blah the Prussian

It makes sense that they were from Syria given that the Andalus royal family were exiles from the Syrian Umayyads.

The Head of State would be Queen Elizabeth II, in a similar role to the other Commonwealth Monarchies. The distinction would be rather thin when candidates would campaign (as they explicitly would) for how they would interpret the law, just as candidates for congress campaign for what laws they will support. A rhetorical one. It's the fault of politicians. How is the law not objective? How are elected experts better than appointed ones? That's assuming that the monarch agrees with one party fully, which probably won't be the case. I also think that if you pull shit like what Cruz did a few years back you deserve to lose power. I would, incidentally, support electoral reform for congress; we agree there. You also said you would support the people electing people for enforcement and interpretation.

No, it might as well not. There are multiple forms of Monarchical legitimacy; the one adopted by Constitutional Monarchies is the legalist version, i.e. that the monarch is the legal sovereign. Divine right in this day and age is not used by any Monarchies with the exception of the Islamic State and (if you squint) North Korea. It denotes a totalitarian form of Monarchy, and has real implications for the law. If it is as you say, and all Monarchies are divine right, then firstly, do you claim that it has a legal effect, and secondly, if not, so what? I am aware of what it means in theory. In practice, however, a separation of powers becomes completely pointless if you have them all elected, because the purpose of Separation of Powers is to prevent one faction from having all the power, not to do exactly what the people want. In my view, the ultimate sovereign should NOT be the people, it should be the law. Now, the people should be able to determine the law, but there is an important distinction: if you make the interpretation of the law up to the people, you destroy the law and in practice make the Republic a system where 51% of the people can rule. The law''s interpretation not being up to the people is the difference between rule of law and mob rule. And whose fault is that? I know. To illustrate my point, do we let the population as a whole vote in court cases? Of course not, instead we carefully screen the jury for biases. Similarly, we shouldn't elect judges to the Supreme Court because the interpretation of the law, as before, is objective. Subjective should be up to the people, objective should be up to experts, basically. Executive, you mean. Letting the monarch break parliamentary deadlocks would not only ensure that something would be done to solve the problem, it would also incentivize politicians to work towards a compromise lest they lose their power to the monarch. The people create laws, and they don't enforce or interpret them, because if the people don't have to abide by the law (by way of electing judges that bypass them) then you have tyranny of the majority. Simple. Maybe; this also brings up an important point that both branches should still be accountable. With enough public support, the monarch could be forced to abdicate (and replaced by their heir, NOT A REPUBLIC) and judges should be forced to step down. I haven't ironed out the details of course, and this is by no means complete, so don't treat it as such.

You can have both. Civil disobedience, even of the violent variety, should include accepting one's punishment. In that way, a protest is held while rule of law is maintained. If you want to protest an unjust law, go right ahead, but a vital part of any successful civil disobedience campaign is the part where the rebels surrender to authorities.

Ah, see, I'm a legalist. I think that, even if a law is bad, it should be changed and enforced until then. Saying that only the laws that we like are on the books opens up a massive can of worms. And also, what would replace private property laws? Obviously we can't have people smashing other people's stuff.

Is this morally, or legally? Do you accept the need to enforce the law in this case?

@Radiant head, question, as I'm curious: do you think that the rioters should be made to pay for the,property they destroy (assuming that it's proven, of course)?

Eh, alternate history Islamic China.

It's over, Ummayads! I have the high ground! Also, I always thought Alladin took place in Central Asia, like maybe Samarkand.

That, sir, is a generalization. I don't think violence is justified here, and I think that the US should get out of the Middle East, and the police need to be reformed. At the very least, I would like Antifa more if they spent more time actually punching Nazis and less smashing windows.

Oh, I'm not saying that people should never be violent, but people have to have a plan for when they stop being violent. I don't like Antifa's plan.

