The Monarchy Effect?

[f95toli]

Whenever there is a royal wedding in Europe a lot of people all over the world watch in on TV (I think there have been couple of wedding the past year or so), I doubt the Kennedys can rival the "glamour" of a real royal wedding (at least not anymore, maybe 30 years ago). I agree it is stupid, but I don't really see the harm.

And about the PR: No, I don't think I am overestimating the PR factor, I am just saying that for a small country like Sweden we use what we have, it is still much better than a President.
Most of the people in the world proably thinks about cuckoo clocks when they hear the word "sweden" anyway,,,
And I can use the same argument: How many people knows that Germany has a President?

Your main arguments are about principles and I agree with most of them (there are many people in Sweden that uses the same arguments so I have had this discussion before), it is just that I feel that in reality there is no real problem; I am being pragmatic.
So far we have just changed the constitution whenever it has been neccesary (it was changed when the crown princess was born since the old constituion only allowed for male succesion) and I think that is the best way to proceed, if the monarchy becomes a problem we will deal with it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: f95toli
Whenever there is a royal wedding in Europe a lot of people all over the world watch in on TV (I think there have been couple of wedding the past year or so), I doubt the Kennedys can rival the "glamour" of a real royal wedding (at least not anymore, maybe 30 years ago). I agree it is stupid, but I don't really see the harm.

They can still have weddings. Just don't have them associated with the government and strip them of any recognition of their elite caste. I wonder how much those weddings cost and if the government is invovled in any way.

And about the PR: No, I don't think I am overestimating the PR factor, I am just saying that for a small country like Sweden we use what we have, it is still much better than a President.
Most of the people in the world proably thinks about cuckoo clocks when they hear the word "sweden" anyway,,,

What kind of PR do they have? On one hand, people say that these royalty figures have no power, but then you say something such as this.

And I can use the same argument: How many people knows that Germany has a President?

Simple: don't have that position! There are multiple systems you can use. Removing a monarchy doesn't mean you can have someone else in a useless position.

Your main arguments are about principles and I agree with most of them (there are many people in Sweden that uses the same arguments so I have had this discussion before), it is just that I feel that in reality there is no real problem; I am being pragmatic.
So far we have just changed the constitution whenever it has been neccesary (it was changed when the crown princess was born since the old constituion only allowed for male succesion) and I think that is the best way to proceed, if the monarchy becomes a problem we will deal with it.

Peronally I think it's best to deal with a problem before it flares up.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

The fact that many Quebecers oppose the monarchy does not mean that it is a "problem." It is not a primary motivation of the Separatists. Separatism is the primary problem in Quebec. They'd possibly have the same problem with an old-school toronto WASP as head of state. Or an old money Montreal anglophone for that matter. Exactly how do you see it as a "problem?" When is the last time you watched a political debate about Quebec? When is the last time you discussed politics with a francophone? You are talking out of your ass. My best friend's family is Quebequois, they think that it is a bit of an anachronism, don't really want it, but they hardly have strong feelings about it. You are taking one statistic you read off a Google, and drawing the conclusion that it is a "problem." You have no idea what they are thinking.

OK, we'll just ignore all the protests that the Queen gets the few times she visits Quebec. Oh, and we'll ignore the statements that the Bloc Quebecois refuse to acknowledge because they refer to Canadians as dutiful and loyal subjects of the Queen :roll:

You can find protests in opposition to any public event. And the electoral success of the Bloc or Partie Quebequois have more to do with the success or failure of the Liberal party than any statement they propose regarding the Queen.

ok then!

Wow, nice response. If you are not going to put up an argument for this one, I guess you are conceding it to me.

Your statement was just pure child-like. You didn't even say anything real. It was just your opinion. Good for you!

My original statement referred to a prior argument, which admitted to some weaknesses. I then suggested that the consequences of your proposal might be worse than the consequences of mine. If any rebuttal was child-like it was yours, in that you refused to argue at all, and merely dismissed. An effective rhetorical device, perhaps, but hardly an adult agument.

Many of your arguments are pretty strange. OMG, Hitler and this guy and this went from democracy to dictators so that means our queen will protect us with her Godly endowed powers! Russia went from monarchy to communists. The US, the most powerful democracy & country in the world, went from dominated by a monarchy to a democracy. India, the largest democracy in the world, shed its British monarch.

I cited numerous historical examples of Republics becoming dictatorships. You can go back as far as Rome to find support for this. You failed to cite a single example of a constitutional monarchy regressing in this manner. Why is this argument strange? I was not suggesting that republics are destined to become police states, the examples you stated would be ample evidence to defeat that position. I was merely saying that constitutional monarchies are not likely to. Again, why is this strange?

The problem is that it goes to represent someone who is a symbol of discrimination, which is something against the fundamentals of Canadian society. And let's face it, nobody gives a crap about the GG and the Queen's representatives. They're not viewed positively in the world. All that money goes to waste when it could go to someone who is a real figure.

I don't see why the GG is a symbol of discrimination. They are not appointed with any sort of discrimination at all. And on recent trips, the GG has been accepted with all the ceremony expected for a head of state who holds no political power. What exactly are you wanting from our head of state?

Also, don't be so close minded. By abolishing the monarchy, you can choose several types of governments, you're not only limited to 1 or 2 choices.

Our government does just fine, thank you very much. No one but extremists want to overhaul it entirely. We have for the past several years posted higher annual rates of GDP growth, higher rates of employment growth, comparable rates of productivity growth, a better standard of living for the bottom 2/3rds of our population, (arguably) better standards of equality for our minorities, better constitutional representation for our historical minorities (natives and the French.) Wtih these kinds of results, why would we want to change things fundamentally? I agree that there are several "tweaks" we could do to our constitution and political structures, but what country doesn't?

However it's discrimination however you try to spin it. How can this discriminatory act be above the rights and freedoms of Canadians?

The ascension has nothing to do with the rights and freedoms of Canadians, or anyone outside of the House of Windsor. And the ascension is the only aspect of our political life in which there is any discrimination. This discrimination has nothing to do with the life of any Canadian. This is a bigger argument against the monarchy than any obscure law that has never been practically applied.

What about the VP? He doesn't hold much power. What about any other position which is appointed?

