Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Hohenzollern => Topic started by: Learning on September 27, 2007, 10:06:43 AM

Title: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on September 27, 2007, 10:06:43 AM
There seems to be a contradiction in German history that I am having to understand. On the one hand some of the German monarchies were very popular, some popular, some not so popular. Yet the Revolution swept them all away. How does one account for the popularity of the King of Saxony and the King of Wurttemberg and yet they, too, were deposed. And the King of Bavaria was the first to go, but he was popular, too, correct?

Was German German society simply divided between those who wanted an end to the monarchies and those who didn't and, with the end of the war, the fomer got the upper hand?

During the discussions for the Weimar constitution was any serious attempt made to restore the monarchies, even if that meant one of the Kaiser's sons for example?

Thanks.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: imperial angel on September 27, 2007, 10:32:59 AM
I have always wondered about this too. I thnk maybe there was just so much pressure for a different society after World War I, the considerations of popularity or not, didn't matter? But, then, I am not well versed in German history in particular.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on September 28, 2007, 11:30:25 AM
Sadly Bismarck's unification of Germany through military force reduced the former independent kingdoms, duchies and principalities to vassal states within the new German Empire. Everything was swept away in November 1918. Monarchy as a form of government was completely disallowed. Wilson saw to that. Since the American revolution there has been a hatred or distrust of monarchy from the United States anywhere. It is interesting to note that the Afghanistan assembly wanted to restore the monarchy and were told by the United States "we don't do monarchies". It's also interesting to note that the Americans learned after the mess post world war one not to repeat it in Japan at the end of world war two. That is why Hirohito stayed as Emperor. Everything could be changed while he remained. Without him it would have been extremely difficult. The Hohenzollerns should have stayed in some form but everything else should have stayed. Instead a complete power vacum occurred in Germany and the same in Austria-Hungary with the sweeping away of the Habsburgs. The great traitor in Hungary was Horthy. He claimed to be Regent but when the King of Hungary tried to return, the Regent failed to relinquish power. What a farce that was. Certainly the creation of republics in both Germany and Austria post world war one made it easy for Hitler to come to power. It is also interesting to note that Hindenburg's last will and testament was suppressed by Hitler as he had requested the restoration of the Hohenzollerns on his death.   
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on September 28, 2007, 01:38:49 PM
Sadly Bismarck's unification of Germany through military force reduced the former independent kingdoms, duchies and principalities to vassal states within the new German Empire.

to characterize the duchies and kingdoms within the German Empire as "vassal states" is misleading and unfair. The buy-in was largely embrased; Bavaria was least interested but quickly saw the huge benefit to a consolitdated union. The Bismarckian plan was the EU before its time. Kaiser Fritz, had he lived, was a huge proponent of not only a unified Germany but also an unified europe. Fritz is loved, Bismarck is loathed, but when they had the same visions one can hardly be critical when using the Bismarck association to the idea and give praise when Fritz' name is attached. That is the essense of bias.

I do agree that the Hohenzollerns should have retained power. This was a culture shock to not only Germans but most of western civiliation. Winning wars usually brought land grabbing and independence, but not complete toppling of sovereigns and governments. But the true reason that the Hohenzollerns got booted was not the Brits and American, rather the communist revolution that the Brits and Americans did not attempt to reverse.

True, had a revised constitutional monarchy in Germany been in place, the events of the 1920s and 1930s would likely have taken a different path, but there was no foresite. All the allies wanted was revenge and reparations and stomping on the vanquished. This threw the Germans into a tail spin. Massie in his book Dreadnought contrasts the cultural mentality of the British and Germans interestingly...he says the Germans tend to be bullies and pick fights, but like atheletes after the battle, look to shake hands and move on as semi-friends. Brits are a passive breed who, he said, don't pick fights, but when pushed to the breaking point, unleash an unforgiving response of no holds barred. Hence, the Germans were shocked to see what was being done to them and their country after WWI.

A GREAT documentary film is "A letter without words" that shows an upper middle class Jewish family during/after WWI.

Can you tell the source of data that substantiates that Hirohito's remaining semi-intact in Japan was a direct decision based on the monday morning quarterbacking of not allowing wilhelm to remain as Kaiser 27 years earlier? I find nothing that suggests this; rather it was MacArthur who strongly urged that Hirohito remain a figure head in order that the occupation could progress reasonably peacefully and MacArthur wanted the Japanese to retain a minimal sense of dignity after the severe loss.


Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Espella on September 29, 2007, 08:31:27 AM
HerrKaiser,

Some seem to think that McArthur would have loaded the Lincoln Monument on a barge and given it to the Japanese if he could have.  Do you think he went overboard in coddling the Japanese after seeing what happened with the dismissal of the Hzs in Germany?
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on September 29, 2007, 02:24:34 PM
HerrKaiser,

Some seem to think that McArthur would have loaded the Lincoln Monument on a barge and given it to the Japanese if he could have.  Do you think he went overboard in coddling the Japanese after seeing what happened with the dismissal of the Hzs in Germany?


The direct cause and effect comparison of what MacArthur's mindset relative to the elimination of the Hohenzollern dynasty and post war Japanese strategy is somewhat apples and oranges. But it is indisutable that the Japanese were not treated or penalized as harshly as were the Germans after WWII. MacArthur was very much a military man in the genre of Kaiser Fritz...knock out the enemy but shake hands afterward and 'move on' together; this was not the mentality of Churchill, Eisenhower, Harris, etc. Had MacArther's ideas been implemented in Europe, especially if Patton and he got their way, what a difference would have occurred.

The vicious war crimes committed by Japanese military were equal or worse than those by the Wehrmacht, yet the outcry and penalites are a mere fraction of what the nazis and germans were held accountable for. The nazis should not have been held less accountable, but the point is the Japanese were given many passes. I knew men who survived the Bataan death march.

for example, survival rates in Japanese prisoner of war camps was an appalling 40% while in Geraman POW camps was 4%.

While it appears MacArthur did "coddle" the Japanese to some extent at the same time the victors in Europe had no such intention for the Germans, both situations did turn out to be what the victors sought, long term. Germany and Japan over the past 60 years have been the world's most exemplary democracies and human rights supporters/advocates, particularly Germany (Japan has racial issues admittedly). Many in America have said during the Iraq situation, "where are the Germans...". Well, the Allies made Germany (and japan) into what the nation is today...a non military, pacifist socielty that opts for peace at any price.

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on October 05, 2007, 04:36:11 PM
There is very little similarity between the situation in Germany after WW1 and the situation in Japan after WW2. The victors in WW1 did not have the same sort of total and direct control over the defeated nation. The monarchies were not removed by Germany's opponents, but as a result of events within Germany itself, as has been remarked. If the situation was to be reversed, it was necessary that the victor nations should make the restoration of the Hohenzollerns (or all the royal houses) a deliberate and central element in their policy. There could, of course, be no question of this, because the Hohenzollerns in particular, and indeed the monarchies in general, were regarded as having played a played a prime and essential irole in German militaristic culture. Although one has to make any number of nuances, there was a considerable element of truth in that view. Furthermore, the Kaiser had been vilified throughout the war as a symbol of German millitarism, which would have made it impossible for the leaders of the victor to have justified a Hohenzollern restoration to their people even if they had wanted to. And any how, who could they have had as the new Hohenzollern Emperor. Clearly not the Kaiser. The Crown Prince, a noted militarist who had been in command, moreover, at Verdun? Adalbert? Oskar? The wole idea is totally unrealistic as soon as one gets down to practicalities. And if the central monarchy was not be restored, the victor nations could have had lno reason to concern themselves with all the minor royal families. There was little sympathy for them, moreover, because so many of their members had held commanding positions during the war, and had been od such symbolic importance to the war effort. Once the monarchs had been deposed by fellow-Germans there was no question of anyone from outside making any effort on their behalf; they were doomed by the course of history. Though I personally wish it had been otherwise.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on October 06, 2007, 08:21:32 AM
Adagietto - I undestand what you are saying and I, too, regret the loss of the monarchies. That said, the revolution swept them away, yet they remained popular afterwards - at least to a degree, correct? I mean most continued to live in their former realms (after a brief exile and excluding the Kaiser). And most were well compensated financially. If I recall the Social Democrats tried to have their property expropriated without compensation but could never muster the votes. All of this seems to prove that the royals remained popular after the war and even to this day especially in Southern Germany. Yet the revolution happened. I just see this as a contradiction. In many ways the November Revolution reminds me of the American Revolution: the monarchy was ended but the same powers that be remained.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on October 06, 2007, 10:03:00 AM
I don't have any great knowledge of the history of Germany after 1918, but I believe that most at least of the royal families remained fairly popular and were treated with respect. Perhaps one could look at it like this. The monarchies were swept away in the wave of disorder that followed the defeat of Germany. If that had not happened and votes had been held on the matter after the situation had become more stable, I imagine that the will would not have been there to get rid of them. (Someone may be able to say something more definite about this). But once a monarchy has been abolished it is quite difficult to re-establish because, instead of it just being there with all its appurtenances from time immemorial, a consensus has to be reached not only to restore it, but to reach all kinds of decisions about its powers, incomes, properties etc.  This raises such problems that it is much easier even for those who are broadly sympathetic to the monarchy to do nothing and let sleeping dogs lie. Furthermore, opinions inevitably become divided according to party lines. The left tends to have no love for monarchies if not to be postively republican, while the active pressure for restoration tends to come from the right (often fairly far right in conditions like those in Germany following the war, when opinions were so polarized). This, I think, is really fatal for any monarchy because, instead of being there by tradition, it is seen as representing a factional interest, and becomes an object of factional dispute. There was the further problem in Germany of the position of the Hohenzollerns. In view of the part that the Kaiser had played in German politics, it is understandable that the Social Democrats in particular would have had no wish to see another Emperor. It was not as if a constitutional and limited monarchy on the British model had been removed. Some of the smaller monarchies had still been fairly feudal in nature moreover. So there seem to have been quite a number of reasons why there was no political pressure to restore the monarchies even if the monarchies themselves may not have been unpopular.

