I didnt claim it was "so common", I said it is easier to be arbitrary. Please stay exact.
I am furthermore no expert on British history, never claimed that.

The UK never had to face a comparable sitution where the democratic order was under a comparable attack from the inside in the 20th century. Its easy to talk for you therefore.
If I am wrong on this, you are free to expand my knowledge.

Regarding the US, Bush can't do as he likes. You have already a few examples where the consitutional court abolished aspects of Bushs policies that were fiercely defended by the Administration but declared unconstitutional by the court. The Administration obeyed to those judgements.

Why this hostility, I wasn't hostile towards you neither. What I wrote above was my conception until now. You are free to show me information to correct my views.

The European Charter has nothing to do with this nice weather paper called UN Charter that doesnt work when it rains. The European charter is binding. There have been cases were the UK bowed before it against its will and not without puttin in strong resistance. But it gave in in the end.

Well it is up to you to show me an example where it is an advantage to have a greater flexibility" than with a written constitution. Could you give me a specific example, because I cant see a lack of flexibility in our written constitution.

But not under one crown, did they? Hate or dispise the Habsburger but if they were so terribly inable idiots, it remains a mystery how they could serve as one of the longest living dynasties under the same crown and build up an increasingly large empire.

Its surprising. Until now I thought only the WWII propaganda cant be overcome in the UK. Now I have to see, also the WWI propaganda has a tough nature.

The house of Habsburg was a house of mediocracy. But you turn it into a house of idiocy. I just lately stumbled over a Times article from the year 1934, it read itself still as full of hate and bias as this paragraph of yours against the Habsburg.

Maria Theresia and her son Josef where for example very good rulers and one of the most modern European rulers of their time. Or when was obligatory school for ALL children of your country enacted the first time?

And unlike many others. Every member of the house had to learn a real profession, many learned to be musician but there was a large collection of other professions to be seen. Unlike other houses in Europe the Habsburger were one of the few who were interested in fostering music for the musics will not for looking educated. The foundation they built in this regard even survived the world wars and the breaking apart of the empire. Vienna still is a big name in classical music, opera and high culture in general. Somehow that doesnt fit to your silly and overstupid Habsburg picture.

And even though Franz Joseph might have been a tragic figure, he was unlike many other rules elsewhere a hard working man, who did not enjoy luxury while the people suffered. He left bed very early in the morning and entered it late in the evening, and as interesting fact, anyone who wanted could ask to speak to him personally during his visit time that he offered each day or at least very regularely. Even though he was disliked in his early years, he enjoyed very high loyalty as he became older. In fact he was until the very very end the integration figure of the whole empire.

Another thing that comes to my mind. I guess the Viennese congress was held in Vienna because of the total insignificance of the Habsburg empire by then. ...


I am no monarchist. I dont need it, and I think most people in Austria dont, but I think its pathetic to tear our former rulers so much into the durt with such strong unjustfied insults as you do.

You dont want to tell me no cent of tax money goes to the royal family, do you? And hows about them paying tax? Not quite as much as normal subjects would do, do they?
But after all, all over Europe pays for your royal family, as they are the greatest benefitors of agriculture subisidies in the UK as far as I know...


Well, thats your view.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

I don't quite get that part, either.

You state that arbitrariness is a flaw of constitutional monarchies.

I expect you to be able to back up your argument with at least one example of such.

Don't you think you ought to look at that topic before you challenge people upon the topic of constitutional monarchies? Particularly when you are taking the negative viewpoint?

Whether you like constitutional monarchies or not, Britain practically invented the concept and has been successfully operating under one for several centuries. If you critique constitutional monarchism, your critique has to apply to Britain or it is just arbitrary.

I do believe you are quite wrong on this. You are free to research the topic at your leisure.

There are several areas in which the Bush Administration is operating on 'extra-constitutional' principles and so far, Congress has been able to do nothing about it.

And you seemed to have skipped over the part where Hitler came to absolute power under an elected 'republican' government.

In other words, republicanism cannot prevent the one thing you accuse constitutional monarchies of of being prone to.

Nothing hostile about demanding you back up your arguments with something.

You are making a critique without justifications or arguments supporting your critique. I'm asking you to provide something to support your pronouncements since your pronouncements don't match my understanding of the actual history upon which you are pronouncing. That is not hostile.

You are addressing both political theory and political history. There is lots of material available upon this topic.

If you have a particular example of this phenomena, feel free to cite it.

And this proves what regarding your anti-constitutional monarchy argument other than to prove my argument that the EU is anti-liberty?

Now this discussion is not about the anti-liberty character of the EU so, this is beside the point.