It doesn't matter decades in advance. According to you, it can just be dealt with when the time comes :roll: We know that the current VP is white and the next VP is going to be white.

The VP has a vote in the senate, and he is the speaker there. And, he is elected, if only indirectly. Next question please. And the ascension goes further into the future than 4.5 years. We have the lifetimes of Prince Willliam and his brother in which to deal with any discriminatory issues in their ascendence.

It is a problem in Quebec and to many other Canadians. Monarchy is harmful to a society/country and I've given several examples in this thread. It's a caste system. It deserves to be abolished.

Your examples of harm are minimal compared to the harm that is caused by an electoral system which is determined by money. The very act of disagreement does not imply harm.

I think that we are better off with her than without her, but that the difference is so slight, that the debate can rest for awhile. It does not cause us significant problems. It has certain advantages. You seem to think that the royal family is an anachronism, and that it harkens back to a system that was class-based. I agree with you. But I'd rather have political debates about issues that have real, practical effects on the people in this country, rather than

Then why are you in this thread debating this monarchial caste system?

I was ambiguous. I'd rather see national debates regarding more important issues. I'd rather not waste valuable time amongst politicians and the press debating these issues to the extent that would be required if ever we were to consider a change. I'm happy to debate anything. I'm free 'till September.


Regarding your next 5 points:

6) Good one. This, combined with the opinions of some in the French community, although hardly the view of the majority, is a good point. Good enough to make me think.
7)I disagree with this level of discrimination, but it is not relevant for the forseeable future. And I mean decades. It's also easily changable without casting aside the entire institution.
8)See points above, and earlier.
9)Interesting. However, the distance between our heads of state from the actions of government cast doubt on the relevance of this argument.
10)Meh, we have domestic representation of that in the form of the GG. Not really an issue if one is redy to accept a certain amout of subtlety in one's nation's institutions.
11)Another good point, but I would ask for proof of this claim. Unless you are acadian, I will ask for support.
12)I don't expect our head of state to agree with every decision of the government. If that were a requirement, then she would have absolute power over our government. This distance between symbolic roles and governmental roles is fundamental to our society, and would be a neccesity to any office we would choose instead of the Queen. An argument in support of my position, not against it.
13)Both Canada and Australia have legal measure in place so that that would not happen again in either country.

 

[CanOWorms]

You can find protests in opposition to any public event. And the electoral success of the Bloc or Partie Quebequois have more to do with the success or failure of the Liberal party than any statement they propose regarding the Queen.

I'm not talking about the electoral success. Reread my comment. The Queen is a problem for Quebec. This is well-known.

My original statement referred to a prior argument, which admitted to some weaknesses. I then suggested that the consequences of your proposal might be worse than the consequences of mine. If any rebuttal was child-like it was yours, in that you refused to argue at all, and merely dismissed. An effective rhetorical device, perhaps, but hardly an adult agument.

Your pathetic child-like argument should be dismissed. It's just a bunch of what-ifs. And it doesn't even apply to this situation. If monarchy now has no real power, why are you comparing it to examples of when monarchies with power were removed and thus society became chaotic? Anyways, I provided counter-examples to this ridiculous argument.

It's good that you agree that it's hardly an adult argument.

I cited numerous historical examples of Republics becoming dictatorships. You can go back as far as Rome to find support for this. You failed to cite a single example of a constitutional monarchy regressing in this manner. Why is this argument strange? I was not suggesting that republics are destined to become police states, the examples you stated would be ample evidence to defeat that position. I was merely saying that constitutional monarchies are not likely to. Again, why is this strange?

None of those times are even remotely related to today's world. There aren't many constitutional monarchies in past history and revolutions do not happen often in the developed world anyways. I think any monarchy, constitutional or not, are more likely to become police states since technically they already are authoritarian.

US, France, India, etc. shed away their monarchies and now they're well established democracies.

This argument is almost as retarded and pathetic as your ICC arguments.

I don't see why the GG is a symbol of discrimination. They are not appointed with any sort of discrimination at all. And on recent trips, the GG has been accepted with all the ceremony expected for a head of state who holds no political power. What exactly are you wanting from our head of state?

Is it not obvious? Someone who isn't a Monarch Someone shouldn't be born into a position and that position shouldn't have discriminatory requirements.

Our government does just fine, thank you very much. No one but extremists want to overhaul it entirely. We have for the past several years posted higher annual rates of GDP growth, higher rates of employment growth, comparable rates of productivity growth, a better standard of living for the bottom 2/3rds of our population, (arguably) better standards of equality for our minorities, better constitutional representation for our historical minorities (natives and the French.) Wtih these kinds of results, why would we want to change things fundamentally? I agree that there are several "tweaks" we could do to our constitution and political structures, but what country doesn't?

Sigh, flag-waving at its best. Get your arguments in shape. First you say monarchs have no power. Then you say that society will turn to chaos if the monarchs are gone even though they have no power and are supposedly just celebrity figureheads. Then you say that the government works fine with the monarch apparently implying that the monarch is strongly tied to the government! A rational person wouldn't say that GDP, etc. are affected by the monarch when they previously said the monarch has no influence or power.

The ascension has nothing to do with the rights and freedoms of Canadians, or anyone outside of the House of Windsor. And the ascension is the only aspect of our political life in which there is any discrimination. This discrimination has nothing to do with the life of any Canadian. This is a bigger argument against the monarchy than any obscure law that has never been practically applied.

Then get rid of it if to have no aspect of discrimination in Canada's political life. This entire concept is against the fundamentals of Canadian society. Even having a caste system like a monarchy should be against any society's thoughts!

The VP has a vote in the senate, and he is the speaker there. And, he is elected, if only indirectly. Next question please. And the ascension goes further into the future than 4.5 years. We have the lifetimes of Prince Willliam and his brother in which to deal with any discriminatory issues in their ascendence.

The next question, which you avoided, was: What about any other position which is appointed? Let's say the position of national jester, which is a lifetime appointment. I really think you're royalist bias is clouding your judgement.

Also, you're assuming that these princes will live long, natural lives. Who knows what will happen.

Your examples of harm are minimal compared to the harm that is caused by an electoral system which is determined by money. The very act of disagreement does not imply harm.

If the Queen was gone, there would be no disagreement regarding this aspect and thus society would be stronger. I don't know why you're talking about other electoral systems here.

