Posted on 05/08/2011 9:36:55 AM PDT by annalex
This is the future Queen Consort of Britain and the Commonwealth:
*http://www.starandstyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Kate-Middleton-See-Through-Dress.jpg
Real class there, eh?
For all their faults, First Ladies have never been out of line in regards to what they show in public and you never see stuff like this floating around the internet about them. Even Michelle doesn’t have photos like this.
But on the other hand, if hte monarch is irresponsible, innocents suffer. Nicholas II was a perfect husband and good father, BUT a failure of a monarch and it cost millions of Russians their lives in the Russo-Japanese War, then WWI. Nicholas mismanaged both and millions lost their lives.
BINGO! The Culture, Institutions, Big "G" Government (the Government its self not the department of economic planing and cheese welfare)are there to be maintained, not the Looting that we fight back every election cycle in this country, "who can steal the most from someone Else and give it to me"
Now, this does NOT mean that a Monarch can't be corrupt or bad, this does not mean the Monarchy itself is corrupt or Bad, King John shouldn't taint the reputation of Queen Elizabeth II, just for the fact that they were both Monarchs of England.
P.S. Thank you for the Links, This Serbian Student makes a brief, but very good argument for the restoration of the Monarchy in Serbia.
Monarchy is not denying anyone the franchise. If you think it is reasonable that people who don’t own real property or pay no taxes should vote, that is your decision (not very smart one). A monarch however, is one charged with protecting the people from the excesses of such government that they have the calamity of having. Please see the wonderful Emp. Franz Joseph quote in the article.
Actually, I think Nicholas II was a good tsar and Russia under him was cruising to victory, and the command of the Bosphorus straits that Russia would have gotten. By 1916 the war became war of attrition and Russia was uniquely equipped to win it. And previously it was inder Nicholas II that Stolypin was able to institute the much needed reforms. The Tsar was betrayed by the cowards who surrounded him, and by the leftwing hysteria in the Duma and the press.
Alot of people (even here on FR) think the final nail of states rights has hammered by the Civil War, it wasn't, it was the Direct election of Senators (Just look up what a Senator is, it is like an Ambassador, sort of from the states to the Government)
Not part of America national Identity, my Good sir(or Ma'am) did you not see the hype regarding the Royal wedding? Americans LOVE Royalty (But I guess we don't like it when we get a taste of it here, i.e. Ubama's regime)
The problem with monarchy is that it turns power into a venereal disease, and eventually every family produces a Paris Hilton.
Actually, Let me rephrase that, Ubama is NOT like a Monarch, The King or Queen are charged with the Protection of the Faith, Culture, and Country.
Ubama is more like a DICATOR, who Plunders and Loots to give to himself and Friends, while pushing the very people who elected him into ruin, caring nothing for the Country well being, except who he can get even more power.
So Americans do LOVE Royalty, they just HATE tyranny.
Exactly so. Note, too, how political dynasties thrive in America. This points perhaps, not to specifically monarchic orientation, but a recognition of the aristocratic principle.
Given the caliber of people we’ve been electing lately, I don’t think Paris Hilton would be a particularly bad choice. Who would you better trust managing, say a hotel, her or Obama?
Unfortunately, the concept of monarchy flies in the face of the equality and individual rights that are our divine right. Only those who ascribe to the heresy of predestination would contend that God pre-chooses winners, losers, kings and peasants.
How so?
I own a thing or to I have form my parents. You owe something from your parents. Does that fly in the face of equality?
It doesn’t seem to be very constututional or republican these days.
How ironic that you used “monarchy” and “divine right” in the same sentence IN SUPPORT of a republic!
You wrote:
“Real class there, eh?”
Yep, MIDDLE class. That’s where’s she’s from. And most royals act as low class as the rest of society today. That is an odd byproduct of the loss of monarchies. When the monarchies went, manners began to decline because there was no official ceremonial in life (except in the Church).
I would disagree with every part of this, starting with the axioms.
To begin with, democracy is all about voting at the lowest level. And more shouldn’t be read into democracy until this is understood. This is because, while most people equate democracy with “freedom” and “liberty”, the truth is that those are just necessary side-effects of the biggest selling point of democracy. “Efficiency”.
Democracy is a just plain, better way of doing things, than any other system.
I’ll illustrate this with a recent example of the emergence of democracy in China. It began with some popular TV game shows that were aired nationally, even in isolated, rural parts of China.
Those game shows demonstrated something that even the most uneducated peasant instantly noted: voting. And before the government noticed it, and prohibited any voting on game shows in the future, the cat had been let out of the bag.
Ah, but then what happened? In collectivized farms, where typically a lower level functionary would show up, and start issuing orders, these farmers began to argue about the orders, because they knew better than the functionary, who knew less than did the farmers about farming.
The functionary might listen to them, but then said, “Do it my way”, to which the farmers suddenly chimed in: “Hey! Let’s *vote* on it!”, and the farmers would outvote him.
Eek! The system is overthrown.
But the smarter of the functionaries soon realized that the farmers did indeed know better. And this resulted in better yields and exceeded quotas. And the supervisors of the functionaries praised them for their good work.
Lesson #1. Democracy is efficient. This is how you get more democrats.
However, democracy only works a limited part of the way up the hierarchical tree. This is because each level of the hierarchy has a different perspective on what is happening. At the ground level, what might seem right may turn out to be wrong, when seen from a different perspective.
And there are a lot of decisions to be made, which can overwhelm democracy. For this reason, beyond a certain point, if you are wise, a modified version of democracy comes into play, called republican-democracy, or representative democracy.
But republican-democracy needs to recognize that any body of people formed into a government, will look out for their own power and needs first. So they must be balanced with competing bodies of people to prevent the representatives from becoming tyrants.
We don’t live in a democracy. Never have. How many true democracies can you name? I can’t think of any. A democracy would be very messy and inefficient. We live in a republic.
(sigh) I didn’t say we lived in a democracy. This would have been obvious if you read what I wrote, which was novel and unique, and not like the typical writings on the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.