royal education?

[basics]

conon394,

Quote, "Indifferent to that latter but still not seeing your point in the first. I share part of name with a famous and effective king of Poland at about the same time ~1500/1600. I rather good at my It work so I'm effective now. Don't mean I be a a good king of Poland back than." unquote.

The strength of a monarch particularly in these two women is that they stood for the Gospel and God blessed them for that. In other words God chose them to be there at a certain time in history. Elizabeth II is the head of some 54 countries that make up the Commonwealth of Nations some of whom were never part of our Empire. To her, duty comes before anything else and one can see that throughout her life.

[conon394]

Maybe you shouldn't engage with posts that you have to make excuses for not being able to provide a coherent counter-argument, let alone providing sources that would support it?

However it is annoying to have to asked to almost always with somebody whose MO is make an assertion and than demand prove otherwise.

Which parts of it are unclear to you?

The part were you answer a sumple quest please provide one concert example you feel proves the stability of monarchy vs a democracy/Republic and that shows a system of significantly great accountability to the 'people'. Just one is all I ask

[Heathen Hammer]

However is annoying to have to asked to almost always with sombody who MO is make an assertion and than prove otherwise.

I have trouble, um, understanding what you are even saying here.

The part were you answer a sumple quest please provide one concert example you feel proves the stability of monarchy vs a democracy/Republic and that shows a system of significantly great accountability to the 'people'. Just one is all I ask

So the fact that monarchies existed throughout whole of human history from early Neolithic civilizations to modern age, while democracies and republics are but brief footnotes in history isn't enough? My "evidence" is literally common conception of chronology and history. Its like asking for evidence that WW2 happened or that sky is blue.
You seem to bv awfully picky about sources for someone who hasn't really added anything to debate but vague gainsaying.

[conon394]

I have trouble, um, understanding what you are even saying here.

Edited indeed it was a bit garbled

So the fact that monarchies existed throughout whole of human history from early Neolithic civilizations to modern age, while democracies and republics are but brief footnotes in history isn't enough? My "evidence" is literally common conception of chronology and history. Its like asking for evidence that WW2 happened or that sky is blue.
You seem to bv awfully picky about sources for someone who hasn't really added anything to debate but vague gainsaying.

You are using a a generic term and asserting certain values to it. In its most broad sense monarchy is not some universal constant outside of one nominal ruler but how did that rule happens and to what end The monarchy of the UK in in 1900 is very much not same that William the conqueror imposed nor the Charles the I though to have nor the Harold was defending. Nor are the dynasties in between stable nor the care you suggest for people.

[basics]

conon394,

So what exactly is your point?

[Heathen Hammer]

Edited indeed it was a bit garbled



You are using a a generic term and asserting certain values to it. In its most broad sense monarchy is not some universal constant outside of one nominal ruler but how did that rule happens and to what end The monarchy of the UK in in 1900 is very much not same that William the conqueror imposed nor the Charles the I though to have nor the Harold was defending. Nor are the dynasties in between stable nor the care you suggest for people.

What do you mean? Europe was ruled by monarchies consistently until very recent in history. I mean you can make a weak semantic argument that obviously no state system remains the same over such a long period of time, but it still wouldn't change the fact that in the exact same way democracy has been a thing in Europe for barely a century, throughout which we've witnessed multiple massive wars, famines, and insane damage to our planet.

[antaeus]

What do you mean? Europe was ruled by monarchies consistently until very recent in history. I mean you can make a weak semantic argument that obviously no state system remains the same over such a long period of time, but it still wouldn't change the fact that in the exact same way democracy has been a thing in Europe for barely a century, throughout which we've witnessed multiple massive wars, famines, and insane damage to our planet.

I think what he means is that monarchies do not all function the same. In fact, there is such a difference in monarchical government types that it is intellectually silly to speak of them as such.

Speaking very broadly...

A high feudal monarchy of the late medieval period operates as a system of personal relationships within a highly decentralised authority structure - functionally the were managed through an ongoing set of loyalty negotiations that were unstable and shifting - the bureaucracy and machinery of government was decentralised and small. The king was the first warlord amongst many warlords - and was expected to personally embody those warlord strengths.

An absolutist monarchy of the early modern period has more in common with a modern dictatorship, they were highly centralised around the person of the king. There was an increasingly large centralised bureaucracy and the structure of government was stratified.