I was ambiguous. I'd rather see national debates regarding more important issues. I'd rather not waste valuable time amongst politicians and the press debating these issues to the extent that would be required if ever we were to consider a change. I'm happy to debate anything. I'm free 'till September.

It is an important issue. Australia had a referendum, many countries shed themselves of monarchies, many Canadians are challenging aspects of the monarchy as seen in landmark court cases. To rid oneself of a caste system, discrimination, and all sorts of other negative things should be important.

7)I disagree with this level of discrimination, but it is not relevant for the forseeable future. And I mean decades. It's also easily changable without casting aside the entire institution.

It shouldn't matter if you don't see someone challenging the discrimination for the forseeable future or not. Discrimination is there, plain and simple. I don't see a Saudi Arabian-American president for the forseeable future, but I wouldn't support discrimination in the rules against a possible one.

I doubt it's easily changeable. You said that last time about removing the monarchy, and you were completely incorrect.

9)Interesting. However, the distance between our heads of state from the actions of government cast doubt on the relevance of this argument.

12)I don't expect our head of state to agree with every decision of the government. If that were a requirement, then she would have absolute power over our government. This distance between symbolic roles and governmental roles is fundamental to our society, and would be a neccesity to any office we would choose instead of the Queen. An argument in support of my position, not against it.

The head of state shouldn't do actions contrary to the government. She represents the country and the government represents the society that elected them. It can be believed that Canada supported the war if the Canadian head of state supports it. It's an embarassing situation.

10)Meh, we have domestic representation of that in the form of the GG. Not really an issue if one is redy to accept a certain amout of subtlety in one's nation's institutions.

It's still not the head of state. Just a lackey. It's like having the VP in the country but the President resides in Austria.

13)Both Canada and Australia have legal measure in place so that that would not happen again in either country.

What are the measures? I'm sure people said that before this thing happened in Australia.

Monarchies are a barbaric tradition that should die out along with things like seppuku. Caste systems don't belong in the world, especially in developed, first-world countries that believe in equality, etc.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I'm not talking about the electoral success. Reread my comment. The Queen is a problem for Quebec. This is well-known.

I'm saying that dissent is not equivalent to a problem.

My original statement referred to a prior argument, which admitted to some weaknesses. I then suggested that the consequences of your proposal might be worse than the consequences of mine. If any rebuttal was child-like it was yours, in that you refused to argue at all, and merely dismissed. An effective rhetorical device, perhaps, but hardly an adult agument.

Your pathetic child-like argument should be dismissed. It's just a bunch of what-ifs. And it doesn't even apply to this situation. If monarchy now has no real power, why are you comparing it to examples of when monarchies with power were removed and thus society became chaotic? Anyways, I provided counter-examples to this ridiculous argument.

It's good that you agree that it's hardly an adult argument.

Re-read that statement. Figure out what I was referring to. And cut out the insults. Debate the arguments.

None of those times are even remotely related to today's world. There aren't many constitutional monarchies in past history and revolutions do not happen often in the developed world anyways. I think any monarchy, constitutional or not, are more likely to become police states since technically they already are authoritarian.

US, France, India, etc. shed away their monarchies and now they're well established democracies.

This argument is almost as retarded and pathetic as your ICC arguments.

Cut out the insults. I want a real discussion. Your behaviour undercuts your arguments.

Is it not obvious? Someone who isn't a Monarch Someone shouldn't be born into a position and that position shouldn't have discriminatory requirements.

I get that. But if that is your response, you are trying to use your conclusion as a premise. It invalidates your argument.

Sigh, flag-waving at its best. Get your arguments in shape. First you say monarchs have no power. Then you say that society will turn to chaos if the monarchs are gone even though they have no power and are supposedly just celebrity figureheads. Then you say that the government works fine with the monarch apparently implying that the monarch is strongly tied to the government! A rational person wouldn't say that GDP, etc. are affected by the monarch when they previously said the monarch has no influence or power.

I was saying that the basic system of government works well for us up here. That our head of state, whether or not it is the monarch, would never have any power. Your argument says that it limits our options in terms of types of government. We don't want to overhaul our type of government, even if we were to get rid of the monarchy. Separate arguments. The other one was just the obsevation that there seems to be a greater historical correlation to stability in constitutional monarchies than with republics, and I then proposed one model that would explain that. I was not saying that republics are destined to fall or "turn to chaos." Don't put words in my mouth.

Then get rid of it if to have no aspect of discrimination in Canada's political life. This entire concept is against the fundamentals of Canadian society. Even having a caste system like a monarchy should be against any society's thoughts!

Perhaps

The next question, which you avoided, was: What about any other position which is appointed? Let's say the position of national jester, which is a lifetime appointment. I really think you're royalist bias is clouding your judgement.

No other appointment has discrimination invovled. At least none in Canada. The goings on in the Brtish court have nothing to do with Canada, except the Queen. And none of our appointments discriminate.

Also, you're assuming that these princes will live long, natural lives. Who knows what will happen.

I'm assuming that at least one will live long enough to gain the crown. Pretty unlikely for it not to happen. And I don't know who is 3rd in line, but I'm betting that they satisfy the criteria just by virtue of how they hve been raised.

If the Queen was gone, there would be no disagreement regarding this aspect and thus society would be stronger. I don't know why you're talking about other electoral systems here.

I'm talking about electoral systems because that is what would likely replace our current system. And disagreement does not make a country weak, it makes it stronger. And there would be plenty of disagreement over the election of any figure to the position.

It is an important issue. Australia had a referendum, many countries shed themselves of monarchies, many Canadians are challenging aspects of the monarchy as seen in landmark court cases. To rid oneself of a caste system, discrimination, and all sorts of other negative things should be important.

Australia had a referendum, and they chose to keep her. Perhaps we should have one too, in order to validate her position ('cause she would win). That would give it a certain democratic validity. When you say "many Canadians," don't you really mean one? It should be important if every one agreed with you, but many people do not.

It shouldn't matter if you don't see someone challenging the discrimination for the forseeable future or not. Discrimination is there, plain and simple. I don't see a Saudi Arabian-American president for the forseeable future, but I wouldn't support discrimination in the rules against a possible one.

