|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Monarchy/Archive1
Honourable mention[edit]
Sviatopolk I of Kiev the Accursed deserves an honourable mention.
82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- What for? ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Best royal nickname. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Mention should be made of Pretenders - who range from the respectable to the 'suitably offbeat for mention on RW.' 82.198.250.8 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Terrible Article[edit]
Really poor. Lame humour, facile coverage of issue.— Unsigned, by: 121.208.40.196 / talk / contribs
- We look forward to your positive suggestions or, even better, your edits which improve the article.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I kinda agree. The section on the British monarchy is funny enough (not intelligent enough nor stupid enough to think they can run the country) but above the information is very selective. The Civil List expenditure doesn't all get spaffed on them throwing hedonistic parties, it's mostly spent on state functions for visiting ambassadors (which arguably would be hosted anyway in a republic) and staff wages and upkeep of palaces - i.e., contributing to the economy and employment in a fairly direct way, while the profits from those enterprises are voluntarily turned over to the government resulting in a net gain from the Royals. Although you have to put all those figure in the context of how much the government is currently spending on two aircraft carriers, and then you realise that the presence or absence of the Royal Family has less impact upon the country than a light itch on my right arsecheek.
bomination 11:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I kinda agree. The section on the British monarchy is funny enough (not intelligent enough nor stupid enough to think they can run the country) but above the information is very selective. The Civil List expenditure doesn't all get spaffed on them throwing hedonistic parties, it's mostly spent on state functions for visiting ambassadors (which arguably would be hosted anyway in a republic) and staff wages and upkeep of palaces - i.e., contributing to the economy and employment in a fairly direct way, while the profits from those enterprises are voluntarily turned over to the government resulting in a net gain from the Royals. Although you have to put all those figure in the context of how much the government is currently spending on two aircraft carriers, and then you realise that the presence or absence of the Royal Family has less impact upon the country than a light itch on my right arsecheek.
Republicanism[edit]
As republicanism is an ideology that supports drawing power away from the monarchy, it's usually always situated on the left. Withoutaname (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's quite that simple. Regardless — your point being? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The sentence "monarchy is not necessarily backward or ultra-conservative any more than republicanism is necessarily more left-wing" is completely inaccurate. Withoutaname (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- How come +++Scandinavia+++ which has a pretty high monarchy density also has a pretty high socialist density, then? I am not the Ombud's man 16:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Having stripped the royal family of all power, they're now full-time ambassadors and tourist attractions for our otherwise rather tiny and insignificant country. And they do that stuff quite well, actually
. Not that I'm a royalist in the least. But everyone in Sweden has a soft spot for king (and PS — that's the queen standing next to him!). I think Mr. Bean is likely his spirit animal — like Mr. Bean, our king is a bit of a slow-witted riot. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC) - Ah, the old "Scandinavian social democracy = socialism" chestnut... Withoutaname (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The parties call themselves socialist something or workers something... I am not the Ombud's man 19:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The what now? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Remember when you liberals equated the National Socialist German Worker's Party with "socialism"? Withoutaname (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I never did that. And I am not a liberal. I am a socialist. I am not the Ombud's man 19:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Claiming to be a socialist doesn't make you any more credible than the Nazis' claim to socialism. Withoutaname (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be very able to switch between a thinking that seems centered on a pure left-right divide, such as when discussing which "side" republicanism lives on, to a completely different contextual label centric viewpoint when spectrum-based counterpoints(such as nordic countries) arise. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Do you know why labels like "anarcho-monarchist" are a joke?
- Republicanism as it was during the French Revolution, since it favored the creation of liberal democracies and the abolition of feudalism, was situated on the left because it was more egalitarian. Republicanism in contemporary discourse, as an ideology frequently counterposed to imperialism (the basis of many a leftist's "anti-imperialism"), is thus also situated on the left. Leftism and Rightism are for the most part objective in their political positions, policies and doctrines, with only a little room for subjective interpretations of them. Withoutaname (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It may be a joke, but it has plent of sincere adherents. An ideology need not be parsimonious, cohesive, and internally consistent to exist. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- What are the doctrines and policies espoused by anarcho-monarchism and what political parties exist which exemplify/preach those doctrines and policies? Withoutaname (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It may be a joke, but it has plent of sincere adherents. An ideology need not be parsimonious, cohesive, and internally consistent to exist. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be very able to switch between a thinking that seems centered on a pure left-right divide, such as when discussing which "side" republicanism lives on, to a completely different contextual label centric viewpoint when spectrum-based counterpoints(such as nordic countries) arise. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Claiming to be a socialist doesn't make you any more credible than the Nazis' claim to socialism. Withoutaname (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I never did that. And I am not a liberal. I am a socialist. I am not the Ombud's man 19:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The parties call themselves socialist something or workers something... I am not the Ombud's man 19:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Having stripped the royal family of all power, they're now full-time ambassadors and tourist attractions for our otherwise rather tiny and insignificant country. And they do that stuff quite well, actually
- How come +++Scandinavia+++ which has a pretty high monarchy density also has a pretty high socialist density, then? I am not the Ombud's man 16:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The sentence "monarchy is not necessarily backward or ultra-conservative any more than republicanism is necessarily more left-wing" is completely inaccurate. Withoutaname (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Anarcho-monarchism? That's my new ideology going forward. I don't know what it is or what it means, but it sounds nice. Make Anarchism royal again! No-one and all his male descendants forever! I am not the Ombud's man 20:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nah, it's big with dark enlightenment types. You know, an-caps, but they want something besides a democracy because the majority doesn't buy what they're selling(and must therefor be wrong to have rule of the majority). You don't want to be one. I promise. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well then I want socialist anarcho-monarchism. With free health care. And free speech. I am not the Ombud's man 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- England? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- nah I am not the Ombud's man 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- England? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well then I want socialist anarcho-monarchism. With free health care. And free speech. I am not the Ombud's man 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
"Absolute Monarchy"[edit]
You know, we can debate about Louis XIV being an absolute monarch. Louis XVI was not. And the Emperors of the Second German Empire were most definitely not absolute monarchs. What is the definition of a "constitutional monarchy" (i.e. the opposite of an absolute monarchy) "The monarch is limited by a constitution" exhibit A.
As for Louis XVI, his not being an absolute monarch who could rule on his own and on his own say-so are exactly what led to him calling the Estates General, which is commonly seen as the catalyst for the French Revolution. Had he been an absolute monarch, he'd simply raised taxes on his own say-so. Evil Zionist (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The Estates General was an advisory or consultative body without any formal power: see Estates General (France). France was technically an absolute monarchy even if Louis (like most kings) couldn't rule without wider support. --Annanoon (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Splitting British Monarchy into its own article[edit]
The section on the British monarchy is gradually getting longer, and there is a lot of stuff that could be covered, from referencing conspiracy theories to the constitutional position to past crimes. I've no idea how to split an article (preserving the edit history) even if such a split was judged a good idea. It's probably not quite necessary yet, but if it grows much longer a split will be needed. --Annanoon (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know any of these conspiracy theories but I would like to read them. If they're mostly about individual royals, you can write about them on the pages for the royal in question (to which I assume most would be about Elizabeth II). But if there's some that concern the whole family than I suppose it can get it's own page. The constitutional position on past crimes can be written on United Kingdom. --LiamM32 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Will note that the supposed claim of the descendant of George Duke of Clarence to the British throne is doubly invalid - the royal line of succession went through George's eldest brother Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth, and also George was attainted so his descendants can make no claim. Anna Livia (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)