display | more...
When, as in recent days, people start a political conversation with me I always tell them that I am a staunch monarchist.

I just think modern American democracy is lame. There is so much lying, so much posturing and focus grouping and pandering and so on. We are never going to have direct democracy in America (ok sure internet voting, but come on), just a stupid republic.

Because kings are appointed through heredity there is no need to be dissapointed when they turn out to be bad leaders or horny or corrupt. We didn't ask for them to be our leader and therefore are not responsible for their actions. Lord knows we live like this anyway, so why not just own up and get rid of the middle man.

Plus Americans love royalty, we love the dotty old drunken Queen of England. We all shit ourselves when Diana bought it. We loved Kennedy most of all and he was much more a young doomed king than a president. He took mistresses in true regal fashion, he died in a mythic way. He was from a political dynasty founded on corruption and gangsterism and so on and so on.

The revolutionary war wasn't so much about having a king as about having a shitty greedy particularly bad king. The french actually cooked up most of the current state of democracy and look where it got them. So join me in clamoring for a new American King. One who is pro-choice, anti war on drugs and has a neatly trimmed kingly beard. As an early candidate I suggest Sean Connery.

just a note to the literalists out there (bless your hearts) I am more or less funning here. If you elect a king then your weird ass country is not to be included as an example in this rant

Divine_Wino says "Because kings are appointed through heredity there is no need to be dissapointed when they turn out to be bad leaders or horny or corrupt."

Actually, kings and queens are not necessarily "appointed through heredity" -- several countries have had elected kings (Poland is the only one I could name off the top of my head, but liveforever tells me Denmark had an elected monarchy until the 17th century) and in cases where the monarchy is normally hereditary, there have still been instances where there was no biological heir (or too many) and someone else had to be selected, either by the monarch before their death (as with Elizabeth I selecting James I) or by other leaders within the country (the English selecting the Protestant daughters of James II to rule, rather than his Catholic son).

In 1999, the Australian Government conducted a national vote regarding the decision to break our ties with the British monarchy and become a republic. 51% voted "No". Obviously, they were all staunch monarchists. Yes. Every single person who voted "No" valued the Queen of England's position in our society so highly that they believed she should not be shaken from that position.

Let me share something about Australian culture with you, o gentle noder. The Queen does very little here. Every few years she visits the country. Her face is on our legal currency. Her flag is incorporated into our flag. We appoint a Governor-General to interface with her. Technically we aren't truly dependent on the British monarchy as we are, and the only real difference between Australia as it is and Australia as a republic is aesthetics. Consequently, those relevant aesthetics would need to be changed as a result of this changeover. This could be costly.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it": nothing is technically wrong with the way Australia continues to function. In 1999, 51% of our adult populace was branded "staunch monarchist" for looking at this political and aesthetic overhaul of our country and deeming it unworthy of the effort and expenditure involved. And 49% of our adult populace said "Yes" to eliminating our (practically non-existent) relationship with the Queen, presumably, just for the hell of it.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.