[When talking of left-right divisions regarding monarchies, I was thinking of people who are actively engaged in politics. In my own country, the UK, for instance, left-leaning politicians tend to have less sympathy for the monarchy than right-leaning ones, but it is by no means the case that people who vote on the left are predominantly unsympathetic to the monarchy.  As a consequence, the matter has never really become a party issue. But if one can imagine that the British monarchy had been swept away in a coup or something in the 1980's and those same politicians had to decide whether or not to restore it, the matter would surely then become a party issue that would tend to divide on left-right lines. That does not mean that a monarchy cannot credibly present itself as standing above the pollitical fray as long as it remains stable. And monarchies in Europe do seem to be remarkably stable as long as disorder does not arise as a result of failure in war etc. ]
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on October 06, 2007, 10:03:24 AM
I don't think the monarchies remained popular. There were no popular uprisings in favour of restoration anywhere in Germany after the November revolution or after world war two. There is also no popular support for restoration of monarchy anywhere in Germany in 2007. Those days are gone in Germany. Monarchy in Germany is not associated with democracy.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on October 06, 2007, 10:41:45 AM
If the monarchies were to be restored, it had to happen within fifteen or twenty years.  Of course there is no desire for restoration nowadays, the historical continuity has been entirely lost, and the imperial rule in particular is associated with militarism and anti-democratic trends.  It is wholly different matter as to whether a majority of Germans in the 20's would not have been happy to see the monarchies restored, with proper constitutional limitations. As to the fact that were not uprisings over the issue, that reveals nothing at all because this is not an issue of the first importance to most people in the modern era. A monarchy is, so to speak, a luxury that people can perfectly well live without. The monarchy was very popular in Britain at the beginning of the last century, but if it had been swept away in disorders following defeat in WW1, I cannot believe that there would have been popular uprisings to restore it! 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on October 06, 2007, 04:40:36 PM
Dmitri - When I said that the monarchies remained popular, I was thinking of the good will shown to some of the monarchs. Perhaps I should have said that they remained popular with a segment of society. I do not see how the whole imperial system could have been revived easily, although it could have been done. The German monarchs fared fairly well after the revolution compared with French and Russian monarchs. It is my understanding that some of the royal families are still popular especially the Bavarian royal family.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on October 11, 2007, 02:33:49 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that when one says "monarchies" there was only one deposed--the hohenzollerns. the other states had aristocratic powers, but the monarchy was in the control of the Kaiser.

the hundreds of nobles, royals, and other arristocrats beyond the Kaiser did, in fact, remain as positivlety viewed individuals, by and large. The change in government was a separate social and political issue vs the way the population in general felt about the aristocracy and the indiviuals who made it up. And just because even a majority of people may have "liked" or admired many of the royals, it would not follow that the people would continue to support a relatively antquated form of government.

After the wall fell in 1989, the spontaneous parades and celebrations in Dresden, for example, featured the former royals leading the parades to the cheers of the crowds. such was not to be confused with wishing the royals were heading the government.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on October 12, 2007, 11:40:03 AM
One thing to keep in mind is that when one says "monarchies" there was only one deposed--the hohenzollerns. the other states had aristocratic powers, but the monarchy was in the control of the Kaiser.

But the various monarchs still had powers within their own realms and in accordance with their own constitutions, correct?

Quote
And just because even a majority of people may have "liked" or admired many of the royals, it would not follow that the people would continue to support a relatively antquated form of government.

Antiquated? As it existed, yes. But it would have been nice had some form of true constitutional monarchy evolved.

Quote
After the wall fell in 1989, the spontaneous parades and celebrations in Dresden, for example, featured the former royals leading the parades to the cheers of the crowds. such was not to be confused with wishing the royals were heading the government.

I did not know this. So the Wettins had some role in public life. But they still have not recovered their properties in Saxony have they?

Thanks.
[/quote]
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on October 16, 2007, 11:07:47 AM
Yes, the German Empire was a amalgamation of kingdoms and duchies...a predecessor to the EU and a similar organization to the United States. This was the vision of Bismarck and Frederich and a good one indeed. Great Britain and Russia feared the idea immensely. Like governors of states in the U.S., they have power, but the President is ultimate.

I am not aware of the Wettins financial or property status in Saxony and beyond. but, for sure, they brought out their classic cars and paraded through the region in parades marking the downfall of the communist regime.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on October 17, 2007, 01:48:24 PM
Thanks again, HerrKaiser.

So the Wettins paraded through Saxony and people recognized them as the former royal family? Interesting. Any chance that in honor of the 100th anniversary of the November Revolution in a few years we can restore the monarchs? Maybe we could start an internet campaign?
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on October 17, 2007, 06:31:10 PM
hehehe! very funny indeed! The main problem, relative to your timetable, is that most people are not aware that Germany HAD a revolution that overthrew the government just as in Russia. So few are know that an anniversary is coming up; most of the world of people aware of the end of WWI know about November 11 and Armistice and then the Versailles Treaty 8 months later.

I think a better resurrection would be to redo the Versailles Treaty, at least in spirit, and make an international event of the action by stating that the records are being corrected to adjust what was known to be a trigger for most of the remaining 20th century and 21st century global messes.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on October 18, 2007, 06:38:06 AM
Let's do both: as part of the formal undoing of the Versailles Treaty, Georg Friedrich could be crowned/installed as German Emperor, Titular King of Prussia, and Marraf of Brandenburg. He's seems like a likable enough monarch!

I would think it appalling that most Germans don't know that there was a revolution in 1918, but then what most Americans apparently don't know about history or even contemporary politics is treasonous!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Sebran on December 03, 2007, 04:38:57 PM
Ignorance
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Norbert on January 01, 2008, 11:44:05 AM
It seems politicians are not keen on handing over power to a figurehead . Hense Hungary and the Balkans were not restored after the fall of the Wall, despite the popularity of Otto and King Michael !
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: CHRISinUSA on January 02, 2008, 03:51:29 PM
Certainly, politicians would be loathe to cede any power - even symbolic - to a hereditary monarch these days.  Seems to me that the only way a monarchy would be restored today in one of the former European monarchies would be after a groundswell from the public. 

And that unlikely event would probably require the emergence of a superstar in the former ruling house (in the vein of Diana of Wales, or Eva Peron), someone who the entire nation adored and rallied behind.

Personally I think it'd be great to see monarchy restored in France, Italy, Portugal, Russia, and the various German states.  But I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 02, 2008, 08:32:30 PM
It is extremely unlikely that there will be any restorations. The only one that may be possible is Crown Prince Alexander II in Serbia. The rest are gone forever. Have you ever noticed that republicans always demand plebicites or referendums on ditching a monarchy. Of course republics never consider monarchists should have the opportunity to have a plebicite or referendum on restoring a monarchy. Very few republics in fact are at all democratic. Once you install a President, it is no longer possible for this sort of Head of State to ever represent more than half the population. Republics by their very nature are partisan and political no matter whether the powers of the President are severely curtailed. You always end up with yet another politician. As for Germany there will be no restoration. As for Kaiser Friedrich III being a supporter of Bismarck one wonders where there is any verifiable information on this. As for Britain being scared of a united Germany that is not supportable. Both Queen Victoria and Prince Albert actively sought the marriage of their eldest daughter with the future Kaiser Friedrich III. They hoped such a marriage would bring about a united Germany led by Prussia. Nobody expected it would end up being ruled by elderly Kaiser Wilhelm I and Bismarck for so long or the premature death of Kaiser Friedrich III or the assumption of power of Kaiser Wilhelm II as it all happened. It is very much to be doubted that Bismarck would have stayed in power had Kaiser Friedrich III been healthy. There would have been changes and perhaps no world war. The Stockmar Plan is well documented. What Britain was alarmed about was the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm II. That had nothing to do with Kaiser Friedrich III and his wishes.   
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 05, 2008, 11:20:39 AM
As for Britain being scared of a united Germany that is not supportable.  

QV was not the final word on the political concerns of the day. It is well documented that the three wars leading to and the creation of the German Empire was of grave concern to the balance of power politics on a global scale and particularly in Britain; most definitely. The princess royal's marriage had some great opportunities for Anglo-German relations, but it was not significant in its ability to lead the political tide once the Empire was in place. Far greater powers and interests prevailed on both sides of the channel.

I do agree that republics do not convert back to monarachies, but why should they? It is rare to find a nation of people as humankind progresses who wish to give up their rights as individuals to a monarch/dictator/emperor. they're all essentially the same thing.

Not sure what you mean, dmitri, when you say "Once you install a President, it is no longer possible for this sort of Head of State to ever represent more than half the population." That is taking the political party system to a relatively unrealistic extreme. Nonetheless, that in effect is a good thing because it keeps the dynamics of a nation/society always in flux and progressing rather than forcing uniform thinking and rules that a monarch or dictator would impose.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 05, 2008, 03:24:22 PM
When people talk about the restoration of monarchies in Europe, they are plainly thinking in terms of constitutional monarchies such as we have in Britain or Scandinavia. A monarch can perfectly well be a figurehead as opposed to a dictator. Personally I think there are distinct advantages in having a King or Queen as head of state rather than a politician; but once a monarchy has been abolished, it is exceedingly difficult to restore it for a wide variety of reasons. The idea that it would involve a regression to a system of arbitrary power is not one of them. One might point, incidentally, to the extremely successful restoration in Spain. Are the Spaniards therefore less free than the French or Germans?
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 05, 2008, 08:56:51 PM
Very well said. Nobody in their right mind would want any other form of monarchy apart from a constitutional monarchy restored. A constitutional monarchy is always superior to a republic as it provides a non-political head of state and lets the elected prime minister, a politician, get on with running the government. It is not wise to confuse the roles of head of state and head of government. 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Norbert on January 06, 2008, 08:31:42 AM
There seems to be a great interest in the monarchies of Montenegro and Georgia anyone have any thoughts or knowledge?
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Silja on January 06, 2008, 12:24:47 PM
Very well said. Nobody in their right mind would want any other form of monarchy apart from a constitutional monarchy restored. A constitutional monarchy is always superior to a republic as it provides a non-political head of state and lets the elected prime minister, a politician, get on with running the government. It is not wise to confuse the roles of head of state and head of government. 

There are many republics where you don't confuse the roles of head of state and head of government, so I don't agree with the idea that a monarchy "is always superior to a republic". In Germany, for instance, the head of state is NOT the head of the government, and yet Germany is obviously NOT a monarchy.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 06, 2008, 03:25:51 PM
Very well said. Nobody in their right mind would want any other form of monarchy apart from a constitutional monarchy restored. A constitutional monarchy is always superior to a republic as it provides a non-political head of state and lets the elected prime minister, a politician, get on with running the government. It is not wise to confuse the roles of head of state and head of government. 

Silja is correct, and it is ludicrous to suggest that "a constitutional monarchy is always superior to a republic...".  :o  I think millions of Americans would take issue with that firm statement, and don't forget that blip in world history called the American Revolution.

The original questions on this thread were about "restoring" the monarchies and as such a restoration is bringing back what was there before. If the change in discussion is about resurrecting a monarchy system in Europe to mirror that which is in Great Britain, I think that is a different subject.

in my opinion, the idea that any monarch be recreated to serve the purpose of historical continuity without any real value to the nation in terms of guiding strategy, political agendas or anything else would be a huge waste of money for most nations and be a step backwards on the course of human rights evolution that strives to lessen the class struggle rather than recreate it.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 06, 2008, 06:24:11 PM
The pseudo ceremonial monarch/president in Germany is not one favoured by many Germans ... they have no say whatsoever in who this person is .. politicians decide they know better than the people and elect the President themselves ... not much of a republic there .. as for USA has anybody wondered why no other country on earth has copied that particular republican system? As for restorations in Germany those days are well and truly over whatever any of us may wish. It will be interesting to see whether anything happens in Georgia. In the meantime the Nepalese people are about to descend into further chaos which is indeed a tragedy.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 06, 2008, 06:32:01 PM
As an American, I just want to note that a Republic and a Democracy are not the same thing.

Democracy:  "[T]he democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote."  More clearly: the democratic method is one in which people campaign competitively for the people's votes to achieve the power to make public decisions. This definition is the sharpest.


Republic:

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

1) An Executive Officer (Article II of the US Constitution)

(2) A legislative body: (Article I of the US Constitution) with the power of appointment and through the power of legislation can raise revenue and appropriate expenditures in addition to drafting public policy.

(3) A judiciary (Article III of the US Constitution) to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize and enforce individual and sovereign rights.

