Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

The Lord of the Black Lands bids thee, welcome. To post in the forum you need to create an account here
Dark Lord Sauron

Gothmog Jaimbern


Regional Summary

Ash nazg durbatulûk
"One ring to rule them all".



Useful Links

Mordor NS


Discord Chat Channel



Once you have an account you must request Denizenship here
The fires of Mordor are burning brightly once more, join the discussion here

News:
Greetings, and welcome to Mordor. We hope you enjoy your visit.

At the moment you are viewing our forum as guest. This means much of the forum is hidden to you and you are unable to use many of the features. To be able to post in forum and apply for citizenship you must register an account with your nation name.

Once you have done that you can apply for citizenship and get the appropriate access to the whole forum!

So what are you waiting for?

Join our community!

If you require diplomatic status as an envoy from another region, apply for diplomatic status here

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Monarchy; Is it an outdated institute in the 21st century ?
Topic Started: Jan 28 2013, 11:11 PM (55 Views)
Cacti
No Avatar

With Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands announcing that she is to abdicate for her son to take over as Head of State, does this suggest that such a system is outdated in our modern world? Is there no longer a place for monarchy today or do you believe that is is still a viable system to have today? Discuss.
Edited by Cacti, Jan 28 2013, 11:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
Hellhound
Member Avatar
Warg
I suppose it would depend on just how much political power the monarchy has. The main problem lies in succession. If the appointed heir is unsuited to be a Head of State, it becomes a major issue.
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
Cacti
No Avatar

But in most cases they wont be unsuited as it is known that they will take on such a job. They are trained by birth to take on such a role. What is they had vast powers, but where good, not evil dictators, but cared for their people, helped them, and was just nice, would this make a difference?
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
Hellhound
Member Avatar
Warg
Yes, but invariably in the cases of Absolute Monarchies, an unsuitable person, even one trained from a young age to assume the throne, will wind up being self serving.

But, in the cases where a Monarch had the welfare of their people in mind, it was of benefit to the nation as a whole.
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
Alancar
Member Avatar
I'm a magical princess from another dimension
If you are ok with your head of state being picked based on completely arbitrary standards, then sure, monarchy is great.

What confuses me is why is it always hereditary based. Why not introduce some variation? Like...why not let a cat loose on a nursery where all the babies born on the 12th of April between 12h and 15h and the one he sits on gets to be it? You could even put some cameras in and make a show out of it.

And if the above sounds completely ridiculous I challenge you to explain why monarchy is any different.
Edited by Alancar, Jan 29 2013, 03:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
Hellhound
Member Avatar
Warg
I never said the system wasn't flawed. But, like I said, in the event that a ruler has the good of the nation in mind, above his or her own gain, then I fail to see the downside. However, Monarchy has the extreme tendency to deteriorate into a completely self-serving station.

And the position wasn't always strictly hereditary. Some rulers officially adopted someone of merit who seemed to be a good pick as an heir. Other monarchs were appointed by a council of wisemen, and could be removed as quickly by them.

Heredity was introduced to provide stability to succession when the alternative was civil war to decide who ruled.
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
Samara Morgan
Member Avatar

I think it's quite old-fashioned now. Even when the monarch has no real power, then he's just a puppet for the sake of maintaining a 'national' tradition. The real power belongs to the democratic elite and partially to common people (it depends on what you think about the representative democracy).
So I don't see a point in keeping the royal court when you could just go along without it. Except when you care about money from tourism etc. Still people pay more for the royals than earn thanks to them, I think.

Anyone from the UK?
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
IH
Member Avatar
The Ever Curious
I am from the UK. From a political point of view, I can see why there is an interest in keeping the monarchy, they provide a focal point for all of the national thoughts of pride and patriotism. It is easy to use the idea of monarchy (whether or not the monarchy has real power doesn't really matter) to control and subdue the masses.

In my opinion as someone not in political power, they are outmoded and they should really be out of a job. I see no use of them to me as person.
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
Samara Morgan
Member Avatar

To control and subdue the masses.

Yes, you're right. It's as old as the world :P
I think as long as people live in society there's always gonna be someone wishing to have power over them in some way. Still, we can minimize risks of another dictators (I hope).
Offline Profile Quote Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme created by Sjaelen Auren from Zathyus Networks Resources