Is the 21st century to be the age of New Monarchy?

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
When I say Monarchy I do not mean Princess Di or whoever inhabits the museams of European Monarchy. But I refer to the emergance of Kings by other titles.

Throughout the latter half of the 20th century we saw the great idiological struggle between Democracy and Communism. But when the context of the Cold War was removed in the latter years there remained many unyielding totalitarian regimes that stemmed from both sides of the Cold War.

In the first years of this century some of those still existing regimes are undergoing, or have undergone a process of dynastic succession. In short, they resemble a true Monarchy in almost every facet but name.

North Korea is looking at its third inaugeration of the Yung dynasty as head.

Libya, whose leader is already self declared "King of Kings" is lining up his bloodline as heirs.

Syrias presidancy, which rules by marshal law is in its second generation of succession.

Azerbajan is simular to Syria.

The Chinses Communist party is a ruing elite like no other, and its siblings dominate Chinese commerce, though there has yet to be a succession. Chinese Communism is thus now only akin to a system of serfdom for the poor.

These are regimes (except China) where whoever holds the sucession rules supreme. There are no other candidates outside of the dynasty. They are not like the old mostly symbolic constitutional monarchies in Europe or further afield. Can it be long before these new Monarchies define themselves as exactly that, Monarchies, now that the global context in which they otherwise would have been defined has disappeared?

With the emergance of these dynastic powers, will a template be set for some to follow which avoids the polls of democracy or socialism altogether? Will those new powers find common cause with existing actual Monarchies like Saudi Arabia thus creating another poll of world influance?

There are many places in the world where democracy and socialism have not taken hold, like Africa, and places like there these new Dynasties have a growing influance.

*I would exclude Cuba entirely from that short list as Cuba has yet to see another generation of the same dynasty take power.
 


Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
In light of recent and ongoing events, is this new global struggle not between Communism/Capitalism any more, but between Democracy and Monarchy?

Since the above post (made in 2009)

- Cuba, who is last mentioned as excluded, has experienced dynastic succession.

- Gaddafi is gdead, and is sons dragged down with him

- not sure of Mubarracks son was in the picture to take over the top job at the time

- and North Korean power has passed into the hands of the 3rd generation of the same dynasty.


....... and just so we in Ireland don't think we can be complacent; the recent sentimental fretting over O'Cuiv possibly leaving Fianna Fail because he is Dev's grandson hints, at a respect for bloodlines amongst some who claim to be 'Republican'.
 
Last edited:

harshreality

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
2,647
The next time I go to Russia I will ask King Putin what my opinion on this thread is.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
The New monarchies are the banksters and crony capitalists that are untouchable and run governments .
There have always been bankers and merchants, almost as long as there has been kings and queens. But they are not the same thing and do not inspire personal loyalty to the degree which leaders who foster personality cults do. Simularly there are I'm sure other powertful influenes behind the scenes, and behind seats of power. Your view point as regards bankers is popularist and understandable, but not accurate. Bankers cannot exist outside of or apart from the systems from which the seek to profit. Its impossible to compare Bernie Madoff, Conrad Black or Sachs to the Kims of Gaddafis. Beyond wealth, the similarity ends.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,132
Support for monarchy is rising across the world according to researchers.
 

BlackLion

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
4,804
Support for monarchy is rising across the world according to researchers.
Thats how bad politicians are across the board. People want strong leadership and saddly turn away from weak politicians only caring about power and money to weak kings who only care about power and dynasties. what we need is democratically elected kings. :)
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,132
Academic stuff I have from polling data passed on my a colleague who is researching the topic. (Not everyone gets their information from google searches! :p Some of us deal with real academic number crunching and unpublished papers!) They show across various states people perceive monarchy as offering stability and certainty and in an unstable and uncertain world it appeals to them. They perceive monarchies as offering a higher standard of ethical behaviour than is found with politics, bankers and the media and perceive monarchs are better able to serve society without self-interest.

I wouldn't agree with the conclusions of those interviewed but it is fascinating. In some former Eastern bloc states support for reinstating monarchy is at the highest it has been since polling began. People, for example, compare the 'dignity' of ex-king Michael I of Roumania, who is in his 90s now and was invited to address parliament, with scandals involving recent Rumanian presidents.

Even in Greece the wildly discredited ex-monarchy of ex-king Constantine II is now growing in popularity again with some Greeks feeling that whatever about his chronic misjudgements they may have made a mistake in ditching him for the Republic of Pasok and New Democracy. I cannot imagine that fool Constantine ever back on the throne, but I thought the monarchy there was dead and buried. Now the comment "it was never this bad under the king" has started to show up in qualitative research. Another comment showing up is "compared to what happened afterwards, maybe Constantine wasn't so bad after all."
 