(4) Expressed and enforced inherent individual rights, (The US  Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10; additional Amendments 11-27).

Remove one of the four checks and balances of a Republic and a country begins becoming an Autocracy.

Add another element with personal involvement and individual say and the country slides toward democracy.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 06, 2008, 06:35:12 PM
If the United States is not a democracy, what is it?

The USA was founded as a Citizenship Republic "And to the Republic for which it stands..."

Over the years, beginning with the Lincoln Administration of the 1860's ideas of socialism, democracy and increasingly during the 20th Century, fascism have been thrown in.  In reality, the United States has not been a pure Republic, that is if you happened to be a white male American, since Lincoln.  (Because of slavery, our ethnic cleansing of the American Indians and the absence of Women's rights, we've never been a true republic for all.  These policies fall under fascism).

The blocking of the cessation of the Southern States, a constitutional and declaration right, ended the pure republic and is the first time a President swept the Constitution aside in favor of an agenda. 

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 06, 2008, 06:43:16 PM
FOUNDING FATHERS’ REPUBLIC DEFINITION
More specifically, the founders set up a Republic where the government was limited in its powers.

The government itself didn’t hold sovereignty over the people. Instead, the people held sovereignty. The “power” of government was derived from the people themselves.

Our United States Constitution grants the formation of a limited government by the permission of the people. The people grant only the authority for the government to serve as the protector of natural rights.

The intent of the Constitution is to establish the law through which the people allow the government to operate.

This definition of Republic flies in the face of the democracy under which we suffer today.

“Democracy is more cruel than wars or tyrants.” - Seneca, a Roman from 63 B.C
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 06, 2008, 06:50:36 PM
There wasn't much democracy when USA launched a military coup in Hawaii either. That ended a sovereign nation's monarchy and system of government. I guess that was imperialism.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 06, 2008, 06:56:45 PM
But back to the subject of restoration:


Today, the majority of democratic countries in the world are republics, i.e. officials are elected. Some well-established democratic countries in Europe, however, (the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the Scandinavian countries) are constitutional monarchies, i.e. a king or queen is head of state while the constitution guarantees nevertheless all basic rights as in any democratic republic and sets clear limits to duties and competences of the monarch. Such a king can be regarded as a stabilizing factor rather than as a danger for a democracy.

And dmitri:  I believe that all of the pre Great War countries tried their hand at Imperialism.  Our Spanish American War also resulted in the US gaining territory which we then ruled without their consent.

I believe the military coup in Hawaii to be one of the worst examples of the US taking over a sovereign nation for the express purpose of controlling its natural resources.  The "big" companies or the military industrial complex came into being with this coup.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 06, 2008, 07:00:20 PM
However, the Treaty of Versailles truly broke all the rules of fair play.  The victors not only drew new lines on the maps, but they created countries - like Kuwait where the British set up an emir in order to control the vast oil reserves.

They threw people of different ethnic backgrounds into newly redesigned "states" and then proceeded to set up control over them.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 06, 2008, 07:08:12 PM
And just one more thing about the differences between a republic and a democracy:


Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 06, 2008, 10:53:31 PM
Thanks Alixz. What a bizarre situation those definitions of democracy and republic are!! They are a bit of a worry aren't they? It's important to remember that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all long standing constitutional monarchies. They are also long standing democracies. In fact it is no coincidence that most of the long standing democracies are constitutional monarchies.

Let us look at what are classified as unbroken democracies. This means that a largely democratic government has remained continuous throughout warfare since independence. No foreign occupation has ever taken place since independence. It is interesting to note that majority are in fact constitutional monarchies.

1. Switzerland
2. United Kingdom
3. United States
4. Sweden
5. Canada
6. Australia
7. New Zealand

Out of the 7, 5 are constitutional monarchies and 4 have Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.

Interesting to have a look at constitutional monarchies in the world :   

United Kingdom - same Head of State since 1952 - in 2008 - 56 years
Canada - as above
Australia - as above
New Zealand - as above
Netherlands - 1980
Belgium - 1993 - in 2008 - 15 years
Norway - 1991 - in 2008 - 17 years
Sweden - 1973 - in 2008 - 35 years
Denmark - 1972 - in 2008 - 36 years
Spain - 1975 - in 2008 - 33 years
Luxembourg - 2000 - in 2008 - 8 years
Liechtenstein - 1989 - in 2008 - 19 years
Monaco - 2005 - in 2008 - 3 years
Malaysia - rotates every 5 years
Japan - 1989 - in 2008 - 19 years
many former British colonies in the West Indies and Pacific areas 

Constitutional monarchies usually provides great stability as the constitional monarch remains as Head of State while the Head of Government changes through multi-party elections held either every 3, 4 or 5 years. The governments change as elections occur but the Heads of State only change with death or in some cases abdication of the monarch. Most constitutional monarchies remain popular because the Heads of State keep out of politics and largely prevent abuse of the system of government. The people are the ultimate controllers of their own fate as they can throw out a government if they so choose to do.

Then there are countries that have a President who function as a psuedo elected constitutional monarch. They are either elected by a majority in parliament or by a direct vote of the people. They are :

Austria
Germany
Italy
Greece
Czech Republic
Poland
Finland
Iceland
Portugal
Switzerland
Hungary
Ireland

and so on

In the case of Europe many of these ceremonial republics came into being due to overthrow of constitutional monarchy or monarchy of some form through illegal military coup d'etat, war, communism or revolution which overthrew autocracy. Most have not willingly become republics! Isn't it interesting that most of these countries never had a referendum of the people do ask whether a republic should come into being?

Austria - war and revolution - previously autocracy - later nazism, enforced democracy after ww2
Germany - as above
Italy - war and dictatorship/referendum
Greece - military coup and later referendum
Czech Republic - initially revolution creating republic, then war and nazism, communism, revolution
Poland - war and revolution, nazism, communism, revolution
Finland - constitional monarchy prevented due to war and republic the result
Iceland - republic came into being because of foreign occupation of Denmark during war
Portugal - military coup
Switzerland - overthrowing autocracy
Hungary - revolution and Regent not standing down for legitimate monarch, war, revolution, communism, revolution
Ireland - change from dominion to republic status

Danger to democratic rule usually occurs in Republics where Presidents have had more than ceremonial power  ... sadly these are found in most of Africa, South and Central America and many parts of Asia ....

The United States of America stands alone and has a different sort of government with an executive President and bicameral parliament. This is something quite unique. 

Russia has a unique form of republic as well.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 07, 2008, 09:09:46 AM
What I find interesting is the difference between the parliament of Britain and the Congress of the US, is that a vote of "no confidence" can cause the British Parliament to "fall", but the American Congress is in for the duration of the elected term regardless of how badly they do things.

The Prime Minister is not chosen by popular election as is the American President and again, can be eliminated by a vote of "no confidence".

I believe that more Americans would vote and be interested in our system of government if we could prematurely end the term of our elected officials when they no longer hold the confidence of the people.  Either that or we should have "term limits" and not allow anyone to become entrenched.  I would like to see the President elected for six years (or maybe 5) and not be able to run again.  That would end all of this incessant campaigning and keep our head of state's mind on running the country not being popular enough to be reelected.

I know that it is now considered a "joke" to believe in the Jeffersonian approach to our government.  He believed that government should be as small as possible and intrude as little as possible into the everyday life of the citizens.  I know that he presided over an agrarian society with a very small population as compared to today.  But I also believe that FDR (that old Dutch aristocrat) inflated our government to a size that is self perpetuating and ever growing.  The people no longer allow the government to rule over them, the government allows the people to exist under its growing constraints.

By the way, one of the definitions of Democracy that I encountered while researching was "lynch mob".  Meaning the majority rules and the majority carries out its decisions with no regard to law or consequence or the opinion of the minority or the safety of the minority and its rights. That is the definition of "majority rule".  This is also "mobocracy" or  'mob rule".

In a republic with a constitution that has a system of checks and balances, the decisions are supposed to made by those representatives whom the people have empowered with the right to speak on their behalf with the constraint of laws which safe guard the rights of both the majority and the minority.

One other thing that the constitution ensures is that no one person can declare war.  Only congress has the ability to declare war and our president can not send troops onto foreign soil without the express agreement of congress.  We Americans tend to forget that or not even know that is a part of our constitution and that is why so many will blame our president for "his war".  Yes, our president is "commander in chief" but he alone can not start a war with a foreign country.

I am no expert on constitutional law, but I think that our founding fathers did not intend for our country to take the path that it has taken since 1860. 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: grandduchessella on January 07, 2008, 12:48:32 PM
Well, some individual states have passed term limits, I believe. That should please you as you stated you are a 10th Amendment person. It was a very hot topic for awhile around 1994-6 when people were especially peeved at the way Congress was running things. (The presidency was term-limited decades ago so while FDR could be elected 4 times, there's now a set number of years--a little over 8, I believe, so that you could have 2 full terms of yoru own if you succeeded to office following the death/resignation/removal of a president.) I think the Supreme Court made some rulings about the constitutionality of term limits, perhaps restricting it to the states to decide, but can't remember exactly.

The president actually CAN send troops onto foreign soil without congressional approval, though he cannot declare war. It's for a specific period of time (60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress and further grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of whether or not Congress assents to this request) and presents Congress with rather a fait d'acommpli, especially since he has 48 hrs to tell Congress he has done so under the specific circumstances.

The War Powers Act of 1973 attempted to bridge the difficulties in juggling the roles of the President (as Commander-in-Chief) with the rights of Congress.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to:

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
50 U.S.C. s. 1541(c)

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 07, 2008, 02:29:42 PM
GDE

Thank you for your excellent reply.  I how often your husband has been deployed and how long it must seem until he comes back.  We all keep you and Bob in our thoughts.

God bless,

Alixz
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: grandduchessella on January 07, 2008, 06:54:23 PM
Thanks so much, Alixz. I'm fortunate that Bob doesn't deploy as much as some and I am keenly aware of, and grateful for, it. The Forum has always been a great support when he's been gone and it's much appreciated.  :) :-*

Not to get too far off the topic of monarchies, but since we have rather an Imperial presidency, it might not be too far off track. This administration, from the top down, has a grave distrust and dislike of Congress and their powers, or what many on the right see as their perceived powers. The War Powers Act sticks in the craw of many from the Nixon era and many of them served in very high capacities in both administrations--chiefly Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. From some of the books & articles I've read, this feeling was very deep-seated and there would've been showdowns regardless of 9/11 and, later, Iraq over what powers belong to the Presidency. The attacks and the war gave them ample political coverage though to pass through Congress much on their agenda that otherwise Congress might never have considered giving up. This feeling is especially deep-rooted in Cheney--as witnessed in his ever-continuing battles with Congress over EVERYTHING and his resentment over any sort of Congressional oversight. They want to basically turn back the clock to the pre-Vietnam era when the presidency was much more powerful (ala FDR) and Congress much less so.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 07, 2008, 07:45:47 PM
The whole idea of an Imperial Presidency without unchecked powers is not onlly repulsive but also dangerous.
The last thing that anyone would want is a true autocracy masked by the cloak of republicanism. It appears that that is precisely what has been occuring in the U.S for quite some time leading to the current geopolitical situation we find ourselves in where the Americans have  gone  to war without the approval of ther congress or people, without even mentioning the lies to get there, ala the WMD's.
Anyway the idea of a constituitional monarchy whereby the Sovereign rules on behalf of the people, retaining the services of a Prime Minister who has the support of the legislature is by far the best form of rule. Sure some autocratic Emperors, Kings and dynasts are trully interested in their people yet there are many who either hide in their folds or can succeed to the throne who are only in it for themselves. An excellent example are the North Koreans and their communist dynasty!.(Dear Leader???!!!)
By the way, whats the story with the Bush's, first daddy is President, then George and some are even saying Jed may have a crack at it!
It appears that in America those who have power have money and then they buy more power!
Hmmmm  interesting!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: grandduchessella on January 07, 2008, 08:28:46 PM
American's have a history of political dynasties going back to the Adams family (father & son presidents) so the Bush duo is not unusual. However, I think Jeb (not Jed) would have almost no chance at the nomination for while we might not mind political families, there has never been more than 2 members of one family (let alone so close together as a father and 2 sons would be) elected to the highest office. There has been John and John Quincy Adams (father & son), William Henry & Benjamin Harrison (grandfather & grandson) and, almost, William Taft and his son Robert (who was one of the most powerful Senators to never become President) as well as John and brother Robert Kennedy (who was well on his way to the nomination and possible victory when he was killed).

