It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The only true government that will work - MONARCHY

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 04:31 PM
a reply to: paraphiYour a mite wrong in your answer there. All Runnymede was the barons at that time making the king sign a charter not to persecute them for their wrong doings.
What you really must look at to see the clipping of the English monarchy is Oliver Cromwell and the English civil war. The king at the time thought he could force his rule by divine right, but he was wrong and paid for it with his head.
After a period of time some monarchists wanted the return of a king so the then government invited Charles son to become king, which he did, but under a ruling still in force today that the monarchy is just a figurehead.
That Paraphi is what happened in the simplest terms, if you look into it it's a lot more involved. So when all these silly people keep spouting that the English Queen is the power you can tell them that she really has no power at all but what the government lets her have.

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 07:15 AM

originally posted by: crayzeed
Your a mite wrong in your answer there. All Runnymede was the barons at that time making the king sign a charter not to persecute them for their wrong doings.

No I am not. The Magna Carta placed limits on the Crown, thus curtailing the English monarch's powers.

Through time powers passed into Parliament and it morphed from an advisory body of nobles and clergy to what we have today. The English Civil War was around how the country was governed, that is by Parliament or by the Crown. The Crown lost not just its head but the argument. The Restoration of Charles II was set against a changed political landscape, eventually leading to the Bill of Rights in 1689, which heralded significant change.

The current monarch does have power i.e. signing Acts of Parliament into law, appointing the Prime Minister etc.. These may seem trivial, but they are important checkpoints in politics. The example often given (hopefully hypothetical) is the monarch refusing to sign an Act into law when such as action would abolish Parliament - e.g. the institution of a dictatorship. That would be the start of some interesting events!

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 07:38 AM
I'm not aware of any monarchies in the world today in which the 'kings' and queens have much real power (Saudi Arabia maybe). the rest are just figureheads.

monarchy / benevolent dictator is a great concept but unworkable in the real world. an ideal ruler would be altruistic and idealistic, putting the nation's benefits first and extending power to the most able and qualified.
in reality such a leader would tend to feather his/her own nest and listen to (bribable) court favorites. the ruler might be fooled by a smooth talker or cracked idealist and appoint same to major posts (and would be reluctant to admit mistake by removing same).
a great example of this is Stalin's putting Trofim Lysenko in charge of agriculture, a move that set them back years.
I agree that democratically elected leaders all to often make changes for short-term benefits to help them get / stay elected, but if people don't see progress they will usually rebel.

no government is perfect because governments are made of people, and people aren't perfect.

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:34 AM
a reply to: paraphi The OP statement was who best to govern. That means the people not just the nobles.
Again I will say (please go and read the Magna Carta. ALL that it is is a peace document between the barons and King John. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the British people and it didn't curtail any power from the monarchy. Or have you forgotten how Henry the eighth ruled. He killed thousands of people with his "divine right" to rule. He WAS power absolute.
The clergy and nobles only ran the country till Cromwell then they were castrated. Since then we have been ruled by elected representatives. Firstly the house of lords have only the power that the ruling government allows them and that can be rescinded at any time hence the talk now of abolishing it for an elected upper house.
The Queen does not appoint any prime ministers, it is only etiquette for a new prime minister to introduce themselves to the monarch. It is the same for signing act it is something she is ALLOWED to do. These powers can be took off her at any time. Just because they wont makes no difference. She has not got the absolute power.

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:18 PM
What we NEED is what this site demonizes the most; A New World Order. A One World Government.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in