This is without even getting into the different economies of the two periods. Or discussing what monarchy was to a post-roman Saxon warband or the Chinese Emperor of the early 20th century.

So really the statement "I dunno man, last time I checked on TV, monarchy is one of the oldest form of government" is so simplistic as to almost be irrelevant in the discussion. Because the monarchy of 20th century UK is a completely different creature to the monarchy of Alaric I of the "Visigoths" in every possible way. The only similarity being that there is one person at the top. Because really, monarchy isn't one of the oldest forms of government - a single head of state is. Every other part of a monarchy changes constantly.

[Heathen Hammer]

Not all monarchies are the same, neither are democratic/republican and other non-aristocratic systems. Needless to say, monarchies of all kinds have existed for far longer then democracies/republics of all kinds. So now that we got that semantic nuance out of the way, we can go back to the fact that lack of accountability is a bigger factor behind monarchies outlasting non-aristocratic governments, then education.

[antaeus]

Not all monarchies are the same, neither are democratic/republican and other non-aristocratic systems. Needless to say, monarchies of all kinds have existed for far longer then democracies/republics of all kinds. So now that we got that semantic nuance out of the way, we can go back to the fact that lack of accountability is a bigger factor behind monarchies outlasting non-aristocratic governments, then education.

It's not semantic nuance.

By your definition, horses are better than cars because they've been around longer? You're making efficacy judgements on an idea because it evolved sooner. Which is silly.

Some monarchies are more different to each other than they are to republics or democracies. Some democracies are monarchies. Early modern monarchies were what we would think of today as dictatorships. Many dictatorships of today are what we would have called monarchies. Some modern dictatorships are hereditary. Some monarchies were elective. Some monarchs are bound by accountability to their people, or their councils of aristocrats, or modes of behaviour and are exceptionally fragile, many have strict protocols of behaviour based on religious norms. Some are absolute in every sense.

Monarchies haven't continually appeared because they are structurally more sound. They can rise and fall with the seasons and can be exceptionally frail - particularly if they gain their legitimacy from personal prestige. They continually appear because of the way people seek authority and legitimacy - somebody always wants to be the boss. And the loose definition of what a monarchy is allows us to lump all kinds of forms of leadership that source legitimacy from an individual into that pile. It is a myth that they are in any way long lasting because of some 'lack of accountability' when as mentioned, some monarchs are held to account in very personal ways that a democracy never could - and it can be a zero-sum game for them.

I know you're just looking for a quick throwaway label to make your quick throwaway point. But you're romanticising something that never existed. Unless you can define what a monarchy is for me other than the very loose definition I gave above... a form of government with a single head of state - the monarch?

This very loose definition allows us to make the point you're wanting to make... that a royal education isn't what this thread supposes it is. it doesn't even exist in the way the thread supposes. Except for one off individual situations with individual people.


In fact... ironically, I think the idea that raising our kids to be state focussed automatons as the OP suggests: "in their mind they shouldn't have any families or friends. They have the country (or the world), and treat everyone equally for the good of it." would probably make for great Soviet kids, or Nazi kids or what ever... because 'for the good of the country' is a dangerous concept indeed - probably one of the most dangerous concepts there is.

[basics]

Not all monarchies are the same, neither are democratic/republican and other non-aristocratic systems. Needless to say, monarchies of all kinds have existed for far longer then democracies/republics of all kinds. So now that we got that semantic nuance out of the way, we can go back to the fact that lack of accountability is a bigger factor behind monarchies outlasting non-aristocratic governments, then education.

Heathen Hammer,

The thing is that all monarchies are accountable to God, the One Who put them there. Some turned out to be bad and didn't last long whilst others being a little better lasted longer. Accountability rests on everyone ever born.

[Heathen Hammer]

It's not semantic nuance.

By your definition, horses are better than cars because they've been around longer? You're making efficacy judgements on an idea because it evolved sooner. Which is silly.

Some monarchies are more different to each other than they are to republics or democracies. Some democracies are monarchies. Early modern monarchies were what we would think of today as dictatorships. Many dictatorships of today are what we would have called monarchies. Some modern dictatorships are hereditary. Some monarchies were elective. Some monarchs are bound by accountability to their people, or their councils of aristocrats, or modes of behaviour and are exceptionally fragile, many have strict protocols of behaviour based on religious norms. Some are absolute in every sense.