Let's be clear here: to compare Antifa to Liberals is flawed. Antifa are not crypto-communists, they ARE Communists, and they've been doing this for a long time. Basically, sooner or later mainstream Liberals will realize that Antifa are edgelord Anarchist jackasses and disown them. Advocating for them is due to ignorance, not malice.

Eh, you're probably right. I guess I'm just pointing out a character I like whose motivation is at first revenge, but I like his character because it stops being revenge. He does have an arc for that, but, yeah, it's not letting go of revenge, it's constructing a new identity after said revenge is achieved.

Meh, Queen Elisabeth I is superior, for being just as adorable and actually doing shit instead of bitching about how Franz Joseph never paid attention to her when he was working his ass off to keep Austria-Hungary from falling apart. Not a fan.

One revenge plot I've seen that's been done extremely well is Reinhard von Lohengramm in Legend of the Galactic Heroes. He starts out wanting revenge on the nobility for basically raping his older sister, but as time goes on he realizes that, as he is now leader of the Galactic Empire, he has a responsibility beyond revenge; a responsibility to actually rule. It works very well, although it might not count because the whole point of the arc is letting go of revenge.

Please, Eleanor of Aquitaine beats them all, followed closely by Elvis. Don't forget Elmer Fudd, he's pretty great. Eldin Volcano is a veritable god among natural formations. Eleftherios Venizelos is easily the most adorable of Greek Prime Ministers. How about Elisa Bonaparte, Napoleon's sister? Elder Gods in general are pretty cute, too. Elrond is one of the most adorable elf kings out there! And who could forget Elena Ceausescu, quite adorable for the wife of a horrific authoritarian Communist strongman. Your list is clearly incomplete.

Fine. How would this work? Also, for the love of God how many times do I have to say I don't favor divine right for you to stop strawmanning? True Separation of Powers is when you have a system in place to ensure that the same group doesn't come to power in all three branches. As we see in the US, it's very easy to bypass the Legislative Branch as President when they'll vote for what you want. I am not worried about a single branch getting too powerful, I'm worried about the ELECTORATE being bad. In the French First Republic, for example, because there was no real separation of powers, there wasn't anything stopping the Jacobins from passing universal conscription, and eventually the Reign of Terror. That's like saying the people don't make decisions in the US because they elect representatives. Colloquial English spoken here. Basically, when people elect politicians, they're electing them based on ideas, which are subjective. Competence, however, is objective, and if people were to elect judges into the Supreme Court, the conversation would be entirely about their policies, which shouldn't be a factor. I mean as one of the reasons why people vote for a politician is due to who they might appoint to the Supreme Court. See, I would have the Monarch propose a nominee, and then the Senate can deny it; if they don't, the nomination passes. Well, then what are you advocating? If you put the power to essentially bypass the Constitution in the hands of the same people who are likely to try to do just that, what precisely do you expect to happen? US de facto doesn't have Separation of Powers because an elected official appoints the Supreme Court, thus in practice a party can get absolute power.

That can still exist under a Monarchy, you know. Basically, you can have the Legislative Branch elected however you want. However, a Republic ultimately means giving absolute power to the 51%.

I'm not defending divine right. I also don't think Louis XIV actually believed that God appointed him to govern. It was necessary as propaganda, giving legal basis for the King to strip the nobles of their power, and its adoption across Europe laid the groundwork for Enlightened Absolutism and the final end of Feudalism. This didnt happen in France because Louis XV was a moron, but it happened everywhere else. It was an important step with the bottom line being the centralization of power, and a step in the direction of the modern nation state. Also, fuck, brainfarted with the Pharaohs. So do you claim, then, that people were not poor in the pre-civilization period, i.e. the Paleolithic? I mean, I suppose if everyone has a little, then you're rich if you have anything, but I would rather live in a (theoretical, no nation has this really) country where the rich have trillions of dollars, so long as the poor are cared for and no one is impoverished. And Ancient Monarchy as a concept was extremely divorced from modern monarchy. The idea evolved, as all do. Constitutional Monarchy and Modern Republicanism have less than a century separating them, if those are what we'll be comparing. It's not that power should be based on families, but more that one branch of government shouldn't be tied to elections. I believe that a Monarchy is the best way of getting that, but I'm open to suggestions. As I stated before, it is impossible to achieve Separation of Powers when the same electorate elects two branches, and the third is under the control of one of the elected branches. So there's my justification. So, care to refute that, using reasoning beyond the circular argument that we need more democracy because the people should have the power?

