Historical filth- The case against hereditary monarcy

[Saint Marcus]

The case against hereditary monarcy

Are you against dictatorial monarchies (like the examples you give), or against constitutional monarchies as well?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Having a constitutional monarchy in a supposedly democratic state is like fitting a Rolls-Royce "Spirit of Ecstasy" on a condom. It might make it look more impressive to the very easily impressed, but it sure as hell doesn't make it work better.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SnowFire
Occassional?

Give me an emperor who cruelly worked his way to the top and is cunning enough to survive any day. That's at least some merit.

Yes, but the qualities that enable a person to gather a group of conspirators around himself are not necessarily the ones needed to run an empire.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think you've just come up with Iain Duncan-Smith's epitaph, Doc.

[Saint Marcus]

Having a constitutional monarchy in a supposedly democratic state is like fitting a Rolls-Royce "Spirit of Ecstasy" on a condom. It might make it look more impressive to the very easily impressed, but it sure as hell doesn't make it work better.

Any arguments to back this up? After all, monarchs here in Holland (for instance) don't have any power at all.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That's exactly the point I was making. It's an expensive and time-consuming method of achieving bugger all in a manner that leaves a handful of mutant inbreeds obscenely wealthy.

[Saint Marcus]

A. We did a study on it. A president would cost more than a monarch.
B. There are a number of countries where the president doesn't have much/any power either. It can be symbolic, like a monarch.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

A study? "Therefore a Queen costs X while a President costs Y"?

That sounds like a "Friday night at the pub" study. The Queen of England owns properties galore and has the most valuable private art collection in the world. She didn't acquire these through getting a paper round, or any other work, and the public acquires no benefit from it.

Royals have very long-established PR spins to justify their existance, but they don't hold up to close scrutiny. Being descended from murderers shouldn't confer aqny sort of associated prestige.

In the second case- Presidents get elected. I don't recall voting for the axe-faced old bat in Windsor Castle. She doesn't have a "replace by" date either.

[Saint Marcus]

I don't know about Britain, but here there was a comprehensive study done on the subject of constitutional monarchy vs republic.

Note that the monarchy doesn't cost a lot of money. At least in Holland. Our royal family earns more money than it costs, it earns a lot on the exchange markets (thus not governement funding). How bad could it be if they make their own money?

[moomin]

The UK seems to be stuck with an especially sorry lot in this respect. The Swedish royal house is certainly no drag on the Swedish economy either. A president would certainly be way more expensive here.

My sincerest regrets to all Brits who don't feel you get your money's worth in pure soap opera.

[Saint Marcus]

I agree. The British royal house is really stuck in it's old habits. Things are better in Holland, or Sweden or Belgium for that matter.

[Sprayber]

I think the problem you guys seem to have is that you don't want to change your overall system. Having a PM and a president would be costly. Solution is to remove the PM and have your president as the head of an independed executive branch.

[Az]

Sprayber : that's why I always had something for your political system. If only corporations wouldn't be bying all of your politicians, LEGALLY , it would be even better.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
Sprayber : that's why I always had something for your political system. If only corporations wouldn't be bying all of your politicians, LEGALLY , it would be even better.

Ok Dalgetti.

[Ecthy]

We also have a PM (well, chancellor) and a president and it's just fine, thank you

Our president even lives in some kind of noble castle