A bad analogy, but a credible point. As I have stated previously, constitutional issues are difficult to deal with up here, 'cause those discussions tend to open up a can o' worms. The analogy is bad for several reasons. First, Saudi-Americans are discriminated against because you have to be native-born to be President. Second, the Presidency is much more than just ceremonial.

I doubt it's easily changeable. You said that last time about removing the monarchy, and you were completely incorrect.

It is easily changeable, if ever it became an issue. We have full legal right to alter our constitution. It's just not worthwhile to do so when it is not a practical problem.

The head of state shouldn't do actions contrary to the government. She represents the country and the government represents the society that elected them. It can be believed that Canada supported the war if the Canadian head of state supports it. It's an embarassing situation.

Funny, I don't feel embarrassed. The only way to ensure that the head of state agrees with every decision of the government is to give them absolute power. We don't want that. Your head of state disagrees with the stance of the state of Massachusetts on gay marriage. Following your logic, you should be embarrassed by this.

It's still not the head of state. Just a lackey. It's like having the VP in the country but the President resides in Austria.

She fulfills all the roles of our head of state. I don't see what the problem is. Why do you see this as a problem? Again, your analogy is bad. You have failed to explicitly state how this is a problem.

What are the measures? I'm sure people said that before this thing happened in Australia.

The Prime Minister is defined as someone who has the confidence of the house, usually by being the leader of a party that has a majority of the seats. If the GG decreed a different Prime Minister, the house would vote for confidence, and then they would likely vote to either get rid of the sitting GG or get rid of the position altogether. The Provinces would be on board, because to let the GG get away with it would leave them vulnerable to similarly arbitrary decisions of their respective Lieutenant Generals. I'm not sure what the system is in Australia, but remember that the decision of the GG in that case was reversed. Also, an Aussie friend of mine who is engaged in politics told me that they changed some law afterward.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Kibbo, please reply to my statements concerning your argument. And saying 'your behavior undercuts your entire argument' and then running away is basically conceeding that point as much as someone saying 'ok then' or whatever and leaving it at that.

Your statements basically implying that the presence of a monarchy will prevent a dictatorship ship have no basis whatsoever at all.

Your entire argument relies on you saying XY while it is just as easy to say YX.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Kibbo, please reply to my statements concerning your argument. And saying 'your behavior undercuts your entire argument' and then running away is basically conceeding that point as much as someone saying 'ok then' or whatever and leaving it at that.

Your statements basically implying that the presence of a monarchy will prevent a dictatorship ship have no basis whatsoever at all.

Your entire argument relies on you saying XY while it is just as easy to say YX.

I don't think he was implying that a Monarchy would prevent a Dictatorship. He made the Hitler/Napolean comment in respone to CoW's implication that a Monarchy was a form of Dictatorship. Kibbo's point(s) were on the mark and reasonable, since Hitler/Napoleon did not come to power under a Monarchy, undercutting CoW's fixation on the supposed Evils of Modern European Monarchies. It is CoW who has overreached, not Kibbo.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I'm not talking about the electoral success. Reread my comment. The Queen is a problem for Quebec. This is well-known.

I'm saying that dissent is not equivalent to a problem.

My original statement referred to a prior argument, which admitted to some weaknesses. I then suggested that the consequences of your proposal might be worse than the consequences of mine. If any rebuttal was child-like it was yours, in that you refused to argue at all, and merely dismissed. An effective rhetorical device, perhaps, but hardly an adult agument.

Your pathetic child-like argument should be dismissed. It's just a bunch of what-ifs. And it doesn't even apply to this situation. If monarchy now has no real power, why are you comparing it to examples of when monarchies with power were removed and thus society became chaotic? Anyways, I provided counter-examples to this ridiculous argument.

It's good that you agree that it's hardly an adult argument.

Re-read that statement. Figure out what I was referring to. And cut out the insults. Debate the arguments.

Re-read that statement. I didn't even insult you. I stated what you already agreed upon.

None of those times are even remotely related to today's world. There aren't many constitutional monarchies in past history and revolutions do not happen often in the developed world anyways. I think any monarchy, constitutional or not, are more likely to become police states since technically they already are authoritarian.

US, France, India, etc. shed away their monarchies and now they're well established democracies.

This argument is almost as retarded and pathetic as your ICC arguments.

Cut out the insults. I want a real discussion. Your behaviour undercuts your arguments.

If you want a real discussion then you would be debating what I stated here.

Is it not obvious? Someone who isn't a Monarch Someone shouldn't be born into a position and that position shouldn't have discriminatory requirements.

I get that. But if that is your response, you are trying to use your conclusion as a premise. It invalidates your argument.

You asked what I wanted from a head of state, and I stated my response. It's quite simple. The position shouldn't be held hostage to a barbaric and useless caste system.

Sigh, flag-waving at its best. Get your arguments in shape. First you say monarchs have no power. Then you say that society will turn to chaos if the monarchs are gone even though they have no power and are supposedly just celebrity figureheads. Then you say that the government works fine with the monarch apparently implying that the monarch is strongly tied to the government! A rational person wouldn't say that GDP, etc. are affected by the monarch when they previously said the monarch has no influence or power.

I was saying that the basic system of government works well for us up here. That our head of state, whether or not it is the monarch, would never have any power. Your argument says that it limits our options in terms of types of government. We don't want to overhaul our type of government, even if we were to get rid of the monarchy. Separate arguments. The other one was just the obsevation that there seems to be a greater historical correlation to stability in constitutional monarchies than with republics, and I then proposed one model that would explain that. I was not saying that republics are destined to fall or "turn to chaos." Don't put words in my mouth.

Removing royalty and having everyone as equals in society will not change the basic system of government. My argument is not that it limits options in terms of types of government. Don't put words in my mouth.

There is a historical example of established, developed, first-world republics having stability compared to monarchies. All types of monarchs (constitutional, non-constitutional, dictators who are basically the same thing) are unstable. The greatest constitutional crisis in Australia was caused by a constitutional monarch's minion.

Saying that constitutional monarchies are stable is irrelevant because you have stated that they have no powers in governments. You can't have it both ways. So, which is it?

Then get rid of it if to have no aspect of discrimination in Canada's political life. This entire concept is against the fundamentals of Canadian society. Even having a caste system like a monarchy should be against any society's thoughts!