As a side note, whatever one thinks of the reasons for the war, Congress DID in fact approve it--something that many of those now running on both sides are having to answer to voters for. Also, at the time, the vast majority of the American public, sadly, did support going to war. So it's not correct to say that the President went to war without popular or Congressional support. Hindsight being 20/20, the situation is vastly different now with over-whelming majorities against the war yet Congress still stymied in how to extract the country since the President will not.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 07, 2008, 09:18:07 PM
GDE -  I always thought that congress had approved the war and voted funding for it.  That is why there is so much back-peddling by some of the candidates.  I admire Colon Powell for resigning when he found out that we were lied to about the WMD.  i have always believed that he would make a fine president.

So many of our rights have been limited by the Patriot Act and so much of the powers that belong to each branch of the government have been weakened or suborned by other branches that it may be close to impossible to ever get back what we once had.  The Patriot Act was passed in the post 9/11 fear and horror period and (as in Germany of 1932) almost anything would have been acceptable to the people if it took away the constant fear of future attacks.

In the dynasties don't forget the Roosevelts.  Theodore and Franklin were loosely related and Eleanor was Theodore's niece her father being Elliot Roosevelt Theodore's brother.  In fact there have been many more related presidents than one would expect in a country where an ordinary citizen was expected to take up the burden of the presidency and to do his best until the time came for the next citizen to take over.

We have a very limited number of citizens who can actually afford to run for president.  And that, to me, is the most shameful thing of all.

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 07, 2008, 09:34:19 PM
I'm sorry to read the above!
Tell me, if congress wants out of this war, and GWB doesent, how can a resolution be achieved.I know that GW is leaving buts lets say the next President wants to keep your troops there, what can congress do?
And by the way regarding the wmd's etc, geopolitically its all about communist  China and and emerging India and their insatiable hunger for natural resources and oil!
The alliance's peoples were lied to and for the life of me I cant understand why the Bush's, Blair's and Howard's havent been charged with a criminal offence, let alone a war crime! Goes to show how effective our so called  western democracies and their systems of Justice are sometimes manipulated for the select few!
I read somewhere that the French have actually issued a warrant for Cheeny, anyone know anything about that?
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: grandduchessella on January 07, 2008, 10:25:40 PM
What can be done? Hope that the American public actually gets a fire under their butts--enough to stop just complaining and actually get out and vote. Every election since 2003 has resulted in more anti-Iraq war people being elected (save for the top spot) yet nothing gets done. Even our last election, that brought Democrats control of the House & Senate, and sent a clear message of change has resulted in nothing. Congress is held hostage by the various voting tricks that can be brought up to stall or kill a bill--and it's something they themselves used often when they were in the minority. It mostly revolves around now needing a veto-proof 2/3 majority to get them to even debate an issue rather than the simple majority needs for actual passage. It's a very sad state of affairs and Congress is about the only ones with a lower approval rating than the President at this point.

I've got a very politically aware 13-year-old who will be chomping at the bit to vote when she's old enough--and she's probably more ready than those who are already of age! I couldn't wait until I could cast a vote and I think it's disgraceful the pitiful turnout presidential elections get. Women and minorities need to really treasure it since it was long-fought for and only achieved in the 20th century. My grandmother was a suffragette who marched for the vote and she'd roll over in her grave if she thought I wasn't voting or encouraging my girls to recognize it as a civic duty not a chore or a waste of time. I can't remember the last time a President was actually elected with a majority of the population actually voting--Kennedy? I mean, if 42% vote and you get 50% of that (basically Bush v Gore in 2000) you're getting about 21% of the actual voting age population--not exactly a ringing mandate.  ::)

Alixz--can't believe I left off the Roosevelt's! TR is my favorite president.  :) Yes, Eleanor Roosevelt was indeed Eleanor Roosevelt Roosevelt with Franklin being about a 5th cousin, I believe. Alice Roosevelt (whose husband could've been President, he became Speaker of the House) was a legend in her day. Eleanor herself can't be left off the political equation since she became a political figure, a delegate to the UN General Assembly in 1945 and chaired the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, she was courted for various offices as a letter she wrote (which sounds like one Hillary Clinton might have herself written):

In the late 1940s, Roosevelt was courted for political office by Democrats in New York and throughout the country.

At first I was surprised that anyone should think that I would want to run for office, or that I was fitted to hold office. Then I realized that some people felt that I must have learned something from my husband in all the years that he was in public life! They also knew that I had stressed the fact that women should accept responsibility as citizens. I heard that I was being offered the nomination for governor or for the United States Senate in my own state, and even for Vice President. And some particularly humorous souls wrote in and suggested that I run as the first woman President of the United States!

These 2 Roosevelt women are fascinating but they deserve their own thread somewhere probably.  :)
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 08, 2008, 02:43:46 AM
Compulsory universal suffrage is the only way. All adults over the age of 18 who are not in jail or mentally incapable MUST vote if they are citizens of a nation.That is the most BASIC of first steps towards a democratic system. Not this ridiculous "if i feel like it i will" system the Americans have.!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 08, 2008, 03:10:47 AM
The USA is not the only country that does not have compulsory voting. Very few countries that I know of do. Voter apathy is pretty universal.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Imperial.Opal on January 08, 2008, 04:30:54 AM
Australia still has compulsory voting in Municipal Council,State and Federal elections, not sure about New Zealand
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 08, 2008, 05:26:57 AM
I don't at all approve of compulsory voting; if people are so uninterested that they have to be forced to vote, what is the value of their vote?
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 08, 2008, 05:51:47 AM
I didn't mean to open up such a can of worms. It's good though people can debate such issues. It is very interesting to see other opinions. I have to ask the question whether the founding fathers of the United States ever envisaged a situation where a President and Congress would be at each others throats constantly impeding the ability to enact legislation for the good of the people? With a President using the veto and a Congress deliberately vetoing iniatives from the President? That surely is a constant enemy of democracy.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 08, 2008, 07:09:21 AM
I don't at all approve of compulsory voting; if people are so uninterested that they have to be forced to vote, what is the value of their vote?



The value of someones vote is the entire ethos of our democratic way of life. People have to be responsible for their actions and deeds and leaders need to be elected by the entire citizenry whom they will represent. Kennedy once said "ask what you can do for your country", well the first thing is to vote and to elect leaders who you want to represent you!.If enough people had voted at the last US presidential election, we would not have had a fiasco where the Supreme court had to announce that Dubya won nor perhaps would we be in the middle east quagmire that we are in today.
Demos means people and cratia means nation, it literally means goverment of the people.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 08, 2008, 08:07:41 AM
"Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: grandduchessella on January 08, 2008, 03:42:23 PM
I have to ask the question whether the founding fathers of the United States ever envisaged a situation where a President and Congress would be at each others throats constantly impeding the ability to enact legislation for the good of the people? With a President using the veto and a Congress deliberately vetoing iniatives from the President? That surely is a constant enemy of democracy.

Considering they were constantly at each other's throats from the time of the Constitutional Convention and continuing throughout history, they probably could. There's a somewhat rosy view that the Founding Fathers got together and calmly and rationally created the Constitution. In reality, it was quite an ugly business with some real principles trading going on (notably on the issue of slavery), yet they somehow created a magnificent document. That seems to have been the difference--compromise is now regarded as an incredibly ugly word in US politics and the machinery of government practically grinds to a halt over some of the most serious issues facing the country. The few decades leading up to the Civil War were also particularly ugly--with one Senator almost being beaten to death with a cane by another during a debate over the slavery issue.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 08, 2008, 04:22:30 PM
Perhaps that is the fault of the two party system.  If there is no compromise between the two parties and everyone sticks to his/her own agenda, then nothing can be accomplished.

However another fault is the idea of being a "good" Republican or "good" Democrat and sticking to the party line for the good of the party instead of the good of the country.

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 09, 2008, 11:51:13 AM
Of course, the two party system, in spite of dead locks often occuring, is superior to a one party system where a single point of view is moved forward. it is also superior to a multi party system where a minority point of view could dominate the landscape by the concept of simple majority. Neither is in my opinion a more favorable means to an end.

the problem with the system is not the system...rather the fools who have been elected. There seems to be a innate desire to cheat, mislead, fabricate, advance themselves in almost psyschotic terms among most of those who enter the political arena. Everyone hypes the low approval ratings for Bush (in the 30s) but the Congress approval rating is at 11%. The two party system truly breaks down in Congress when they do not do the job people elected them to do, but instead fight amongst themselves for power and lots of our money.

In former times, prior to the viciousness that began around the Nixon era, within the two party system one would refer to the other party as "the loyal opposition". For the recent past and particulary evident during the Bush adminsitration and somewhat similarly during the Clinton years it had become the "disloyal opposition". It seem abundantly obvious that the Congress would allow the nation to be harmed just to succeed personally at winning political battles with the administration. The nation suffers and the people are indeed smart enough to see it, hence the abysmally low ratings for Congress.

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 09, 2008, 01:48:33 PM
After yesterday's primary results in New Hampshire, it looks as if the voters want to return to the Clinton era.  They want a repeat of the 8 years that began the "disloyal opposition" in congress.  I can't imagine why we would want to return to the cheating and lying of the Clinton years.  How soon we forget.  Nixon had Watergate and Clinton had Whitewater, and Monica, and impeachment and the suicide of Vincent Foster under mysterious circumstances and the many questionable pardons that he granted at the end of his term.  Hillary says that she was his closest advisor.  Is she admitting that she was privy to all of this and that she knew and approved (except perhaps for the Monica thing, and I think that she always knew he was a womanizer, but as long as it was a private thing , she tolerated it).

Special interest groups, political actions groups, and other lobbyists should be disallowed by law.  And that old bugaboo the "pork barrel" has to be eliminated and the only way that the pork can be cut is by a line item veto.  Many very good laws are vetoed because of lines that make no sense and much pork is included because the law is necessary and to veto it to cut the pork would veto the whole law.

Of course two parties are better than one and perhaps as you say better than multi-parties.   In every general election we all say that the independent candidates or the Green Party or the Libertarians don't truly make a statement, they simply take votes away from one major candidate or the other.