Last edited:

Fractional Reserve

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
8,158
The bankers own governments , the government ineptocrats issue slavery bonds , bought up by banksters and their cronies.The people are then battered in submission by taxation to pay this back .The old saying if you own someone money you are subservient to them , we see this in all countries where governments have gone nuts buying votes .
There have always been bankers and merchants, almost as long as there has been kings and queens. But they are not the same thing and do not inspire personal loyalty to the degree which leaders who foster personality cults do. Simularly there are I'm sure other powertful influenes behind the scenes, and behind seats of power. Your view point as regards bankers is popularist and understandable, but not accurate. Bankers cannot exist outside of or apart from the systems from which the seek to profit. Its impossible to compare Bernie Madoff, Conrad Black or Sachs to the Kims of Gaddafis. Beyond wealth, the similarity ends.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
Academic stuff I have from polling data passed on my a colleague who is researching the topic. (Not everyone gets their information from google searches! :p Some of us deal with real academic number crunching and unpublished papers!) They show across various states people perceive monarchy as offering stability and certainty and in an unstable and uncertain world it appeals to them. They perceive monarchies as offering a higher standard of ethical behaviour than is found with politics, bankers and the media and perceive monarchs are better able to serve society without self-interest.

I wouldn't agree with the conclusions of those interviewed but it is fascinating. In some former Eastern bloc states support for reinstating monarchy is at the highest it has been since polling began. People, for example, compare the 'dignity' of ex-king Michael I of Roumania, who is in his 90s now and was invited to address parliament, with scandals involving recent Rumanian presidents.

Even in Greece the wildly discredited ex-monarchy of ex-king Constantine II is now growing in popularity again with some Greeks feeling that whatever about his chronic misjudgements they may have made a mistake in ditching him for the Republic of Pasok and New Democracy. I cannot imagine that fool Constantine ever back on the throne, but I thought the monarchy there was dead and buried. Now the comment "it was never this bad under the king" has started to show up in qualitative research. Another comment showing up is "compared to what happened afterwards, maybe Constantine wasn't so bad after all."
Interesting examples, and yes the rehabilitation of monarchy in Europe has been increasingly visible, especially in the last few years. I am put in mind of the Chetnik movement in Serbia who base there ultra-nationlist identity on support for a monarch who no longer exists, and his line who are unlikely ever too rule again. Yet their monarchist vehicle (empty though it is) is highly popular. Combined with the examples you have given above, it seems 'Old Europe' is living up to its sterotype, and traditionalism is ascendent.

In light of this, the need to reform our profoundly undemocratic Seanad, and strenghten the power and protection of our democratic institutions has never been more urgent.
 

guvvo

Active member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
183
Did you know that all the American presidents execpt one are related to Libby?
Guess who was the odd man out?
Not Obama as he is realated to the queen.
She is a freemason too.
The brittish house of parliament are home to at least two lodges.
Who are the good guys?
Or is it like wise men, "you can't find them because they're not there".
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,132
Did you know that all the American presidents execpt one are related to Libby?
Guess who was the odd man out?
Not Obama as he is realated to the queen.
She is a freemason too.
The brittish house of parliament are home to at least two lodges.
Who are the good guys?
Or is it like wise men, "you can't find them because they're not there".
What on earth are you on about?
 
S

simeongrimes

You could make a case for Monarchy in theory. Not just a figurehead but a monarch who would for example have responsibility for the fiscal stability of the kingdom and would not allow a short-term politician like Bertie Ahern destroy the country just to get re-elected.

The problem is if the King was useless you could be stuck with him for decades. Perhaps an elected for life (or until retirement at 75) Council of State with seven members could do the job. By-elections to replace dying or retiring members. The point would be that they would never face re-election and would have no constituency so could be as objective as possible in acting as a check on the government.

Let's assume we would elect the kind of person we elect as President so we would have the Mary Robinson. Mary McAleese and Michael D. as three members. Not a bad start.
 

P Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
3,432
Let's assume we would elect the kind of person we elect as President so we would have the Mary Robinson. Mary McAleese and Michael D. as three members. Not a bad start.
err, no thanks, 2 leftist socialist liberals in a position of power for that long is even worse than the current government we have...:roll:
 

ivnryn

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
1,303
You could make a case for Monarchy in theory. Not just a figurehead but a monarch who would for example have responsibility for the fiscal stability of the kingdom and would not allow a short-term politician like Bertie Ahern destroy the country just to get re-elected.
So exactly, what powers are you thinking of? We have a President who is supposed to serve the same function. However, the President is extremely restricted in what he can do.

Switzerland has a Presidential council, which seems to be what you are aiming for. However, that is an executive President.

The powers could be the right to refer bills to the people subject to a 2/3 override, or maybe just delaying powers.

In fact, if we actually had a functioning Seanad, then maybe this wouldn't even be needed.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top