Perhaps

You think having a caste system belongs in a society that believes everyone is equal?

The next question, which you avoided, was: What about any other position which is appointed? Let's say the position of national jester, which is a lifetime appointment. I really think you're royalist bias is clouding your judgement.

No other appointment has discrimination invovled. At least none in Canada. The goings on in the Brtish court have nothing to do with Canada, except the Queen. And none of our appointments discriminate.

We're not talking about other appointments. The head of state position is clearly discriminatory.

Also, you're assuming that these princes will live long, natural lives. Who knows what will happen.

I'm assuming that at least one will live long enough to gain the crown. Pretty unlikely for it not to happen. And I don't know who is 3rd in line, but I'm betting that they satisfy the criteria just by virtue of how they hve been raised.

If the Queen was gone, there would be no disagreement regarding this aspect and thus society would be stronger. I don't know why you're talking about other electoral systems here.

I'm talking about electoral systems because that is what would likely replace our current system. And disagreement does not make a country weak, it makes it stronger. And there would be plenty of disagreement over the election of any figure to the position.

Who knows what system will replace it? It wouldn't even be a drastic overhaul, it would just concern the head of state position.

It is an important issue. Australia had a referendum, many countries shed themselves of monarchies, many Canadians are challenging aspects of the monarchy as seen in landmark court cases. To rid oneself of a caste system, discrimination, and all sorts of other negative things should be important.

Australia had a referendum, and they chose to keep her. Perhaps we should have one too, in order to validate her position ('cause she would win). That would give it a certain democratic validity. When you say "many Canadians," don't you really mean one? It should be important if every one agreed with you, but many people do not.

This is not about democracy. This is about an institutionalized caste system. It is barbaric and crude.

It shouldn't matter if you don't see someone challenging the discrimination for the forseeable future or not. Discrimination is there, plain and simple. I don't see a Saudi Arabian-American president for the forseeable future, but I wouldn't support discrimination in the rules against a possible one.

A bad analogy, but a credible point. As I have stated previously, constitutional issues are difficult to deal with up here, 'cause those discussions tend to open up a can o' worms. The analogy is bad for several reasons. First, Saudi-Americans are discriminated against because you have to be native-born to be President. Second, the Presidency is much more than just ceremonial.

A Saudi-American would be an American-born with Saudi ancestors. Take my national jester role and please answer this question.

I doubt it's easily changeable. You said that last time about removing the monarchy, and you were completely incorrect.

It is easily changeable, if ever it became an issue. We have full legal right to alter our constitution. It's just not worthwhile to do so when it is not a practical problem.

I believe I corrected you in one thread about this. It isn't a simple procedure. It requires the consent of every province. This is probably just a matter of definition though.

The head of state shouldn't do actions contrary to the government. She represents the country and the government represents the society that elected them. It can be believed that Canada supported the war if the Canadian head of state supports it. It's an embarassing situation.

Funny, I don't feel embarrassed. The only way to ensure that the head of state agrees with every decision of the government is to give them absolute power. We don't want that. Your head of state disagrees with the stance of the state of Massachusetts on gay marriage. Following your logic, you should be embarrassed by this.

Good point. That was a minor and small point anyways.

It's still not the head of state. Just a lackey. It's like having the VP in the country but the President resides in Austria.

She fulfills all the roles of our head of state. I don't see what the problem is. Why do you see this as a problem? Again, your analogy is bad. You have failed to explicitly state how this is a problem.

What are the measures? I'm sure people said that before this thing happened in Australia.

The Prime Minister is defined as someone who has the confidence of the house, usually by being the leader of a party that has a majority of the seats. If the GG decreed a different Prime Minister, the house would vote for confidence, and then they would likely vote to either get rid of the sitting GG or get rid of the position altogether. The Provinces would be on board, because to let the GG get away with it would leave them vulnerable to similarly arbitrary decisions of their respective Lieutenant Generals. I'm not sure what the system is in Australia, but remember that the decision of the GG in that case was reversed. Also, an Aussie friend of mine who is engaged in politics told me that they changed some law afterward.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Kibbo, please reply to my statements concerning your argument. And saying 'your behavior undercuts your entire argument' and then running away is basically conceeding that point as much as someone saying 'ok then' or whatever and leaving it at that.

Your statements basically implying that the presence of a monarchy will prevent a dictatorship ship have no basis whatsoever at all.

Your entire argument relies on you saying XY while it is just as easy to say YX.

I don't think he was implying that a Monarchy would prevent a Dictatorship. He made the Hitler/Napolean comment in respone to CoW's implication that a Monarchy was a form of Dictatorship. Kibbo's point(s) were on the mark and reasonable, since Hitler/Napoleon did not come to power under a Monarchy, undercutting CoW's fixation on the supposed Evils of Modern European Monarchies. It is CoW who has overreached, not Kibbo.

As I said, he says XY when it is just as easy to say YX. In addition, the older and more powerful monarchies are not the same as modern constitutional monarchies. In addition, Hitler/Napoleon could have been said to be a type of monarchy/dictatorship type regime. Hardly any support for keeping a monarchy.

He did say that a monarchy will provide an obstacle in the path of dictatorship. With his argumentation style, it would be just as easy to say the opposite.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Kibbo, please reply to my statements concerning your argument. And saying 'your behavior undercuts your entire argument' and then running away is basically conceeding that point as much as someone saying 'ok then' or whatever and leaving it at that.

Your statements basically implying that the presence of a monarchy will prevent a dictatorship ship have no basis whatsoever at all.

Your entire argument relies on you saying XY while it is just as easy to say YX.

I don't think he was implying that a Monarchy would prevent a Dictatorship. He made the Hitler/Napolean comment in respone to CoW's implication that a Monarchy was a form of Dictatorship. Kibbo's point(s) were on the mark and reasonable, since Hitler/Napoleon did not come to power under a Monarchy, undercutting CoW's fixation on the supposed Evils of Modern European Monarchies. It is CoW who has overreached, not Kibbo.

As I said, he says XY when it is just as easy to say YX. In addition, the older and more powerful monarchies are not the same as modern constitutional monarchies. In addition, Hitler/Napoleon could have been said to be a type of monarchy/dictatorship type regime. Hardly any support for keeping a monarchy.