I just don't want to see our American President in tears over questions asked in the briefing room.  If questions on the campaign trail cause weepy eyes, what is going to happen when harder questions are asked by the press in Washington? (And I think that the question was another plant by the Clinton team.  No one and I mean no one would ever have asked a male candidate that question.)

Back to topic  - it would seem that most forms of government last no more than about 200 years at their longest.  Even those which we still see have undergone changes some major and some minor, but none are the same as when they began.

The US passed the 200 year mark in 1976 and it does seem that we have undergone a downward swing since then.  The downward swing that began with Nixon.  Ford was just a marker to hold the office open.  Carter makes a much better ex-president that he ever did a president.  Reagan has been said to be "great" but in some ways he was just in the right office at the right time.  Then of course we had GHW Bush who started the whole Iraqi thing and Clinton who failed to do anything about a conclusion (remember the first attacks on the World Trade Centers occurred during his administration) which brings us to GW Bush.

If the Mayans were correct in their calculations, then we only have until 2012 to worry about this anyway.  And that will be the next general election in the US unless of course our next president is so incompetent that we never get to hold another general election.  Just 236 years, right on schedule.  Right up there with Rome and Greece and even the Romanovs who lasted only 304 years. 

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 09, 2008, 03:37:40 PM
Looking in from the outside, it seems to me that the presidential system doesn't work too well in this media age, it has become a lottery in which superficially attractive candidates (attractive I mean to a sufficiently large section of the electorate) are likely to be chosen over people of solid worth.  A bad sign too that the dynastic principle seems to be coming to the fore. Extraordinary to believe that you might have a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Norbert on January 09, 2008, 03:51:32 PM
Can we get back to the subject please? Not airing our views on the state of the Republic of North America
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: grandduchessella on January 09, 2008, 04:46:18 PM
The postings, by myself included, can get somewhat off-topic, but I don't think all the statements about the US are completely so. The creation of the US was the modern precedent for the abolition of monarchies, followed shortly thereafter (with much less success) by the French Revolution. And the issue of dynastic families, the equivalent in some ways of royalty, is an interesting one and not just confined to the US and North America--witness the Bhutto family in Pakistan and the Nehru/Gandhi one in India. Even former colonies often contain a vestige of the dynastic system they threw off. As for Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton(?) it goes back further--if Hillary Clinton receives the nomination, wins and serves 2 terms, there will have been a Bush or Clinton on the ticket for 36 years (from 1980 with GHWB ran with Reagan until the end of Hillary's term in 2016). That, I think, will continue to be a factor to dog the Senator--just how much dynastism (is that a word?) we're willing to accept.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 09, 2008, 04:48:32 PM
There is no such thing as "The Republic of North America". However, the independance of the United States of America was a begining of the end of monarchies.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 09, 2008, 06:00:59 PM
It had no effect on the monarchy that one might expect to have been primarily affected by it. Most of the monarchies that have disappeared in Europe have done so as a result of the instabilities that arose from the First World War, it had nothing whatever to do with America, or even with a prevalence of republican ideas among the populations affected. The surviving European monarchies aren't going to disappear any time soon; monarchy is a surprisingly adaptable institution. In Britain, incidentally, the percentage of the population that would prefer a republic has remained vitually unchanged over fifty years. The greatest danger to the monarchy is not republican ideas but indifference. 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 09, 2008, 06:01:28 PM
I think how much "dynastic rule" we are willing to accept! It is an interesting discussion. If we go back to the original topic it is apparent to see similarities when the Hohenzollern monarchy was abolished and a republic imposed. The republican form of government changed from Weimar to Third Reich to Bundesrepublik and German Democratic Republic. Perhaps the Bundesrepublik works. It still denies the German people the right to elect their President. It also makes no provision for referendums. Like many republics it is one that was imposed on the people.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 09, 2008, 06:03:42 PM
Indifference, apathy or just general ignorance are the greatest dangers to democracy anywhere. Note how so many can not be bothered, for whatever reason, going out to vote at elections in many so-called democracies. This is a real worry.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 09, 2008, 10:41:15 PM
I do not believe that dynastics of any kind is  acceptable in a socalled presidential republic such as the united states.
It is very evident to those of us outside of your borders that your political and financial system is in dissaray and that something needs to be done quickly to rectify the situation.
I only hope for your sakes that you are able to do so before you become the laughing stock of the planet.The Imperialism of your Presidential office no longer holds the respect it once used to, especially after the current incumbant and his policies.
Anyway, to get back to Monarchies and their end or demise.History tends to repeat itself and as times change so do political affiliations.Examples are numerous ala, the Buonapartes, and they're two empires,various English Royal Families or dynasts there off, the Orleans family, and the numerous branches and returns and removals from the thrones of Spain and France, and of course the Greek Kings and their exiles and returns.
Anyone for crouchet?
:)
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 09, 2008, 11:31:14 PM
It is interesting that the monarchy that the American Revolution overthrew is still around and one of the longest lasting.

I don't know if the dynasties that have formed in our presidents families were connived or accidental.  Think of John Adams and his son JQ Adams.  I am sure that one was planned.

The two Harrisons - grandfather and grandson.

The Roosevelts, but they were of different parties and were 5th cousins not close relations.

And, of course, the Bush family.  I am sure that this one was planned as well.

And now, of course, the Clintons which is well planned and has been in the works since 1999.  But we still have about 10 months to the general election and there is still hope that calmer and clearer heads will prevail.  Or, as my son often says, the voters will pull their heads out of their tail pipes and get a grip on what is really going on.

Can anyone imagine the barbarism that would occur if our oil supplies ran out and we couldn't run our gas guzzling vehicles?  Some of us lived through the first OPEC "shortage" in the 1970s and we remember gas lines and making an appointment to get gas!!!!  And as for heating oil, those in the warmer states said "let the Yankees freeze".

But I agree with Ilias_of_John.  Our prestige has fallen very low with the rest of the world.  It isn't the system that is at fault, but those who are now engaged in running it to ruin.

And monarchies do tend to come back from time to time as in the Bonapartes, and the Bourbons, and especially in the Greek Monarchy which came and went and came and went and George I of Greece wasn't even Greek!  It always amazed me how countries would "elect" a king from the princes of other countries and then try to make them over into citizens of their new country and how upset the new country got when the transformation didn't happen the way they wanted it to.

There is a time for abdication, too.  And Franz Joseph should have abdicated long before the beginning of the Great War.  And Nicholas II, if he had abdicated in 1905, who knows how different things might have been.  And Wilhelm I of Germany who lived into his 90s should also have abdicated in favor of his son Fritz.  That is why businesses have retirement ages.  Monarchies should have had them, too.

The sons of George III who reigned for him as regents would have been much more effective if old George had abdicated in his senility.

And Ilias_of_John, do you mean croquet?   ;-)





Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 10, 2008, 05:20:49 AM
The trouble with abdication is that it suggests that ruling as a sovereign is just like any other job, it detracts from the mystique of the monarchy; only in the Netherlands has it become an accepted practice. Impossible to imagine Queen Victoria having abdicated!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 10, 2008, 08:17:43 AM
I knew that posters would think of Victoria that way and I intentionally left her off the list.

However, as astute and as wise as she was in ruling, she was abominable to her son and heir.  Had she perhaps abdicated in is favor at her Diamond Jubilee, he would have had more time to reign and perhaps left a different kind of legacy.  Heck, all she had to do was to let him help her as his father did.  The problem was that she thought Albert Edward useless and, of course, never as "good" as his father.

But the Windsors do refer to the Monarchy as "the family business" and as such they should think more of the future and the impression of the monarchy and not the old fashioned notion of ruling until death.

Image if Elizabeth II abdicated and then Charles in turn abdicated in favor of William.  The monarchy would be refreshed and rejuvenated and brought quite nicely into the 21st century.  How coincidental that the 20th century brought the same scenario as the 19th century with Victoria ruling and Albert Edward waiting and Elizabeth II ruling and Charles in waiting.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Norbert on January 10, 2008, 09:36:49 AM
Her Majesty The Queen  cannot abdicate as she has taken a sacred oath at her coronation!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Norbert on January 10, 2008, 09:51:12 AM
I am shocked that Alixz should have such contempt for a woman who has given her whole life to the public service of her people. Since the Wars there have been countless "new dawns" and an inexhaustible supply of "new pages'. To quote Oscar Wilde" there is nothing so old fashioned as always trying to be modern".
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 10, 2008, 10:43:11 AM
I tend to think the days of restorations are over. The ones mentioned have been gone a very, very long time. Even the Greeks have been gone now for nearly 34 years. That is far longer than any time in their family history of exile abroad. This time the republican regime in Greece is determined to stay no matter how much of a mess they make of it all.
Title: Q
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 10, 2008, 10:48:47 AM
I don't think Alixz was intending to be contemptuous whatsoever about QEII. In fact, to read that into Alixz' comments underscores the level of emotion that dynastic entities create over time and which can lead to highly sensitized protectionism and adoration. "Sacred oath" denying her the choice to abdicate? This is perhaps true in what one poster referred to as the "mystique" of the royal family, but when it comes to matters beyond mystique, we have to deal with reality.

And while the remaining monarchies may appear solid and have a level of support based on tradition and historical value, they have almost no place at the table of their internal politics or social issues much less global politics, and it is very unlikely that this would ever change. Monarchies worked when most of peoples of the world were under or uneducated and unable to do much for themselves, including particiapting in the governmental decisions.

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on January 10, 2008, 11:36:21 AM
If I understand the Basic Law (constitution) of the Federal Republic of Germany correctly, one cannot even propose an amendment to the Basic Law to change the system of government from a republic to something else. So, to restore one or more German monarchies, a whole new constitution would have to be adopted with all the issues surrounding that, or the Basic Law's own amendment provisions would have to be disregarded. Of course, this is purely an academic discussion.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Norbert on January 10, 2008, 01:10:26 PM
Funny how all these new nations can't wait to invite The Queen to legitimise their new governments with a state visit.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 10, 2008, 01:34:20 PM
Funny how all these new nations can't wait to invite The Queen to legitimise their new governments with a state visit.


What new nations are you referring to? thanks.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: CHRISinUSA on January 10, 2008, 02:12:26 PM
I would imagine that Norbert was probably referring to the new President of France - who will pay a State Visit to the UK this year.

Regardless, it seems quite true that a state or official visit with the Queen is considered by many the height of international prestige and diplomacy.  What presidency would be complete without the requisite official picture at a State Banquet with HM The Queen?  It does seem to lend an air of "legitimacy" to one's administration to be received by The Queen.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 10, 2008, 03:14:00 PM
Well, this is a matter of opinion it seems, since nothing the queen can do or say has any impact on policy in the U.S and little, if any, in the UK.

I rather think that few people would consider the queen's visit a real or token event to legitimize any U.S. President. Sure, it's fun and exciting as is any state visit. but, this isn't 1776. Had QEII actually been severe and issued public statement that she not only would not accept a White house invitation but she detests the president, do you really think that would have any effect? I think none at all other than a day or two of media fodder and bad news days.

 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 10, 2008, 04:04:56 PM
There is an endless list. Check out the Baltic States and others. 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 10, 2008, 05:20:39 PM
 ???
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 10, 2008, 05:44:14 PM
When a head of state visits the Queen in the UK, don't they also usually find time to go to 10 Downing Street?

