Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


Are Monarchies Relevant in the 21st Century?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
7 replies to this topic

#1    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 27 July 2005 - 05:19 PM

Debate Suggestion by AztecInca.

Are monarchies relevant and do they have a place within the 21st Century or are they just figureheads with little or no influence?

This will be a Formal 1v1 debate. Looking for 2 Participants.

Edited by Lottie, 04 December 2005 - 09:02 PM.


#2    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 19 October 2005 - 12:50 AM

Universalmind will be debating that the Monarchy ISN'T relevant.

This will be a 1v1 formal debate.
An Introduction, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion from each participant. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated. Please make sure you quote ALL your sources!

Please be aware that:

There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.

This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself or Aztec know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.

If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for upto 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.

Edited by Lottie, 09 December 2005 - 03:35 PM.


#3    UniversalMind

UniversalMind

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2005

Posted 21 October 2005 - 05:28 PM

Introduction

I will be arguing that the Monarchy is not relevant, in fact, the existence of the Monarchy as being influential today is insulting and a disgrace to those who were beheaded, murdered and burned by the medieval institution constructed on arrogance, crime and self-serving ruthlessness.  

Evidently, the Monarchy is an institution erected by violence and treachery.  Those that came to power as a Monarchy obtained the positions through cruelty, murder, and deception.  

My stand is that the Monarchy is a group of superior murderers or deceitful assassins; and royalty is but mafia, Monarch but a decorated dictator.  

My personal and particular belief is that Monarchies should be quelled from the face of the Earth, that those that exist as royalty should be ashamed of the bloody game their families of the past played to afford their leisurely lives.  

Let us pay due homage to those who were tortured, murdered or enslaved by the monarchial system by dispossessing current royalty  who live easy lives of adorned leisure and enjoy wealth harvested from blood.    

The only relevance the Monarchy holds today is to act as a cruel reminder of a chaotic past and an outright insult to those who suffered from them.  

Disembowel Monarchies of their current power and influence.

Edited by UniversalMind, 21 October 2005 - 05:33 PM.


#4    UniversalMind

UniversalMind

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2005

Posted 24 October 2005 - 08:08 PM

Quote

In this first post putting forward the case for the Monarchy being relevant within the 21st Century, I will relate, without prejudice, the role of a Democratic Monarch in today's society, using the current British Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, as an exemplary model.  The relevance of this role within Modern Society will be discussed in later posts.


To limit this Monarchy debate to only the British Monarchy is merely to limit to what you know, rather than take an expansive and all-encompassing perspective.  

Quote

The role of a Democratic Monarch can be divided into the following two areas; Exercise of the Royal Prerogative & Official and Ceremonial Duties. These areas are discussed in detail below.


The mere term "Royal Perogative" beckons to that arrogance that I mentioned in the introduction.

Quote

The Royal Prerogative  

The Royal Prerogative is the name given to the powers belonging to the Crown which do not require approval from Parliament. Whilst far reaching, these powers are not all-encompassing - for example, the British monarch can neither create or collect new taxes. As the British Monarchy is a Democratic Monarchy (as opposed to an Absolute Monarchy), the Monarch will usually only exercise the Royal Prerogative on advice from Ministers, and in particular, the Prime Minister, with whom they hold weekly audiences.


These are all such powers that I believe the Monarchy should not possess, and others could perform these duties appropriately through a full democratic system.  

Quote

Chief amongst the powers within the Royal Prerogative is the formation of Government itself. All British Prime Ministers are formally appointed by the Monarchy. In cases when a political party has won a majority of seats, this is customarily the leader of the winning political party, although the Monarch has the ability to appoint the person that they believe would enjoy most popular support within Parliament, especially in the case of a hung Parliament.


Yet, another example of the Monarch being unduly powerful.

Quote

The Royal Prerogative also gives the Monarch the power to override dissolution of Government (subject to the five year limit imposed by the 1911 Parliament Act) and the ability to re-appoint a new Prime Minister, if required.

All acts of Parliament are subject to Royal Assent before being passed into law. The Monarch has the choice to either Grant, Reserve (postpone) or Withhold assent. In practise, the British Monarch has granted Royal Assent on all bills for almost the last 200 years. Since 1952, Queen Elizabeth II has given Royal Assent to over 3200 Acts of Parliament.
  

