Monarchy or Republic?

[Gangerolf]

The only real good argument I can make against the current form of monarchy in some Western countries is that it would suck to be born into a royal family if you don't want to become a king or queen. You wouldn't have a "normal" upbringing at any rate.
You can say no thanks to the throne of course but there would still be a good deal of pressure and of course filthy paparazzis and so on.

Personally I'm starting to think that the monarchy is getting outdated, but on the other hand it would be painful for the nation to get rid of a 1200 year long tradition. Plus, who wants to have some pointy-elbowed ******* as head of state anyway. But you got to break some eggs if you want to make an omelette, right?

Vote & discuss

[Harry Tuttle]

I like the Monarchy because I can build a large number of units and enjoy a strong foreign policy. The Republic, while good for trade, creates a large amount of unhappiness causing me to build temples to supplement the masses.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Verto
Why is this even under debate?

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Verto
Why is this even under debate?

Yeah we could do as they did in Russia and just shoot them all.

[Adagio]

The first 5 minutes of the movie "King Ralph"

[Elok]

If you mean a constitutional monarchy, which it appears you do, I'm all for it. The King or whoever gets to perform all the mindless ceremonial crap that doesn't matter, such as attending the fifteenth annual Women Descended from Harriet Beecher Stowe's Godchildren Society Meeting and Gala Ball, thereby freeing up time for an elected official to actually do things that need to be done.

[Sava]

Monarchies are stupid. Throw grenades at them.

[Gangerolf]

@Elok

yep that is

but then again it's my understanding that in republics you get people like Jimmy Carter to do that kind of stuff?

[Sava]

that was a funny xpost

Jimmy Carter throwing grenades at monarchies

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Sava
Monarchies are stupid. Throw grenades at them.

Let me just get in cover, then you can go ahead

[Sava]

okay... just remember to hit the deck when you see Jimmy Carter

[Sandman]

There's no practical difference. It's a matter of taste.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Sava
Monarchies are stupid. Throw grenades at them.

[Pax]

I think a republic that gave special powers to the monarchy would be the best solution.
Special powers like to remove the President/Prime Minister for corruption and etc.

[Winston]

There are two practical differences.

1) In a Monarchy, you get a head of state for all of the populace, elevated beyond petty political divisions, to act - with the rest of the family - as an inspiration and a guidance to a significant number of people

2) You get consistency in the highest representative function of the state - unparalleled by any other system of governance. In our case, at present our Crown Prince has had 37 years of preparing for the job, taking clues from his mother, developing his own way of managing things, acquainting himself with the country's history, political life, sciences and industry - and forming relations and friendships with prominent people here and throughout the rest of the world. A Monarch is, in most cases, without comparison better schooled for the position of heading a nation, than an elected politician could ever be.

We've only had 3 different heads of state since 1912, each one under the natural influence of his or her predecessor, but at the same time forming and developing their position in their own personal way, to meet the demands and expectations of the changing society. I can't imagine anything more appropriate.

Monarchy