch.


Bush, on the other hand......we'll see in 2004, wont we? :-)

[Maple]

36. No, Blair is the PM

And over him, is the monarch.

That's why Brits never get confused as to which one is which.

He can lose an election, she can't.

[maine_raptor]

31. Monarchies maybe legit in Democracies too

I mean they could be, right?

After all in Monarchies it's the "Divine Rights of Kings"

And according to our "friends' on the freeper side, Bush is the "Divine King of Right".

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[not systems]

34. I like elections

And term limits myself.

Bill back in as first husband would be alright
with me.

Your idea is not very wise, if one president
becomes a king it will be very hard to get back
to elections.

Hope this would never happen.

[Maple]

37. Monarchies have elections.

The president/prime minister gets elected. The monarch does not.

One person doesn't do two jobs.

[Solomon]

38. Solomon Says:

You all aren't looking at it the right way. Nations and peoples develop and grow just like other things. Monarchy is usually necessary in the development of a nation. Europe was allowed to have its monarchies which developed things to the point where the system could evolve. When we force other countries to bypass what they need for development, i.e. insist that they go straight to a democracy without being allowed to develope naturally, we are not really helping that country. Actually it's extremely arrogant since we had our opportunity to explore the monarchical system but since we think we know better, we insist that others not do so. Why should we stop others from growing the way they need to grow?

Monarchy is clearly not possible for us anymore. But might be necessary for someone else.

[Maple]

39. LOL

If you think that the democracies with monarchies have anything to learn from the US, or need to 'grow', you are in for a great surprise.

[Solomon]

40. ????

Don't have the slightest clue what you mean. I never said anything about "learning from the US" as you state. To the contrary, I suggested that it's not fair that we interfere. Nobody complained when Europe developed in this manner, but we criticize third world countries who may need it.

[Maple]

41. I meant that

countries that have been around much longer than the US...like the UK, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway....high standard of living, democracies and so on...have monarchies.

So they aren't behind the US in evolving, nor are they likely to move to the American model.

[Solomon]

42. Oh sure. You're agreeing with me.

As I said earlier, even though monarchy is no longer possible here, it could be necessary or good for others. Sorry I missed your point. :)

[Maple]

43. LOL no I'm not

and monarchy is quite possible for the US.

Might even be the saving of you. ;-)

[Solomon]

48. LOL Then I don't know what the f you're talking about.

And I guess the reverse is true too. It seems you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

[Solomon]

49. Never said anything about who was behind, etc.

You arte making assumptions that the world "evolve" means they have to follow our model. Bullshit. As I said. monarchy may be necessary for some. I stand on my statement that it won't work in the U.S. Barring a nuclear appocalypse that is.

[jpgray]

44. They have as much right to exist as anything else (nt)

.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. They have Monarchs in Arabia?

I've always found them to be beautiful in their migrations to Mexico. It's just too bad they're being killed off by GM corn cross pollinating their food supply and other problems.

What?

Oh.

Never mind.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. No, of course not, I'm an American

You should be worried when someone dresses up in funny clothing and tells you God has spoken to them and told them to rule over you. Often, these people are in need of medication.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

53. I do, but then I would, wouldn't I?

:D

Yrs in imperialism,

[The White Rose]

54. Seems to me that the American psyche...

...has a deep-seated need for royalty and aristocracy despite protestations to the contrary; look at the cult of celebrity here, not to mention the urge towards dynastic politics. It's almost as if you miss us... ;-)

Personally, having briefly met Prince Charles, and after years of suffering through the British preoccupation with the monarchy, I'm a republican (small "r") at heart; I think that the Royal Family should bite the bullet and go the way that evolution intended for such grossly interbred species.

[Brian Sweat]

55. Only if I am the king

Thank you, Thank you very much.