Britain has been able to set up and devolve legislative authority to regional legislatures as well as massively reform the structure and character of the upper house (all within the last 15 years).

I respectively submit that such changes would be impossible to make in Canada since Canada have adopted the monstrosity of constitutionalism in 1981. Likewise with the USA. Neither country is able to modify their constitutions now. They are locked in.

Try to re-write/change anything in it. The political hurdles and vested interests in status quo can prevent any change at all since constitutional changes require super-majorities that are all but impossible to achieve.

There has only ever been one crown in Britain. Queen Elizabeth wears the crown of Edward Confessor.

Habsburg bashing gets yer goat eh?

That the Habsburgs were famously ugly is a historical fact. That lantern jaw is famous. Charles V may have carried it well, but the women don't.

And the fact that the Habsburgs bred more idiot offspring than any other dynasty is also a historical fact. I use the term in its clinical sense here. This is not a big critique, since every royal dynasty of Europe had a problem with breeding idiots. Habsburgs just bred more of them than most.

Maria Thereas isn't very impressive at all - positively a mediocre ruler, only looks good by comparison to other Habsburg rulers. Only Charles V has any claim to royal greatness and his career is mostly a failure.

Btw, the Habsburg dynastic empire peaked in the 16th century and was in a long slow decline ever after.

No praise for Habsburg from me. I have no doubt that, short of the House of Romanov, Habsburg was the worst of the great dynasties of Europe. The Czars were the absolute worse than anyone.

But that is all beside the point.

My 'insults' against Habsburg are historically recorded ones and over 400 years old.

My point is that it is no wonder that anyone who comes from a Habsburg land is likely to have a strongly negative view of monarchism. That is quite logical. I expect Russians to have strongly negative views of monarchy as well.

But that doesn't impinge upon the theory of constitutional monarchism.

1. According to the agreement established by Queen Victoria, the British Royal House gave to the State, ownership of vast tracts of land. In return, the British Parliament pays an annual subsidy to the Crown. According to modern actuarial calculations, the value of Victoria's deal with the taxpayer has been a massive benefit to the State worth many, many billions of pounds more than the cost of the annual subsidy. If the deal were to be reversed, Britain would be almost bankrupted. The annual payment is mere pennies comparied to the value of the land given by the Crown to the State. Ultimately, the State owes the Crown far more money than they actually pay in an annual subsidy (which is a rather small amount of money anyway - less than $50 million USD per year - mere pocket change).

2. Agricultural subsidies? UK receives the least of all in Europe and has campaigned the hardest to remove/reduce/eliminate them.

And I believe it would be the Duchy of Cornwall (appanage of the Prince of Wales) that receives the most, not the Crown itself, though this is entirely beside the point.

I'd be impressed if anyone could actually figure out my complex view of monarchism.

That is to say, I admire the system, particularly the British constitutional monarchy, but I don't admire borning middle-class monarchs who ride bicycles and wear banker's suits - that's mundane and vulgar and unworthy of exaulted kingship.

Kingship must be regal or it is nothing. For most monarchs these days, they are indeed, nothing and thus, not worthy of respect.

The Windsors are the last to claim any respect. They are loosing it fast with their middle class ways.

The only way kingship can withstand the mendacity of our modern society is to wear ermine, gold and purple - ride in golden carriages pulled by a team of four with a dozen liveried footmen. That is a spectacle worthy of consideration.

Without that, as monarchs become middle class mediocrities, they become extinct.

Well, that's your view

I will try to put it simple.

An individual right is a right that has the individual human as its subject. The right to private property is an individual right, since it is the right of the individual owner. Freedom of speech is also an individual right, when it is a right that everyone has without prejudice.

Collective rights are those that are given to some people not because each individual has earned it or it is given to everyone, but because the people having the collective right are lumped together as a collective.

Racist laws, such as the apartheid laws that used to be the law of South Africa and affirmative action laws, are laws of collective rights. Under such laws, you receive benefits or disadvantages based on your race or ethnicity.

A kolchos in the old Soviet Union is a prime example of collective ownership rights, the people living and working in the kolchos were joint owners of it. Konsum in Austria (at least before 1995, when it became insolvet) and the Coop Supermarket Group in Britain are examples of cooperatively owned companies, the members have collective ownership of the company. Depending on the by-laws of such companies, you can join and become a part owner without buying a share, then leave and lose your part ownership without receiving anything for your share.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Okay, thank you for that reality check. It would be nice to see a politician to bring in some money for a change.

Monarchies are fundamentally flawed. They assume that leadership skills are inherited, which simply isn't so. Nothing comes to mind that can compensate for such a glaring error. Monarchies, constitutional or not, are far inferior to republics.