He did say that a monarchy will provide an obstacle in the path of dictatorship. With his argumentation style, it would be just as easy to say the opposite.

No. The situations are not the same here. The Monarch is the Head of State, that is true, however the Head of State is only Symbolic having no real power. If the Monarch tried to exert her/his power and become a Napoleon/Hitler, they'd be dismissed or worse simply stripped of their Symbolism. Now I suppose the People *might* decide to support the Monarch for some reason, but there is no movement to do so, so it's highly improbable that it would ever happen.

The biggest difference between Napoleon/Hitler and the Symbolic Monarchies of today is that both Napoleon/Hitler were actual Heads of State with actual power. It was very easy for them to abuse their power as most of the power they needed was their's already.

Again No! The Monarchy(British) does provide an obstacle, for a number of reasons:

1) The Monarch as Symbol is a living breathing reminder of Tradition. In that way it is very similar to a Constitutional Document except that it can speak whereas a Document can not. Part of the British Tradition is the Tradition of Democratic Monarchy with emphasis of Power with the House of Commons

2) If a Prime Minister tried to assume Dictatorial Powers, not only would he have to convince the People and the House of Commons, but the Monarch would also have to be convinced as even though the Monarch is mainly Symbolic it does still have the Legal and Moral authority to throw a monkey-wrench into such plans. The Monarch's objections would cause many to give second thought to what was happening.

3) OTOH, the Monarch(as stated earlier) can not just assume Dictatorial Powers itself. All the same players(Prime Minister, House of Commons, and People) would have to be convinced to do so and as such most would call for the abolition of the Monarchy(unless there was a real good reason behind the move).

Again I reiterate: You are implying that Kibbo started this Monarch vs non-Monarch comparison. It was CoW who started it and it was he who was trying to paint Monarchy as most dangerous. Kibbo merely showed that non-Monarchy systems have produced the Most Dangerous situations since about the time since the Industrial Revolution.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Again I reiterate: You are implying that Kibbo started this Monarch vs non-Monarch comparison. It was CoW who started it and it was he who was trying to paint Monarchy as most dangerous. Kibbo merely showed that non-Monarchy systems have produced the Most Dangerous situations since about the time since the Industrial Revolution.

:disgust:

Again I reiterate: I have never stated that monarchies are the most dangerous of anything in this thread. I have stated that they are a barbaric custom akin to seppuku, apartheid, slavery, etc. It should not be practiced today. Also, I disagree with Kibbo's statement and provided my own counter-examples.

Kibbo also started this monarchy vs. non-monarchy comparison.

Of course I can't expect from you since you are a well known ultra-nationalist flag-waver rushing to protect another of his own kin :roll: This thread is a perfect example of extreme ultra-nationalism. I'm critical of monarchies, so Kibbo & Sandorski & co. must protect the Queen's honor at all costs, even if it means posting lies, seemingly contradictory statements, and throwing away some of their most cherished beliefs (I'm assuming you cherish equality).

 

[RabidMongoose]

I highly disagree with the "that non-Monarchy systems have produced the Most Dangerous situations since about the time since the Industrial Revolution" statement. A dictatorship is basically a monarchy. Let us not forget that.

I agree that the constitutional monarchies of today are not really related much to past monarches, but Kibbo is apparently denying this. Bringing up history is a negative for monarchies/dictatorships, IMO, for today's climate.

And again, it's the you say XY and I can EASILY say YX. There is absolutely no foundation in your argument. I can easily claim that since the monarch is a symbol of living breathing remember of tradition, then that may very well be the ONLY way in today's time where a monarchy can obtain a dictatorship. If that Lichenstein example cited by CoW is true, then it is far more probable than another form of government in today's time

I'm not impying that Kibbo started this Monarch argument. Stunt did while CoW and Kibbo are in a debate about this. However, I am debating Kibbo's horrible argument on why he feels that a monarch is justified. He is wrong and his argument has no basis whatsoever.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: sandorski

Again I reiterate: You are implying that Kibbo started this Monarch vs non-Monarch comparison. It was CoW who started it and it was he who was trying to paint Monarchy as most dangerous. Kibbo merely showed that non-Monarchy systems have produced the Most Dangerous situations since about the time since the Industrial Revolution.

:disgust:

Again I reiterate: I have never stated that monarchies are the most dangerous of anything in this thread. I have stated that they are a barbaric custom akin to seppuku, apartheid, slavery, etc. It should not be practiced today. Also, I disagree with Kibbo's statement and provided my own counter-examples.

Kibbo also started this monarchy vs. non-monarchy comparison.

Of course I can't expect from you since you are a well known ultra-nationalist flag-waver rushing to protect another of his own kin :roll: This thread is a perfect example of extreme ultra-nationalism. I'm critical of monarchies, so Kibbo & Sandorski & co. must protect the Queen's honor at all costs, even if it means posting lies, seemingly contradictory statements, and throwing away some of their most cherished beliefs (I'm assuming you cherish equality).

:roll:

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: sandorski

Again I reiterate: You are implying that Kibbo started this Monarch vs non-Monarch comparison. It was CoW who started it and it was he who was trying to paint Monarchy as most dangerous. Kibbo merely showed that non-Monarchy systems have produced the Most Dangerous situations since about the time since the Industrial Revolution.

:disgust:

Again I reiterate: I have never stated that monarchies are the most dangerous of anything in this thread. I have stated that they are a barbaric custom akin to seppuku, apartheid, slavery, etc. It should not be practiced today. Also, I disagree with Kibbo's statement and provided my own counter-examples.

Kibbo also started this monarchy vs. non-monarchy comparison.

Of course I can't expect from you since you are a well known ultra-nationalist flag-waver rushing to protect another of his own kin :roll: This thread is a perfect example of extreme ultra-nationalism. I'm critical of monarchies, so Kibbo & Sandorski & co. must protect the Queen's honor at all costs, even if it means posting lies, seemingly contradictory statements, and throwing away some of their most cherished beliefs (I'm assuming you cherish equality).

:roll:

Looks like I was right.

 

[CanOWorms]

The only thing that the royalists keep harping on is pure conjecture what if/it could happen type statements.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The only thing that the royalists keep harping on is pure conjecture what if/it could happen type statements.

