The Non-American Politics Thread

Brahmin Noodles, all European monarchies are "constitutional monarchies", in fact, most monarchies in the world are, afaik. The exceptions, as in "absolute monarchies" are kind of rare. Saudi Arabia is one.

Constitutional monarchies are like the British one. The royal family are a "focal point" for people to rally around, theoretically, but lately they represent more of bloated luxury in the countries they represent.
 
zegh8578 said:
Brahmin Noodles, all European monarchies are "constitutional monarchies", in fact, most monarchies in the world are, afaik. The exceptions, as in "absolute monarchies" are kind of rare. Saudi Arabia is one.

Constitutional monarchies are like the British one. The royal family are a "focal point" for people to rally around, theoretically, but lately they represent more of bloated luxury in the countries they represent.
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. :ok:
 
There's one thing I am still unclear on, and that is that the king is (in Norway at least) commander-in-chief, like a president. This (and very weird rulings, like allowing exceptions for incest) are the only actual powers of decision a constitutional king has.

But I am unsure of how real his military power is, despite being the highest ranking officer. I know that there is some military training for them, but I don't know how much, or how obligatory it is. Our crown prince just finished paratrooping basic training I think, and was proud of that.
During WW2 our (then brand new) king took actual decisions, in terms of warfare politics, but that is a long time ago now.
 
zegh8578 said:
snip
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think WWII was an exception to a lot of politics and rules, especially when it came to world leaders. For example it was the first and only time we had a president stay in office longer than 2 terms. President F. D. Roosevelt was elected into the White House for 4 terms (aka 12 years) though he didn't get to finish his 4th term due to polio ending his life. WWII was such a fascinating time period, if not one of complete horror.
 
zegh8578 said:
I'm fine with our monarchy here. It's completely impotent as any kind of authority, but it is "binding", culturally, and still has that effect. Norwegians would very likely rally around their royalty, in a way similar to WW2. I'm imagining that for most monarchies, theyr royals are too snobby and corrupt to be very charming, but ours are - so far - quite down to earth.
Click to expand...
Not those clowns we call monarchs today. I mean the REAL ones.
 
I think people like the idea of having strong leaders. That's what drives monarchists. Where I'm from, Turkey, people always imagine the Ottoman Sultans as strongmen who could solve any problem without any of the obstructions of a democratic parliament. I'm ok with having a monarch as a figurehead with no power. But I'm not fine with giving unrestricted power to a man/woman because they are born from the right mother.
 
Clever, Virgil, but you're not going to win our sympathy back by pledging loyality to the Atreides family and Muad'Dib, you Harkonnen filth!
 
Oh. I thought he was making a Civilization V reference. :c

250px-Gods%26KingsBoxArt.jpg
 
I don't get the appeal of ceremonial monarchs. From what I've seen, they are very dull people made duller by decades of uselessness preceded by centuries of inbreeding. How they can inspire a sense of national pride remains a mistery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top