So, okay, I have outlined what purpose a monarch can serve in a modern society. Care to rebut that? Divine Right was devised by monarchs as a means of moving away from the Feudal System. Monarchs under Feudalism got their legitimacy from their ability to provide protection to their noble's, who would in turn provide protection for the Serfs. Divine Right was conceived by Louis XIV as an alternative means of legitimacy to justify stripping the nobility of more and more power. Now, I'm not advocating for divine right as a system of legitimacy, but it was a system of legitimacy tied with moving away from Feudalism, not with perpetuating it. I'll also point you towards the Enlightened Absolutism movement, which (when it was actually implemented) entailed moving entirely away from Feudalism. To do that, though, you have to have a Monarch with the legal ability to end Feudalism, which, before divine right, did not exist. And yes, I suppose the state does theoretically protect the interests of the ruling class, but I'll take a more idealistic view of it and say that the state protects people as a whole (when functioning properly) and the ruling class most of all as a byproduct of them having the most stuff. Serious question: do you genuinely think it will be good for poor people if the state were to no longer exist? There's that word again, archaic. Never mind that legally enshrined democracy actually came into being at a similar time to legally enshrined hereditary monarchy (and both before the birth of Christ), but I feel that if we're going to have a logical fallacy for saying something is good because it's old, we should have one for saying something is bad because it's old. Also, tell me where I supported taking away the people's right to self govern.

I don't know, Monarchies did a pretty good job of surviving Bourgeoisie Revolutions in England, in Spain (okay, there was a Socialist Revolution after that the Monarchy didn't survive, but then it came back), and that isn't mentioning the Monarchies that simply naturally and gradually reformed. The sovereignty of the ruled, meanwhile, is no more or less legitimate than the sovereignty of anything else. In my view, moral legitimacy does not come into any question of rulership, because a government is fundamentally immoral; that is the tradeoff. Note, however, that I stated rather explicitly that democracy has a very clear place. My philosophy is that government is based around what works, not is moral. Also, Elective Monarchy is complete crap.

I feel like the default personality is fine in general. If I were to make two changes, I would firstly make being good at strategy an explicit part of their personality; have them be smart, make them leading a small country to victory against a massive enemy believable. Don't make it over the top like Ephraim, but also don't make it "oh my God, how do they still have an army" like Corrin, either. I'd also like to see someone a bit like Sanaki; on the one hand, make them a bit of a snob, a stickler for tradition, who does demand respect (but still likable); they take their feudal obligation seriously, and will fuck you up if you mess with their people, but they also take their feudal rights, their rights to authority, seriously.

But, again that's not true separation of powers, and having SCOTUS elected would be a disaster for other reasons. The Supreme Court are about making decisions on the Constitution. The people should have the right to change the Constitution, but not make decisions based on it. We already have Supreme Court appointments being a political issue as is; do you really want elections where candidates can promise what parts of the Constitution they'll ignore? My perspective is that democracy is not an end goal, it is just another form of government leading to good governance. I think history has shown that it overall has the best track record, but not when the power of the people is unlimited. If you have all three branches of government directly elected by the people, you remove what little separation of powers America has left.

Monarchy absolutely does not equal feudalism, any more than free healthcare equals Totalitarian Communism. I've always been confused by people viewing Republicanism as more modern than Monarchies when Republics existed at the same time as Monarchies, and both predate Feudalism. And yes, I agree we need better democracy, i.e. Constitutional Monarchy. More... nah. The goal should be separation of powers, which is impossible when the same electorate is electing multiple branches.