And the only thing you keep harping on is bad assumptions and half-truths.

But credit where it's due: you didn't start it this time.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The only thing that the royalists keep harping on is pure conjecture what if/it could happen type statements.

And the only thing you keep harping on is bad assumptions and half-truths.

But credit where it's due: you didn't start it this time.

I provided 10+ statements most of which are not even assumptions. They are hard facts. Kibbo has even stated himself that his argument is ridiculous and childish.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I highly disagree with the "that non-Monarchy systems have produced the Most Dangerous situations since about the time since the Industrial Revolution" statement. A dictatorship is basically a monarchy. Let us not forget that.

I agree that the constitutional monarchies of today are not really related much to past monarches, but Kibbo is apparently denying this. Bringing up history is a negative for monarchies/dictatorships, IMO, for today's climate.

And again, it's the you say XY and I can EASILY say YX. There is absolutely no foundation in your argument. I can easily claim that since the monarch is a symbol of living breathing remember of tradition, then that may very well be the ONLY way in today's time where a monarchy can obtain a dictatorship. If that Lichenstein example cited by CoW is true, then it is far more probable than another form of government in today's time

I'm not impying that Kibbo started this Monarch argument. Stunt did while CoW and Kibbo are in a debate about this. However, I am debating Kibbo's horrible argument on why he feels that a monarch is justified. He is wrong and his argument has no basis whatsoever.

Ok, I think we can agree that a single person with absolute power is what constitutes a Dictator. However, Modern European based Monarchies are not based upon the Monarch having absolute power. As such, they are not Dictators, and in the case of British Monarchy, are so far away from absolute power as one can get. So yes, in that way Napoleon/Hitler were very much like what a Monarch of Old was, but the point made by Kibbo was that they acheived their Dictator status through non-Monarch political systems whereas Monarch based systems have not produced similar situations for many centuries(since about the time of the Industrial Revolution).

Yes, you can easily *say* XY=YX, but that does not make it so(although mathematically it is certainlt true ).

I really don't see the point in your point in this statement:"There is absolutely no foundation in your argument. I can easily claim that since the monarch is a symbol of living breathing remember of tradition, then that may very well be the ONLY way in today's time where a monarchy can obtain a dictatorship."

The Lichtenstein(sp) arguement is moot, as the People chose to give the Monarch its' power, the Monarch did not just assume that Power on a whim. I have no idea why they did it or the conditions in giving that power, it could simply be for practical purposes(Lichtenstein has the population of a small town, they may just see an elected government as unnecessary or as a beurocratic burden, but I dunno) or perhaps it has been done as a Tourism draw, you know aliving breathing Monarchy, come See the Monarch and its' Loyal Subjects!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The only thing that the royalists keep harping on is pure conjecture what if/it could happen type statements.

And the only thing you keep harping on is bad assumptions and half-truths.

But credit where it's due: you didn't start it this time.

I provided 10+ statements most of which are not even assumptions. They are hard facts. Kibbo has even stated himself that his argument is ridiculous and childish.

All right - Quebec doesn't like the Queen. I'll give you that; a large minority of Quebecers feel that Canada's constitutional monarchy infringes on their culture.
Fine. Where's the evidence that it would be worthwhile to change the constitution for symbolic purposes? Have you researched the procedure for amending Canada's constitution? It's been tried more than once. A large minority of Americans probably have trouble thinking of the USA as "one nation under God". Is it worth changing this to be more inclusive, when in reality it has no 'real' significance to government?

The entire argument about whether a symbolic Monarchy or a Republic is more prone to falling into dictatorship is completely meaningless. For all intents and purposes, the two systems are equivalent.

It looks to me like you and Kibbo called each other childish; if your post above is representative of your ability to accurately report on a conversation, then it's pretty damning.

I don't know why anyone opened this topic; there's nothing worthwhile to be said about the monarchy, and even in countries where there are moderately strong feelings about it (Australia, I believe, would like to cut symbolic ties with the Queen), it's really a red herring to keep people from considering much more important economic and social issues. (Think Kerry/Bush having opposing views on Stem Cell research, when this is hardly the most important issues facing the United States; pick a potentially emotional issue, and you may be able to win voters before they have a chance to think about more important policies).

 

[sandorski]

Can of Worms: I give up trying to discuss things with you. You remind me of a former poster here on P&N who was a Brick Wall. I chose to ignore him, for my sake I now choose to ignore you. So go ahead think what you must, but I'm not falling for your trolling anymore.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Can of Worms: I give up trying to discuss things with you. You remind me of a former poster here on P&N who was a Brick Wall. I chose to ignore him, for my sake I now choose to ignore you. So go ahead think what you must, but I'm not falling for your trolling anymore.

You fabricated lies stating that I started this thread when it is obviously Stunt, stated that I said monarchies are extremely dangerous in this thread when I never even uttered such a thing in this thread, and lied by stating that I started this ridiculous argument when Kibbo did.

I've always had a dislike for you and I'm sure it has always been obvious. You're just too much of an ultra-nationalist.

Good luck.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Ok, I think we can agree that a single person with absolute power is what constitutes a Dictator. However, Modern European based Monarchies are not based upon the Monarch having absolute power. As such, they are not Dictators, and in the case of British Monarchy, are so far away from absolute power as one can get. So yes, in that way Napoleon/Hitler were very much like what a Monarch of Old was, but the point made by Kibbo was that they acheived their Dictator status through non-Monarch political systems whereas Monarch based systems have not produced similar situations for many centuries(since about the time of the Industrial Revolution).

I'm not saying that. I don't even think anyone is saying that. You basically agree with me. However, Kibbo is implying that modern constitutioinal monarches can be used in comparison to past monarchies. They are not and I am saying that he is wrong for using such an analogy. Nobody but Kibbo is implying such.

As for his non-Monarch political systems becoming dictators, I'm stating that there have been plenty of non-Monarh political that did not become dictators. And there are plenty of Monarch political systems that became deplorable.

If you're going to limit it to constitutional monarchies of the current age, then you should limit the republics to modern republics of today. Either way, this is a ridiculous argument, IMO, to say that this constitutional monarchy is less likely or more likely to become a dictatorship when we are discussing first world nations in today's world.

