RateItAll.com - The Opinion Network
1) Find and share opinions on anything; 2) Publish your own ratings list and share it on any site; 3) Make a little money

Actions

Shop

Powered by Yahoo!
Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment (Overstock.com)$57.00
Down with the Crown: British Anti-Monarchism and Debates about Royalty Since 1790 (TextbookX.com)$67.95
Goong Vol.??1 Book (TopAnimeDVD)$9.31
Pretenders and Popular Monarchism in Early Modern Russia: The False Tsars of the Time and Troubles (TextbookX.com)$39.18
Pretenders and Popular Monarchism in Early Modern Russia: The False Tsars of the Time and Troubles (TextbookX.com)$49.95
Tags for Monarchism (Browse Tags)

Ratings Breakdown

  • 34
  • 21
  • 11
  • 3
  • 14

Hottest Topics

Hottest Weblists

Related Websites

Monarchism

Overall Rating:Average Rating (2.30) based on 83 ratings

Belief in or advocacy of a state ruled or headed by a monarch. (Add picture)

Your rating:     (Roll over your star rating, then click) (5=Great)
 
Notify me by email when someone comments on my review
Notify me by email when someone reviews this item
 

Reviews for Monarchism  1-20 OF 32  ( NEXT 20)

Browse next item:
Nationalism		 Sort items by:
REVIEWERREVIEWHELPFUL VOTES
GenghisTheHun (132)
01/13/2007
There are more than a few places in this old planet that need a king to hold the place together, and keep rapine and massacre to an acceptable minimum.

For instance, was Iran and Iraq better under the king or the shah as opposed to what they have now?