__________________

Nah, they assume that power can be inherited and that leadership skills can be taught. It's not all that rare, either. Lots of companies are run on much the same assumptions.

For what it's worth, some still work.

PS: Bush Senior and GW .. nah, that's too easy

Australia has been discussing the pros and cons of dropping the British monarchy and becoming a republic for some years now. Several years ago we had a constitutional convention followed by a referendum to determine if we would become a monarchy - which was defeated. However it is important to keep in mind that the idea wasn't defeated, but the proposal was. Most of the country acknowledges that it was a sham referendum which was designed to fail, largely by a staunch pro-monarchy Prime Minister (John Howard). I am one of those who supports a republic, but voted against the referendum because the model presented was absurd, and no one wanted to become "that" nation. We are in an election year this year in Australia and the opposition Labor Party (which has been dominating every poll for over a year now and almost everyone expects them to cruise to a massive landslide victory later this year) has already said that if (when) elected, they will hold another referendum, with a more logical and workable model.

I personally have nothing against the British monarchy at all; indeed, as a historian I love the monarchy from their historical point of view. However, they are not Australian; they rarely come to Australia; they know little about Australia; and are absolutely not representative of Australia. There was a controversy prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics as to who would officially open the Games, as the Queen of England is our official head of state. Most of the country wanted an Australian to open the Australian Olympics, do it was alleviated by asking the Queen not to attend, and her representative in Australia - the Governor General - opened it instead. We were fortunate at that time to have had arguably our greatest Governor General ever, Sir William Dean, preside. If the same thing were to happen now I think there would be a national outcry as our present Governor General, Major General Michael Jeffrey isn't exactly loved by the country; and he follows a man (Peter Hollingworth) who was forced to leave office after it was revealed when he was an Arch Bishop he covered up sexual abuse of children by clergy). In the past seven years we've seen the highs and lows of Admiralty House (the Governor General's residence).

Australia as a nation is 219 years old, and has been an official nation in our own right for 106 years, yet we still cling to historical notions of the "motherland".

Anyway, after a long winded "essay-esque" response, my summarised version is that there is nothing wrong with the monarchy, or a monarchical government, but I just think it's time to stand on our own. Having said that, there are more pressing issues for us as a nation to worry about in the short term.

That's another dangerous assumption, that leadership can be "taught". One can be taught about leadership; the psychology behind it and leader-follower interaction, but the actual ability to lead comes from certain personal traits and qualities that cannot simply be "taught".

__________________

Your critique misses the mark. In a constitutional monarchy, the quality and leadership skills of the monarch are essentially irrelevant.

Your point does however raise the spectre of charismatic leadership that has already proven to be a specific danger to republican forms of government (i.e. the elected Hitler example).

One of the beneficial features of a constitutional monarchy is the 'reserve' sovereignty power of the Crown.

Given that our modern representative model of democratic government involves the exercise of enormous amount of power in the hands of the elected executive government, and given that human beings are potentially and occasionally capable of extraordinarily dangerous and unpredictable behavior, it is good to know that there is a method available, held in extreme reserve, whereby a superior source of sovereignty may be invoked to place an ultimate limit upon irresponsible use of executive power. Republics have no such built-in limitations.

To put that into more simple terms, if a powerful PM goes dangerously whacko in office, and Parliament is unable to restrain the PM's improper executive actions, then it is ultimately possible that a 'coup' in the name of the Crown itself could 'rescue' the situation in a manner that is ultimately peaceful. National loyalty ultimately lies with the (symbolic) Crown, not the elected political executive.

Republics have only their military institutions to fall back upon in times of domestic political crisis and republican military institutions are notoriously unreliable in precisely these times of domestic political crisis. They tend to be either trigger happy or ambitious in their own interest if trouble arises.

It's interesting though that although the US is a republic, it never seems to have really let go of a monarchic system. At the moment for example, 11 US senators have succeeded their brothers, husbands or fathers into the Senate; how many states have had multiple governors from the same family? Ohio, Illinois, Rhode Island and New Hampshire are the ones that most readily spring to mind. Politics in the US seems to be very much entrenched within inheritance. Would George W Bush have ever been considered for Governor, much less President if his daddy wasn't? Indeed, would George HW Bush have had the same opportunities if his father wasn't a senator? Would Evan Bayh have made it to the statehouse and senate if his dad wasn't Birch Bayh? Ted Kennedy certainly wouldn't have. I doubt Elizabeth Dole, Hilary Clinton, Judd Greg, John Sununu, Jay Rockefeller, etc would have made it also.