What this insinuates is that she is merely agreeing with everything because she doesn't want to be bothered with having to figure anything out.  As she agrees with almost eveything, she is doing nothing.  This indicates her lack of relevance.  She is sitting back, allowing more capable people to make the decisions as she agrees with all of it.  It is not realistic that within 200 years she agreed with everything.  Her blind assent to whatever the Parliament decides indicates her lack of relevance.  She agrees with whatever the parliament tells her to agree with.  


QUOTE
In addition, the Royal Prerogative also gives the Monarchy the power to negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements, declare war, make peace, and direct the actions of the military.


This is the frightening part.  War or peace from moment to moment is dictated by the whim and fancy of one woman, who doesn't even seem to know what is going on or doesn't care.  War is too important to be left up to the desire of one person.

QUOTE
Official and Ceremonial Duties  

The Monarchy performs a vast array of ceremonial roles, ranging from the mundane, such as opening new buildings, to the spectacular, such as hosting State Banquets.


Oh, how blessed is her life that she gets to live in a perpetual party of pleasantries all day, a lifestyle afforded by the murderous deeds of the monarchial system.  Indeed, that is justice that one can live so free and adorned because a system of murder and cruelty donated the lifestyle to her.  

QUOTE
Since 1952, Queen Elizabeth II has conferred over 385,000 honours and awards and has personally held over 480 Investitures. She is currently patron of over 600 charities and organisations and has undertaken over 250 official overseas visits to 128 different countries during her Reign.


Those awards and honors should be placed at the graves and sites of those who were murdered and tortured by the archaic, ruthless monarchy system.

I continue my stand that the Monarchy exist in a tower constructed by the bones and misery of those that it murdered and tortured.  Anyone who lives a wealthy life of leisure, knowing of the game that was played to prop up such easy days, is one who does not want to admit the truth of the past and selfishly persists in a wealthy bubble of denial.  She is morally flawed to accept riches handed down through the monarchy system.  

The existence of a monarchy today gives the message to any one currently living that ... if you are charismatic enough, militarily inclined, inspiring, ruthless and murderous then, yes, indeed, you too can gain national power by eliminating those in power just as was once done by those currently in power.  

We must rip out the last chapter of the last book published by the Monarchy and eradicate the Royal Perogative, eliminate any power the Monarchy has within any current political system.  Let us close the book upon the system of Kings and feudalism and pay current respect only to democratic-republics.  

My principle perspective is as follows
Monarchies were constructed on this perpetual pattern: Whoever controls the military and can kill the current King can then be leader of the nation, with great disregard for the desires of the citizenry, for, as King, he may kill any one who disagrees with him  indiscriminately and without punishment.  In the Monarchy system the cruelest prosper.
Whereas, in the democratic system, those who want to be elected must be articulate, kind, friendly, poltical correct and even-tempered.  I would venture to say that in a democratic system those socially graceful prosper, while the cruel fail.  

Let us lay to rest the long enduring pattern exhibited by the monarchy of TAKING power and permit only systems of EARNING power to exist, the democractic systems.


#5    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 31 October 2005 - 11:56 PM

Tiggs the 7-day limit for you to post has expired, please pm myself or Lottie if you are unable to post.


#6    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 12 November 2005 - 10:54 PM

Tiggs has now gone over the two week mark, with no communication to either myself or Aztec making this and instant disqualification.

I am happy to continue with this debate if you are UniversalMind and look for another participant. Please let me know your thoughts via PM.

For now I will leave this open and I am looking for someone to debate that the Monarchy IS still relevant.

If anyone is interested please let myslef or Aztec know.




#7    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 09 December 2005 - 03:38 PM

We are still looking for one other person to debate that:  

the Monarchy IS still relevant.

This debate will be open for one more week, if no-one has come forward within that time we may have to close it.

Edited by Lottie, 09 December 2005 - 03:39 PM.


#8    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 20 December 2005 - 11:49 PM

Well the week allotted for participants to come forward has well and trully passed with no interest expressed.  
With great reluctance I  have to close this debate.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users