As for the Queen visiting other countries, that is purely ceremonial.  Interesting from a publicity point of view, but certainly not in any policy point of view.

I have no contempt for the Queen or the Windsor family.  She and they are "window dressing" and they don't do as fine a job as they could, but they do all right.  "God Save The Queen!"

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 12, 2008, 06:12:45 AM
And Ilias_of_John, do you mean croquet?   ;-)

Yes I do!


Queen Elizabeth II is the Sovereign of Australia and her Governor General is the Head of State.
She cannot resign nor abdicate!  She has appointed the GG to represent her here and to ensure that our system of govement works effectively according to our constituition and the conventions created by the Westminster System over the last 700 odd years.
Subsequently I can never understand why some people, especially Americans and some French, keep asking why she should abdicate from her role as Queen of the UK when there is no need!
The Prince of Wales is a Privy Counsellor and has acted as a regent of sorts when Mummy has been away!. Literally exactly the same as what our GG does every day of the week on behalf of Her Majesty!.
In my humble opinion,a possible resignation, abdication, similar to Edward Windsors(Uncle David)would create a situation whereby the Monarchy demeans itself and may theoretically destabilize the established order which can only open a can of worms.
Just look at the suggested break from the Union,  of Scotland, and take a deep breath!. (and a double scotch)
Unfortunately I dont know much about the Dutch Monarchy, aside from the fact that they own some oil company shares (wink!) but how can a Monarch ever be an ex-Monarch?  Isn't that like a gross violation of  trust?
Oh and by the way. King Konstantine is King of the Greeks solely because he was annointed as such, and the Greek Church continues to regard and address him as such, irrespective of what the Republican rabble in Athens have to say! He may not be the Head of State, but the title and rank cannot be taken away!

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 12, 2008, 07:52:17 AM
It is quite wrong to suggest that HM The Queen has no influence. The content of discussions between the Monarch are her Prime Ministers are never revealed. She is far more than a rubber stamp and is treated with great respect by her Prime Ministers.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 12, 2008, 09:06:52 AM
Dmitri - I bow to your much more thorough information.  I truly have no idea what this queen does, only what Victoria and George V and George VI did because their interaction with their government is now available to the public.

However, if the British monarch were truly all that influential, then Edward VIII would not have had to make the choice between the monarchy and Wallis Simpson.

And as we see now, divorce is common in the royal family and Charles is divorced and married to a divorced Camilla, which was not allowed to Edward VIII.  And it was his Prime Minister and Queen Mary (who should not have had more authority than her son the king) who worked against him.

So the Royal Family has demeaned itself with its scandals and divorces and "airing of dirty laundry". Under the old interpretation of the laws, Charles is no longer eligible to be king as he is divorced and married to a divorcee.

Charles is now 59 heading toward 60.  If Queen Elizabeth II lives as long as her mother did, she will still be around in 2027 and Charles will be 79 (that is if the men live as long as the women in the family) actually pushing 80!

So if QEII is a lucid as her mother all is fine, but suppose she is not?  Do they then go back to the Regency as they did for George III?  But it looks like no matter what, Charles will have a very short reign, just as Edward VII did and maybe even shorter.  And if the Queen does hang on until 2027, Prince William will be 45.

There people aren't getting any younger!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 12, 2008, 09:45:59 AM
The role of the British monarch is more complex than  most may think, even the Brits themselvers in many cases.  No law of Parlaiment  may become effective without the monarch's approval.  Unlike a bill  sent back by the House of Lords, the Commons cannot overide or ignore a bill sent back to them [and it is stressed that this would only be done on the advice of her ministers]. All acts of government are only legitimate with the approval of the sovereign.
 Another common misconception is that the succession is automatic. It is not. Only an act of Parlaiment passes the throne from one monarch to the next.  This is now  pretty much pro forma, automatic, as the Act of Succession is not really contested, but the myth of "The King is dead, long live the king" is just that- a myth. Parlaiment can bar an inheritor, if it so choose to, and risk the dire consequences.  The same is true for abdication. A monarch cannot abdicate of his/her own free will. It takes an act of Parlaiment.  Even if the present queen were incapacitated, it is highluy unlikely abdication would take place. A regency would be much more likely.
 Also, the constitutional function of the sovereign may come into place with the total breakdown of Parlaiment- that is, the inability to come to compromise or coalition between the parties.  The monarch may disolve the House, appoint a "caretaker" PM and call new elections. Although in the UK, so far, this has not been called for, as the various parties do reach agreements, in other countries, it has proven  vital to the continued running of the country. Namely, Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark.  In  European republics, the president, elected or otherwise would  preform this stabilising function.
 There are a lot more subtleties in the running of the country, just everyday life, that are in one way or another directly linked to the monarchy. [NOT necessarily the monarch herself] and it could be dismatled.  We shall see just how much so if the move towards Scottish independance goes, but the process would be very cumbersome and indeed costly.
 But personally, from my own experience, I do not see much enthusiasm for such drastic action, at least amongst my English friends.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 13, 2008, 01:41:03 PM
So then Edward VIII had to have Parliament give him permission to abdicate?  The could have stopped him, but didn't?

So, when Tony Blair decided to become part of the coalition, the queen was in agreement?  He needed her approval to send the British troops into Iraq?

And, I again ask, what good is a regency?  If the monarch is incapacitated, why should the country be ruled by a regent when all that would be required would be an act of parliament to remove the incapacitated monarch and then approve the next one.  Of course I mean incapacitated by old age or illness, not by youth or the fact of being too young to rule and a regent being placed by the child's side.

This is much more complicated than I knew.  Does the queen ever "veto" an act of parliament?
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 13, 2008, 02:57:02 PM
Yes on EVIII, but no on Blair [and Thatcher, for that matter]. The PM is responsible for the defence ministries, EXCEPT for the Royal Navy, that, technically, answers only to the monarch! Thatcher made a big mistake in  okaying the US invasion of Grenada without telling the Queen first. She did not repeat the mistake with the Falklands.
 The Queen, in her long reign  does not "veto" anything. She can send measures back to the Commons for  further discussion, but that would be done only  with the advice of the PM. Eventually, if something is to become law, it must have her signature or seal.  Ther is no "overide" as in the US Congress's ability [so-called] to over-ride a presidential veto.
 A regency preseves the rights of the crown from further erosion.  If a monarch were to abdicate, for instance, and there was dissention about the next to take the throne, it could become, in theory, in abeyance [vacant] or a new candidate put foward. The instabilty of such a situation is best be avoided at all costs.
 Most people just look at monarchy as historical window dressing, which it is in most situations. But it is also a viable mechanism of government in many cases. When it goes wrong [perhaps as in Nepal] it is hard to restore the credibility. When it creaks along smoothly and functions well, it is comfortably securing to those who live with it.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 13, 2008, 04:25:14 PM
Mrs Thatcher did not appove of the American invasion of Grenada beforehand, Reagan did not tell her and (understandably) she was hopping mad that he should have sent troops into a Commonwealth country without informing her!

There can be no question of a British monarch ever abdicating; as you suggest, the monarchy would be weakened if there was anything other than service for life and an automatic succession. If she becomes weak or incacpacitated, the Prince of Wales will simply deputize for her as necessary.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 13, 2008, 05:32:26 PM
Actually the events that took place in Grenada had nothing to do with Britain or Mrs.Thatcher. They effected HM The Queen in her position as Queen of Grenada. That is an entirely separate role from Queen of the United Kingdom. Reagan invaded Grenada without notifying the Grenada Head of State. Thatcher had nothing to do with the issue.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 13, 2008, 08:39:59 PM
Dmitri, I would disagree with your viewpoint,  but be that as it may... the discussion is about the pregotives of monarchy and the end of them. In that vein, my point was that  the Queen's role as head of state of Grenada was violated and ignored by the powers at hand.
 My aim here is to disengage the  monarchy from a personality. See the institution for what it really is. If it is a viable  form of government, realtive to the people that it governs?
 If not, is it an anachronism ?
 Cultural curiosity is not enough to justify  a public expense, is it?
 Neither is glam royalty.
The topic here is the institution itself, not the occupants so much.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 13, 2008, 10:08:21 PM
This conversation is actually going along swimmingly.!

By the way, as Queen of Grenada she should have been advised by the Commonwealth Heads rather than Maggie Thatcher!.
The Falklands are different, they are not an independant state, ala Grenada, but a dominion of the UK!


hm, I might go and have another cucumber sandwich!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 14, 2008, 05:25:04 AM
'The events in Grenada had nothing to do with Britain or Mrs Thatcher.'  Really?? It wasn't improper for America, as a supposed ally of Great Britain, to invade a Commonwealth country, of which the British Queen moreover was head of state, without informing the British Prime Minister beforehand?  That was not merely improper, it was insulting. Such is the arrogance of power.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 14, 2008, 06:46:22 AM
Grenada is an independent realm which just happens to have Queen Elizabeth II as Queen. It has its own Governor-General who carries out the role of the Monarchy in Grenada. The British government has no connection with Grenada apart from a High Commissioner.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Alixz on January 14, 2008, 09:23:49 AM
So the monarch can not veto.  Then is the monarch a rubber stamp?

I know you have said that the monarch can send measures back to Commons but only with the advice of the PM.  That would still sound as if the monarch has no true power, only that which is "approved" by both PM and Parliament.

The Invasion of Grenada, codenamed Operation Urgent Fury, was an invasion of the island nation of Grenada by the United States of America and several other nations in response to the illegal deposition and execution of Grenadan Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. On October 25, 1983, the United States, Barbados, Jamaica and members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States landed ships on Grenada, defeated Grenadian and Cuban resistance and overthrew the military government of Hudson Austin.

The invasion received a mixed reception, although it enjoyed broad public support in the United States as well as in segments of the population in Grenada. October 25 is a national holiday in Grenada, called Thanksgiving Day, to commemorate this event. Conversely, the invasion was criticised by the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago and Canada. Approximately 100 people lost their lives.

International opposition and criticism
Grenada was part of the Commonwealth of Nations and — following the invasion — it requested help from other Commonwealth members. The invasion was opposed by the United Kingdom, Trinidad & Tobago and Canada, among others.[7] British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher personally opposed the U.S. invasion, and her Foreign Minister, Geoffrey Howe, announced to the House of Commons on the day before the invasion that he had no knowledge of any possible U.S. intervention. Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, assured her that an invasion was not contemplated. Reagan later said, "She was very adamant and continued to insist that we cancel our landings on Grenada. I couldn't tell her that it had already begun."

After the invasion, Prime Minister Thatcher wrote to President Reagan:

This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country...I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication."

The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) appealed to the United States, Barbados, and Jamaica for assistance. According to Mythu Sivapalan of the New York Times (October 29, 1983), this formal appeal was at the behest of the U.S. government, which had decided to take military action. U.S. officials cited the murder of Bishop and general political instability in a country near its own borders, as well as the presence of American medical students at St. George's University on Grenada, as reasons for military action. Sivapalan also claimed that the latter reason was cited in order to gain public support.

from Wikipedia

By the way, I know several of those former medical students whose records were lost in the upheaval.  Thay had the option to begin all over again in another university or just not to become doctors.




Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 14, 2008, 10:09:30 AM
I do not see the monarchy as a "rubber stamp" but more as a part of the system of checks and balances  in an effective government process. It is the duty of the incumbant  government to "inform and consult" the sovereign. We have seen the result of failure to do the former, and failure to consult someone with over 50 years of world experience is simply foolish. Everyone in the UK who takers an oath for any government service, be it a clerk in  some obscure ministry, the armed forces  or Parlaiment. swears allegience to the sovereign. Not the government nor even the country. This  is a personal bond that is bound to be tested eventually, but for now, it is still in place with little opposition.
 The sovereign cannot propose or make laws, but can influence them.
 I see the monarchy as a mechanism that usually ticks along smoothly, quietly, with a little oil now and then to keep it going, but also must be taken down, dusted off and rewound to prevent it rusting into atrophy.
 Unity, responsibility and function.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 14, 2008, 03:13:57 PM
'The British government has no connection with Grenada apart from a High Commissioner.' Ah, what a wealth of political and historical sensitivity is revealed in that remark! Alixz has summarised the course of events leading up to the invasion; if anyone cannot see that America treated Britain in a contemptuous manner by initially deceiving the British government about its intentions and then giving it no prior notice of the plans, there is little purpose in trying to argue the point. That is not how friends are supposed to behave toward one another.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 14, 2008, 05:01:51 PM
I think the USof A is very experienced with treating other nations with contempt!
:(
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 14, 2008, 07:39:53 PM
The British government can only hope to diplomatically influence Grenada. There are no constitutional links between Grenada and the United Kingdom. It is not a British colony. Grenada is an independent realm like Canada, Australia and New Zealand and a number of other realms. It is not British.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 15, 2008, 02:11:04 AM
Some thoughts!

The Sleeping King
By John Fitzgerald  
Home Articles Essays Interviews Poetry Miscellany Reviews Books Archives Links

"Beauty is not only a terrible, but also a mysterious thing. There God and the devil are fighting for mastery, and the battlefield is the heart of man." DOSTOYEVSKY - "THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV"

 

The Kingdom of Heaven lies within." Endless repetition has dulled our senses somewhat to the truth of this phrase, so it is worth re-iterating that everything of value lies within ourselves and a prime example of this is our sense of Royalty - our awareness of the Royal principle. The Monarch is a deep-seated human archetype; a symbol of the Solar principle. Bearing this in mind, perhaps it is no great surprise that the forces behind the modern world are so keen to undermine Monarchy whenever and wherever they can.

continued here,
http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/sleeping-king.php

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on January 15, 2008, 04:23:53 AM
I know that Grenada is not a British colony; it is merely that Britain has special ties with it for obvious historical reasons, and it lies within the British sphere of interest as a commonwealth country, and America therefore showed great insensitivity by sending troops into it without informing the British Prime Minister at least beforehand (let alone after having lied to the Brtish government about its intentions). It will be noted that most Commonwealth countries shared Britain's opininon on this matter. One might say, incidentally, that if Grenada is an indedpendent country, the USA itself had no right to intervene in its internal affairs. The pretext that it offered for the invasion was entirely specious, and could be used to justify an invasion of just about any unstable country in the world. Although the results within Grenada were beneficial, this set a very bad precedent.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 19, 2008, 06:51:26 PM
Today in the newspaper The Age, one of Australia's leading papers, it has been announced that the Labor Federal Goverment is contemplating appointing one of its unsuccesful leaders as our next Governor General!
Mr Kim Beazley is a  former career politician of 27 years and a Republican!
It appears that the battle lines are drawn and we are about to cross the Rubicon!(sorry for the cliches!)
What the republican movement remembers though is that they lost a referendum in 1999 on the issue and they will now endeavour to hold a series of plebicites to change our way of life and structure of goverment in a way that is not legally binding ie against the constituition of the Commonwealth of Australia!
I say let the battle wagons be circled and the battle begin!(more cliches, I know!, sorry!)


How dare they attempt to change one of the most stable and successful systems for their own self centred aims of power and glory!
The Nation will not stand for it nor will the Judiciary or  the Armed Forces!
Before they attempt to convert us as they did in Greece, I challenge them to hold a vote of no confidence on our current system,(The Westminster)
they know they will lose and so they wont!


http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/is-beazley-the-queens-new-man/2008/01/19/1200620280743.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/bomber-beazley-a-beaut-choice-for-gg/2008/01/19/1200620274197.html
 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 19, 2008, 08:06:08 PM
Beazley would be a harmless buffoon. He certainly though does not have the dignity of the incumbent. As Opposition Leader he lurched from one comical farce to another. If he is appointed he will love putting his snout in the vice-regal trough.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 19, 2008, 08:26:40 PM
Seems half a day of political pressure from many Australians has forced them to change their minds again!


http://news.theage.com.au/no-former-politician-as-next-gg-rudd/20080120-1mza.html
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 19, 2008, 10:24:03 PM
Yes PM Rudd will blow which ever way the wind blows. He is as weak as anything and a pathetic populist with no backbone. Beazley wouldn't have been as bad as the pathetic Deane. He was utterly hopeless and politically naive.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 23, 2008, 05:28:05 PM
Dmitri you are getting your Hollingsworth's mixed up with your Deane's.
PS,  ps have a look at what the UN has to say about human developments and the order that nations rank in!
It seems that constituitonal monarchys rate fairly high!

High Human Development
Iceland
Norway
Australia
Canada
Ireland
Sweden
Switzerland
Japan
Netherlands
France
Finland
United States
Spain
Denmark
Austria
United Kingdom
Belgium
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Italy
Hong Kong, China (SAR)
Germany
Israel
Greece
Singapore
Korea, Rep. of
Slovenia
Cyprus
Portugal
Brunei Darussalam
Barbados
Czech Republic
Kuwait
Malta
Qatar
Hungary
Poland
Argentina
United Arab Emirates
Chile
Bahrain
Slovakia
Lithuania
Estonia
Latvia
Uruguay
Croatia
Costa Rica
Bahamas
Seychelles
Cuba
Mexico
Bulgaria
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Tonga
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Antigua and Barbuda
Oman
Trinidad and Tobago
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Panama
Malaysia
Belarus
Mauritius
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Russian Federation
Albania
Macedonia, TFYR
Brazil
 Medium Human Development
Dominica
Saint Lucia
Kazakhstan
Venezuela, Rep. Bov.
Colombia
Ukraine
Samoa

Thailand
Dominican Republic
Belize
China
Grenada
Armenia
Turkey
Suriname
Jordan
Peru
Lebanon
Ecuador
Philippines
Tunisia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Fiji
Iran, Islamic Rep. of
Paraguay
Georgia
Guyana
Azerbaijan
Sri Lanka
Maldives
Jamaica
Cape Verde
El Salvador
Algeria
Viet Nam
Occupied Palestinian Territories
Indonesia
Syrian Arab Republic
Turkmenistan
Nicaragua
Moldova
Egypt
Uzbekistan
Mongolia
Honduras
Kyrgyzstan
Bolivia
Guatemala
Gabon
Vanuatu
South Africa
Tajikistan
São Tomé and Principe
Botswana
Namibia
Morocco
Equatorial Guinea
India
Solomon Islands
Lao, People's Dem. Rep.
Cambodia
Myanmar
Bhutan
Comoros
Ghana
Pakistan
Mauritania
Lesotho
Congo
Bangladesh
Swaziland
Nepal
Madagascar
Cameroon
Papua New Guinea
Haiti
Sudan
Kenya
Djibouti
Timor-Leste
Zimbabwe
Togo
Yemen
Uganda
Gambia
 Low Human Development
Senegal
Eritrea
Nigeria
Tanzania, U. Rep. of
Guinea
Rwanda
Angola
Benin
Malawi
Zambia
Côte d'Ivoire
Burundi
Congo, Dem. Rep.

Ethiopia
Chad
Central African Republic
Mozambique
Mali
Niger
Guinea-Bissau
Burkina Faso
Sierra Leone
 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on January 23, 2008, 06:03:15 PM
No confusion over Hollingworth or Deane. Deane broke vice-regal convention by criticising the elected government. He was a stooge of Keating. Perhaps you are not aware that Keating had promised him to be first President. He didn't get his way and Deane has been sulking about it ever since. Deane should have handed back his knighthood as should have Cowen and Mason - all on the record supporters for a republic. When do these people ever get the message that the republic was defeated well and truly? Even Rudd is unwilling to bring up the topic at present.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: sydguy71 on February 01, 2008, 01:27:06 AM
Interesting to read Dimitri and John of Ilias statements.
 I would hope that our first President will be none other than Paul Keating himself. Then at last we can hold our head high again since 1996. What a great moment for Australia, a president, and Paul Keating back doing what he does best. :D

A republic may not happen this term, but it cannot be to far away.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on February 01, 2008, 01:31:25 AM
How utterly bizarre. Keating would be about as likely to be elected to the non-existent position of "President" as an old boot found at the bottom of the harbour stuffed with stolen cash. I guess some people fail to realise how utterly defeated the republic was at the 1996 referendum. Even Rudd is making no statements about when and if any future referendum will be held. He knows it is a vote loser. 
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Grace on February 01, 2008, 03:57:35 AM
Interesting to read Dimitri and John of Ilias statements.
 I would hope that our first President will be none other than Paul Keating himself. Then at last we can hold our head high again since 1996. What a great moment for Australia, a president, and Paul Keating back doing what he does best. :D

A republic may not happen this term, but it cannot be to far away.


Paul Keating?  You must be joking.  The idea of this foul-mouthed embittered has-been as Australian President is too awful even to joke about...
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on February 01, 2008, 04:32:46 AM
Yes his latest is his ow and utterly despicable attack on the late Paddy McGuniness. It is a clear sign of how totally inappropriate Keating would be. He was booted out of office in 1996 as he was loathed. He presided over one of the most divisive times in Australian history as well as caused the recession "we had to have", double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates. He also ran up the highest level of foreign debt ever seen in the history of Australia. No wonder he lost power. Even his wife left him as she couldn't stand him any longer. Not much hope of being a successful President there. He would never be considered even by Rudd who has ruled out any former politician, from either side of politics, for the office of Governor-General.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Belochka on February 01, 2008, 04:34:59 AM
Interesting to read Dimitri and John of Ilias statements.
 I would hope that our first President will be none other than Paul Keating himself. Then at last we can hold our head high again since 1996. What a great moment for Australia, a president, and Paul Keating back doing what he does best. :D

A republic may not happen this term, but it cannot be to far away.


Paul Keating?  You must be joking.  The idea of this foul-mouthed embittered has-been as Australian President is too awful even to joke about...

Perhaps he should remember his own line "that souffles do not rise twice".
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Norbert on February 01, 2008, 05:49:02 AM
This is all very interesting. An Australian friend turned to me and told me how sad it was that Britain didn't rule despotically. There would have been an Australian Declaration of Independence, a heroic war led by the founding fathers and the Glorious new republic and flag...poor old Brits are always in the wrong.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on February 01, 2008, 06:01:57 AM
One wonders what that friend was on. Australians were saved from all those nightmares.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Ilias_of_John on February 01, 2008, 06:14:42 AM
Paul Keating as President?
The man who said we had to have a recession and then called us a banana republic?
That Swedish clock collector?(Not that I have any thing against swedish clocks mind you!)