I wonder if the Russians think that they had a better deal under Stalin then they did under the Czar?		2
DrEntropy (30)
10/06/2006
Nearly the worst form of government, though an improvement on anarchy and not quite as bad as the short-lived experiments of Fascism and Communism and the current experiments in Islamic Theocracy. Nearly extinct (except in the neutered form of 'constitutional monarchy') except in Nepal (Maoist rebellion) Dubai (whose monarch is the richest man on earth, thanks to oil) Kuwait, the UAE (see Dubai), Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (where the alternative is civil war and/or fundamentalist theocracy).2
dreamer628 (0)
01/30/2006
The principle of monarchy in the modern world has nothing to do with divine right, it's about having an apolitical head of state who is able to represent the entire country and - most importantly - has been trained for his/her duty since birth, ensuring that they impart far more dignity and stability than any president ever could. Anyone doubting the value of monarchies to the world would do well to compare the success of the countries that have retained them as opposed to the countries that have abandoned them. With the exception of the USA and possibly EIRE, every single republic has been a notorious failure: Germany was a hugely successful empire until the fall of the monarchy, when recession and continued political failure led to the rise of national socialism. When the Russian empire fell look at what happened to their 'democratic republic' - and the half of Europe which suffered with them for half a century. Even since the fall of communism the Russian state has been a bit of a bad joke. France? The tyrannies of the Revolution were unequalled until the success of republicanism in Germany and Russia. Furthermore, their country has lost every major war disastrously since. Spain - highly successful under the monarchy, it descended into a terrible civil war without it. Italy has had an almost endless series of political crisis since the start of the present republic, and the same is true of Greece. Campuchea/Cambodia - all of its troubles started with the fall of the monarchy, and have ended since its reinstitution. Iran was a hugely successful beacon of tolerance until the revolution toppled the late Shah, leading to a destruction of its economy that it is only just starting to recover from, and the endless religious oppression and extremism that was the whole point of the Republic. China fell apart and lost up to 100 million lives following the fall of its monarchy and the inevitable civil war that follows republicanism. Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Poland, Bulgaria - well I could go on, but anyone can see for themselves - republicanism = almost inevitable disaster and tyranny. Now for some of the countries that have wisely retained their monarchies - these include almost all of the worlds most succesful countries: UK (since reinstitution-the English revolution led to such a political disaster the monarchy was reinstated within 11 years!), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Spain (since reinstitution), Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Thailand, Japan, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Monaco. If you really want to live somewhere where they don't have any monarchy go to Africa, where almost the entire continent is composed of republics, and has contained the most unstable, tyrannical, poverty and war sticken countries in the world. The two monarchies that it does have are Lesotho and Swaziland. As they've hardly had any major problems few have heard of them! The writers complaining that Monarchy is regarded as a better ideology than Communism and Fascism are overlooking the obvious: Monarchy has mostly been good for its countries and the world, whilst Communism and Fascism have destroyed them.1
Dwain (0)
10/31/2005
Awful, Monarchs should be stood up and shot on general principle.0
holcombe.jordan (0)
10/06/2005
pretty stupid, works better than anarchy though0
cstang57 (0)
07/30/2005
How is Monarchism rated higher than Marxism, Socialism and Communism? I think that's absolutely sickening to know that's how our uninformed country feels.1
tibokke (0)
07/15/2005
The best form of government for lots of thinkers in history and which proved useful until a bunch of jealous losers thought wise to get rid of it, like in France; the technocratic form of government that everyone seems to advance is that of the friends' friends who can get a job thanks to their connections with the rulers who themselves got their job thanks to their connections (often related to free masonry), elections have almost nothing to do with it. And after that, you think that monarchy is absolutist and undemocratic ? Hey, guess what ? In France, the King before he was toppled wanted to make reforms but he was prevented from doing so by those who were going to vote his death, the revolutionary who turned out to be much more merciless, stupid, undemocratic than any King in French history. The 1789 revolutionary removed the right to vote for the women and most of men (the poorest ones of course) for example, right that they had under the Kings. The propaganda around freedom brought by the revolution is just crap aimed at legitimizing the republic. republicanism has been a tradition in France since a little bit more than a century; compared with the more than 1000 years under the Kings who REALLY made France. Most presidents or prime ministers in the modern world are corrupted.1
Miss_Perverse (1)
06/15/2005
Some members of society treasure monarchies, admire them. I am not one of these people. I live in a country still under the rule of a monarchy, it doesn't please me much. Royals are concerted freeloaders. But apart from the money they absorb, they are relatively harmless nowadays (in westernised societies anyway). However there is something wrong with a system that promotes leaders simply for being born. 3
Deco354 (1)
05/03/2005
Why are monarchs superior beings to every1 else. They have no point to exist!0
THIRDPARTY (1)
04/24/2005
Naziism By Proxy, FANATICALLY ANTI REPUBLIC!0
buckynebulon (0)
02/14/2005
Take a good look at the monarchies of the world where the royal families still have REAL power, and see how those countries are doing in the realm of human rights, economic success, and personal freedoms. 1
Voon (0)
02/09/2005
Mob rule might be good for capitalists and those with no moral grounding or belief in anything greater than themselves. Republican forms of government are based upon selfish behavior and a complete disregard for anyone but oneself. Monarchism, on the other hand, has been a uniting force for the nations for which it has served, providing a common cause for which every person in that nation can strive. This has only been true in democracies when an extremely powerful or popular leader is in charge; and this often leads to fascism, which, despite the comments of some others here, has nothing whatever to recommend it.2
eleutheromaniac (0)
01/23/2005
Monarchism is really no different from reperesentative government: favouritism and nepotism rule.3
Raiffar Doremitzwr (0)
01/20/2005
Regardless of theoratical arguments for and against monarchism and other ideologies, monarchism has proved itself to be the most robust, effective and adaptable system of government yet devised - it's merit speaks for itself.2
Daccory (16)
10/31/2004
The Monarchy in Britain actually costs each person 2p a year (about 4cents)-Many people in countries who have no monarchies purport to being anti-Monarchist yet these are the ones that spend the most dollars coming to see them when the show is in town. Admittedly it's an anachronism but it works well as a system in that the Queen is a figurehead and supposedly can dissolve Government if it gets too big for its boots. It gives the impression of stability and continuance, above the actions of the Government of the day. Not that that has happened in a long while. I think she's more representative of the Commonwealth and sooner rather than later, as the EU becomes ever more integrated, Monarchy will be dissolved in all countries that have it. 1
owl1962 (0)
08/25/2004
It is 2004, folks. How anyone can cling to the idea that someone deserves an elevated status based solely on who is ancestors were is completely beyond my understanding.4
ANSGARD (0)
06/04/2004
It can be good....depending on the monarchy of course. Better than a communist goverment3
darick (3)
04/25/2004
Monarchism is essentially a democracy with a life-long figurehead family at the post which believes in 'divine right'. One monarch may also take a hold on more than one country (yes, more). The royal family cost taxpayers of both Australia and England a mouthful, tax which could be spent on more worthwhile things such as public healthcare or the economy. Any monarchy has young teenage kids that may make public headlines by doing something illegal just because they're 'royals', which is a huge embarrassment for any country under a monarch. It's saddens me that Australia would prefer a monarch to a republic. To me, the idea of monarchism is to gain fame by doing nothing. John Howard supports this form of government, which is cause for concern, especially as he is the PM of Australia. Republicism is better because the people can elect their ruler and there'll be no money wasted on royal visits and holidays and this other royalist stupidity. The bottom line: it's way past it and it's good for nothing more than tourism.2
Guava Monkey (2)
03/08/2004
Historically, monarchy has been a vile abberation based upon 'divine right', something which Elizabeth II of England has admitted to believing in. The history of European monarchs has largely been one of inbreeding, sadistic cruelty, insufferable greed, sexual perversion and egomania. Even worse than monarchies themselves are the inner circles of conniving advisors, courtiers etc who've used their royal connections for their own devious ends, and the great mass of idiotic sycophants who willingly swallow royalist propaganda hook line and sinker. That Britain still largely supports a high profile monarchy is a sad indictment of a country fast falling behind its European neighbours in nearly all areas. At least the Scandinavian and Dutch monarchies have low profiles and have dome away with the expensive and ridiculous pageantry exhibited in the UK in 2002.4
Nerokis (0)
01/21/2004
It sickens me that Monarchism is still a surviving ideology in this modern world. It sickens me even more that Monarchism is ranked higher on this site than Fascism (which at least had some redeeming values). Monarchist countries waste fortunes on keeping a few random, unworthy people surrounded by wealth and luxury. This wasted money could otherwise be spent on important things, like public health or education. Secondly, Monarchism advocates the most idiotic method of selecting national leaders imaginable. Any system that doesn't demand its leaders to have earned their power through their personal merits and the support of their people is just ridiculous and a waste of all our time. This ideology is flawed to the core, and allows for too many potentially disastrous scenarios. Monarchism [arguably] worked back in the days of Feudalism (an equally moronic concept), but is a pathetic idea in today's world.3
1-20 OF 32  ( NEXT 20) View All
Rate Monarchism on RateItAll.comView reviews for Monarchism on RateItAll.comRateItAll