Yes, you can easily *say* XY=YX, but that does not make it so(although mathematically it is certainlt true ).

Neither XY or YX are necessarily true. However, Kibbo's entire argument and part of yours was of a similar nature. You claim that the monarchy is an obstacle while I can easily claim that the monarchy provides the most likely path. Granted this is a ridiculous discussion, but I could easily say the opposite and it could be just as true as your statement.

I really don't see the point in your point in this statement:"There is absolutely no foundation in your argument. I can easily claim that since the monarch is a symbol of living breathing remember of tradition, then that may very well be the ONLY way in today's time where a monarchy can obtain a dictatorship."

I'm simply stating that where you say that the Monarchy is an obstacle, one could just as easily say that it is the best path to becoming a dictatorship. It's part of the you say XY and I say YX argument.

The Lichtenstein(sp) arguement is moot, as the People chose to give the Monarch its' power, the Monarch did not just assume that Power on a whim. I have no idea why they did it or the conditions in giving that power, it could simply be for practical purposes(Lichtenstein has the population of a small town, they may just see an elected government as unnecessary or as a beurocratic burden, but I dunno) or perhaps it has been done as a Tourism draw, you know aliving breathing Monarchy, come See the Monarch and its' Loyal Subjects!

Yes, and it shows that the monarchy was the path to get the absolute power, especially if the peopel voted to do so after threats of abdicating the throne.

I think that this constitutional monarcy vs. non monarchy argument is hilarious.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The only thing that the royalists keep harping on is pure conjecture what if/it could happen type statements.

And the only thing you keep harping on is bad assumptions and half-truths.

But credit where it's due: you didn't start it this time.

I provided 10+ statements most of which are not even assumptions. They are hard facts. Kibbo has even stated himself that his argument is ridiculous and childish.

All right - Quebec doesn't like the Queen. I'll give you that; a large minority of Quebecers feel that Canada's constitutional monarchy infringes on their culture.
Fine. Where's the evidence that it would be worthwhile to change the constitution for symbolic purposes? Have you researched the procedure for amending Canada's constitution? It's been tried more than once. A large minority of Americans probably have trouble thinking of the USA as "one nation under God". Is it worth changing this to be more inclusive, when in reality it has no 'real' significance to government?

It was discussed before. I believe all the provinces need to agree to remove the Queen as head of state.

The entire argument about whether a symbolic Monarchy or a Republic is more prone to falling into dictatorship is completely meaningless. For all intents and purposes, the two systems are equivalent.

I never started that argument. I have repeatedly called it ridiculous and not worth debating about.

I don't know why anyone opened this topic; there's nothing worthwhile to be said about the monarchy, and even in countries where there are moderately strong feelings about it (Australia, I believe, would like to cut symbolic ties with the Queen), it's really a red herring to keep people from considering much more important economic and social issues. (Think Kerry/Bush having opposing views on Stem Cell research, when this is hardly the most important issues facing the United States; pick a potentially emotional issue, and you may be able to win voters before they have a chance to think about more important policies).

This topic was started because Stunt opposes my views on monarchies and wanted to call me out about it. I believe it's some sort of personal grudge of his.

 

[Kibbo]

Mongoose,

Didn't mean to ignore your post, I just got caught up in the discussion with Worms.

My original argument was more of a musing than anything else. Just a historical fact that republics fall sometimes, but no one seems to have a single example of a constitutional monarchy going the same route. You cited Cromwell, but for that short period of time in England's history it was a republic. They went back to a monarchy after witnessing the excesses caused by Cromwell's "democracy." In fact, it was the tradgedy of Cromwell that inspired the writers of the American constitution to put in so many checks and balances, in order to prevent the same thing from happening. Which has worked pretty well so far.

My idea was just an attempt to explain why constitutional monarchies don't seem to fail. I was thinking that there is something inherent in having a symbolic head of state that . . . dilutes the ability of a charismatic leader to identify himself fully with the state. Having that sybolic role be heredity would make that position "charisma proof" under the assumption that it is unlikely for the natural heir to have the talent neccessary to be that charismatic leader. Another argument could easily be made to explain the same phenomenon. Maybe the historical proccess of slowly stripping a monarch of power "builds in" institutuions and traditions that serve the same purpose as the US's checks and balances. Again, it was just a musing. Take the second argument to explain it if you prefer, or come up with your own.

Can o' Worms:

I did not say that my argument was childish. I was implying that your reaction to it was. Read my post again.

Edit: Just did a bit of reseach on a nagging question in my head. Italy was a democratic monarchy when Mussolini rose to power. The parliament had had a number of successive failures (unstable coalitions) and the King of Italy appointed Mussolini Prime Minister when his Brownshirts were marching on Rome, despite the fact that the Fascist Party only had 15% of the seats in the Parliament. Since my above argument was based on the lack of historical examples any of us could come up with, and I just found one, I withdraw the argument entirely.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Just a historical fact that republics fall sometimes, but no one seems to have a single example of a constitutional monarchy going the same route.

Probably because today's modern constitutional monarchies don't have as much of a history and not as great in number.

In addition, there have been cases of a constitutional monarchy being abolished without complete chaos.

In addition, there have been constitutional monarchies that have gone out of control. Nepal has a constitutional monarchy where at one point recently the king deposed the government and appointed a new government later.

Either way, your argument was very poor and your reasoning saying that a constitutional monarchy prevents dictatorship has no real basis.

My idea was just an attempt to explain why constitutional monarchies don't seem to fail. I was thinking that there is something inherent in having a symbolic head of state that . . . dilutes the ability of a charismatic leader to identify himself fully with the state. Having that sybolic role be heredity would make that position "charisma proof" under the assumption that it is unlikely for the natural heir to have the talent neccessary to be that charismatic leader. Another argument could easily be made to explain the same phenomenon. Maybe the historical proccess of slowly stripping a monarch of power "builds in" institutuions and traditions that serve the same purpose as the US's checks and balances. Again, it was just a musing. Take the second argument to explain it if you prefer, or come up with your own.

I would argue that the presence of a monarch that is charismatic would be the best route towards dictatorship. If the monarch is the symbolic head of state and symbol of the country's culture as well as being charismatic, he or she would have a greater chance to earn support and head towards a dictatorship.