The perfect candidate for a president he certainly is, more power to the politicians, remove centuries of trial and error and replace it with  a has been who cant show his face in respectable company!

Who are you Syd guy 71?, Keatings lost love child or an escapee from a new south welsh mental hospital?
Mind you, the new south welsh hospital system is so bad I don't blame you if you have escaped!

Why would we hold our heads up high with him as Prez?, and what exactly does he do best? talk rubbish?


And Norbert, your friend really needs some very urgent medical attention!

The Canadians didnt feel despotised did they? They remained part of the Empire, they progressed and developed,they saw no reason to abandon their tried and tested system.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Belochka on February 01, 2008, 06:39:47 AM
This is all very interesting. An Australian friend turned to me and told me how sad it was that Britain didn't rule despotically. There would have been an Australian Declaration of Independence, a heroic war led by the founding fathers and the Glorious new republic and flag...poor old Brits are always in the wrong.

But Norbet your Australian friend seems to have forgotten that we already having our founding fathers, Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garran!
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: dmitri on February 01, 2008, 07:44:56 AM
Yes Australians asked for and were given our independence without any problems. In fact Queen Victoria said "give the Australians what they want" and Australians certainly received it. At a time when the British House of Commons had 7 year terms Australians asked for and were given 3 year terms for the new House of Representatives. The thought of a war was never contemplated. To think some countries have to resort to that is very sad indeed.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Norbert on February 01, 2008, 09:20:04 AM
Prince Albert considered the eventual division of the British Empire amongst his sons...imagine Alfred King of Canada, Arthur King in South Africa and poor Leopold King of Australia-NZ. It would have been like the Braganza's in Brazil.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 01, 2008, 09:21:03 AM


Yes Australians asked for and were given our independence without any problems. In fact Queen Victoria said "give the Australians what they want" and Australians certainly received it. At a time when the British House of Commons had 7 year terms Australians asked for and were given 3 year terms for the new House of Representatives. The thought of a war was never contemplated. To think some countries have to resort to that is very sad indeed.

Well, it wasn't up to QV to give away anything.

Countries who had been overtaken by military might may, of course, find that war is the only way out from under the yoke of imperialism. That is, if they had the wherewithall. The vast majority of Britian's colonial empire was in no way able to mount a defense or offense to the British war machine.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on February 07, 2008, 02:02:39 PM
I always thought that Friedrich Ebert was an anti-monarchist. But, now that I am starting to read about him, it seems that he was not as strongly anti-monarchy as I thought. Was there ever a referendum on whether the various German states should be republics or monarchies? It seems that during the Revolution the monarchs abdicated and, later, the Weimar Assembly just took republicanism for granted.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 07, 2008, 03:01:34 PM
Ebert actually had intended that the monarchy remain with a different Kaiser. during the fall of 1918, however, mass confusion and revolution  reigned in Germany and communists were declaring victory at the same time other factions were doing likewise. The aristocracy, generally, did not know how to bring calm since their entire lineage/experience was essentially not having to fight for their own power. So they basically gave up for this reason and also to save their own skins since there was real danger of assassination. Let's face it, the same bolsheviks who were in control in Berlin in 1918 murdered NII just one year earlier. Very scary.

the Weimar Assembly, in my view, took nothing for granted other than the revolution that had taken place four months earlier was quelled. Reasonable peace prevailed. the political party coalitions were feeling fully capable of ruling Germany, and the Allies were in the midst of crafting the Versailles treaty without the participation of the Germans on any level.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: lababoc on February 09, 2008, 05:28:00 AM
HERRKAISER I read somewhere  (scapes me where )that Bismark bribed many Kings  and Princes and Dukes so he woul be able to unify Germany    truth or false ? thank you
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Greenowl on February 09, 2008, 01:50:00 PM
As well as allowing Bavaria special privileges, I have heard (perhaps Herr Kaiser could confirm, as I think there is a slight doubt about the following) that Bismarck paid Ludwig II of Bavaria a substantial annual grant in return for Ludwig writing the famous "Kaiserbrief" (on 30/11/1870), in which he invited his uncle Wilhelm to assume the title of Emperor/Kaiser of a united Germany. It appears that Ludwig II was always glad to receive extra cash in order to finance his building projects.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 09, 2008, 02:33:05 PM
In the U.S., it's called 'ear marks' or 'pork barreling'. Nothing ever seems to happen without payoffs.

Sure, Bismarck worked with the variouis principalites and duchies to achieve a major reshaping of central europe without a bloody war. It had really not occured in prior times. Bismarck crafted a unification plan in which everyone got "compensated" much like a corporate buy out and even those who had had power got golden parachutes.

The unification was a milestone. It was Fritz' dream and a vision of Prince Albert as well. And it worked beautifully. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts, for sure.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Greenowl on February 09, 2008, 06:24:31 PM
Thanks Herr Kaiser! Actually Bismarck's method of compensating the various kingdoms and and duchies makes good sense and it did avoid additional bloodshed, which is a very positive aspect.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on February 10, 2008, 05:15:13 AM
'A major reshaping of central Europe without a bloody war': well, if one overlooks minor matters like the wars with Austria, Denmark and France. Bismarck's legacy was in fact highly equivocal because he set Germany on a militaristic course which was extremely dangerous when he was no longer in control.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on February 10, 2008, 07:53:26 AM
'A major reshaping of central Europe without a bloody war': well, if one overlooks minor matters like the wars with Austria, Denmark and France. Bismarck's legacy was in fact highly equivocal because he set Germany on a militaristic course which was extremely dangerous when he was no longer in control.

True, but after the war with France, all Bismarck wanted was peace. I think that his only major mistake was Alsace-Lorraine. Had Germany not annexed that area perhaps much bloodshed could have been avoided.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on February 10, 2008, 10:27:09 AM
Bismarck himself didn't want further wars, to be sure; but the problem was that the means that he had adopted to bring about the unification of Germany, and the form of government which he had engineered for it, meant that militaristic nationalism was central to the ethos of the new state. Nothing could be more symbolic of this than the setting in which the German Empire was proclaimed, among a crowd of uniformed men in a defeated nation.

Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 10, 2008, 01:26:01 PM
'A major reshaping of central Europe without a bloody war': well, if one overlooks minor matters like the wars with Austria, Denmark and France. Bismarck's legacy was in fact highly equivocal because he set Germany on a militaristic course which was extremely dangerous when he was no longer in control.


The wars with Austria, Denmark and France were not fought to gain control of those nations/empires. The union of the German duchies and principalites was very different and could have been accomplished through force, but Bismarck did it via politics of negotiation. It is not correct or fair to claim the German Empire came as a result of the Austrian, French, Danish wars, in fact Austria and Prussia fought Denmark together and later when the Schleswig Holstein area was stalemated, Prussia and Austria went at it.

the freeing of Schleswig holstein and Alsace Lorraine both took on the same "right of self determination" argument that occured in Bosnia, Albania and the separation of Yugoslavia recently. today, self determination is hearlded by the west; when bismarck pushed for it, it was viewed as empire building.

The major long term militaristic and empire building nations long before Germany attempted to pull ethnic Germans into on union were Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands. Bismarck played the same game only with much, much less enslavement or lost lives.

I do agree that the declaration of the Empire should have occurred in Konigsberg or Berlin. But, one has to go back even farther to appreciate the historic reason for such, the single word--Napoleon.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Adagietto on February 10, 2008, 04:29:40 PM
The Schleswig-Holstein question was immensely complex, but the German seizure of the whole of Schleswig could not seriously have been justified on grounds of self-determination, since everyone was aware that the great majority of the inhabitants of Northern Schleswig would have preferred to have remained in Denmark; when a referendum was finally permitted after the First World War, the people of that region voted to rejoin Denmark by a large majority. The annexation of Alsace-Lorraine was determined entirely by German domestic considerations, even if it could be argued that the inhabitants mainly spoke Alemannic dialects. Bismarck cannot be blamed for that most unfortunate move, he realized that it would store up problems for the future and tried to oppose it. The various wars that Bismarck engineered all formed part of the elaborate chess-game that he was playing to unite Germany under Prussian leadership; naturally it was not his purpose to seize Habsburg territories or conquer France or Denmark.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: Learning on February 11, 2008, 12:05:08 PM
Would it be correct to view the North German Confederation as a Prussian Empire but not to view the German Empire as such?
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 11, 2008, 07:06:10 PM
The Schleswig-Holstein question was immensely complex, but the German seizure of the whole of Schleswig could not seriously have been justified on grounds of self-determination, since everyone was aware that the great majority of the inhabitants of Northern Schleswig would have preferred to have remained in Denmark;

Actually, it was not that complex, I think, at least not at the beginning. In 1863, Denmark illegally adopted a joint constitution for Denmark AND all of Schleswig. This was completely in violation of international treaties in place that guaranteed the indivisibility of Schleswig and Holstein. That's what started the ball rolling, not Bismarck. Only the farthest northern parts of Schleswig were predominantly Danish, but the central and southern parts of the duchy were a vast majority of ethnic Germans who vehemently opposed this violaiton of their sovereighty.

The ensuing war cost about 3000 Dane lives and about 1000 German lives. In terms of wars, not too many casualites, especially at that time when medical care was limited. Again, though, this war was not a war for German unification. Very different.

So, it still seems fair to say that Bismarck's unification was effectively put in place without harm to life or limb. A truly great feat that has not been achieved in world history since.
Title: Re: End of the Monarchies
Post by: grandduchessella on February 11, 2008, 09:31:02 PM
The war with Austria came at a fairly high cost though. Just at the (decisive) battle of Koniggratz, (involving the largest number of combatants in Europe until that time), ended with an extremely high casualty rate. For the Prussians it was nearly 9,000 men killed, wounded or missing. The Austrians and thier allies had over 44,000 men killed, wounded or missing, with 22,000 of these being prisoners. What made the losses for the Austrians higher was that Austria had refused to sign the First Geneva Convention. Because of this, their medical personnel were regarded as combatants, and withdrew from the field with the main bulk of the forces, leaving wounded to die on the field. Battle after battle, regardless of the sides, ended up in bloodbaths for the Austrians--in some cases, whole battalions being lost. On the Austrian side, they often suffered 10 times the number of casualties as the Prussians. In one battle, they lost 3000 men in one hour. I think the final totals were about 71000 killed or wounded for the Austrians and their allies and  37000 for the Prussians and theirs.

This war (to go back to the main topic) effectively ended the monarchy in Hannover, which had sided with the Austrians. Not even the relationship between Hannover & England was enough to spare the King his throne. Those German states that sided with Austria included the Kingdoms of Saxony, Bavaria, Württemberg, and Hanover. Southern states such as, Baden (home of the Kaiser's son-in-law), Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Darmstadt (home of the Crown Princess's sister Alice), and Nassau as well as Saxe-Meiningen, Reuss-Greiz, and Schaumburg-Lippe also joined with Austria. Some of those siding with Prussia, included Mecklenburg-Schwerin (home of the Kaiser's brother-in-law), Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Anhalt, Brunswick, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Waldeck-Pyrmont.


For those interested in the topic, there's a book The Austro-Prussian War: Austria's War with Prussia and Italy in 1866. Blending military & social history, it basically breaks down the campaigns, battle by battle.