Monarchies haven't continually appeared because they are structurally more sound. They can rise and fall with the seasons and can be exceptionally frail - particularly if they gain their legitimacy from personal prestige. They continually appear because of the way people seek authority and legitimacy - somebody always wants to be the boss. And the loose definition of what a monarchy is allows us to lump all kinds of forms of leadership that source legitimacy from an individual into that pile. It is a myth that they are in any way long lasting because of some 'lack of accountability' when as mentioned, some monarchs are held to account in very personal ways that a democracy never could - and it can be a zero-sum game for them.

I know you're just looking for a quick throwaway label to make your quick throwaway point. But you're romanticising something that never existed. Unless you can define what a monarchy is for me other than the very loose definition I gave above... a form of government with a single head of state - the monarch?

This very loose definition allows us to make the point you're wanting to make... that a royal education isn't what this thread supposes it is. it doesn't even exist in the way the thread supposes. Except for one off individual situations with individual people.


In fact... ironically, I think the idea that raising our kids to be state focussed automatons as the OP suggests: "in their mind they shouldn't have any families or friends. They have the country (or the world), and treat everyone equally for the good of it." would probably make for great Soviet kids, or Nazi kids or what ever... because 'for the good of the country' is a dangerous concept indeed - probably one of the most dangerous concepts there is.

I actually like your analogy - cars require a whole infrastructure to even turn on the engine, while all you need to maintain a horse is some forage and whatever horse grooming tools that were available to humanity for the past few thousands of years since we domesticated them.
Having said that the rest of your post sorta stopped making sense after that, nor does it address the fact that "there are many forms of that" is nothing but a nuance aimed at distracting from the main premise of the argument.
Accountability is the reason why monarchies outlast other forms of government, because in other ones, especially democratic ones, ruler is typically not held responsible for his actions, where maximum bad consequence for one only is not being appointed/elected, hence why lack of accountability is the real factor to why monarchy is superior to other forms of government, at least in as far as we can learn from history.
As for education - I'm pretty sure that most democratically elected rulers have very good education, growing up with silver spoon and everything, - which didn't stop most of them from being objectively abhorrent rulers.
So you argument makes very little sense when we try to apply it to real life.

[Prodromos]

Democracy is actually older than monarchy.

"When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then a gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty."

- John Ball, sermon at Blackheath during the Peasants' Revolt (12 June 1381)

[basics]

I suppose that the first kings came to power by being strong men within their areas of life, sometimes by way of the sword, even in some cases popularity, yet as I believe raised up by God to fill these positions. And so, the history of man evolves around these people, very few of whom have an unchanged line, if any. That said, I believe that God having no lineage to protect is the only real Monarch in being as only He has real Sovereign power to outlast anything that may oppose Him.

[conon394]

Accountability is the reason why monarchies outlast other forms of government, because in other ones, especially democratic ones, ruler is typically not held responsible for his actions, where maximum bad consequence for one only is not being appointed/elected, hence why lack of accountability is the real factor to why monarchy is superior to other forms of government, at least in as far as we can learn from history.

I still unclear where this imagined accountability of monarchies comes from.

[Heathen Hammer]

Democracy is actually older than monarchy.

According to a book on Canaanite mythology that this guy is referencing, that was written thousands of years after there were monarchies and aristocratic societies, yes.

I still unclear where this imagined accountability of monarchies comes from.

If you are monarch, you want your country to prosper, unless you want to end up like Bourbons or Romanovs.

[basics]

I still unclear where this imagined accountability of monarchies comes from.

conon394,

Of course you are simply because you really think there is no God to Whom you are accountable. God said that He raises up nations whilst destroying others and surely history confirms that?

[Cyclops]

Democracy is actually older than monarchy.

I think you mean aristocracy? In the Christian world view God is the only (monos) supreme ruler (archos). There is also an elevated group in the Bible, the sons of God, (including Noah's family) who mate with human women and the resultant grandsons of god are "mighty men...of renown".

In other myths monarchy (and possible an idea of a ruling caste) appears in writing before assemblies do: in Hesiod and Homer the creator Gods are ruled by a King, not a representative assembly. In the Iliad there is an assembly of soldiers who yell but the aristocrats keep them in line with abuse and the odd punch on the nose. I think it likely the systems co-evolved IRL though.

[conon394]

Of course you are simply because you really think there is no God to Whom you are accountable

Err no as I said before I'm agnostic. So far none have convinced me. Unfortunately and with no ill intent I do find your particularly version of Christianity very credible at all and not likely to get me off the fence. More or less as soon you assert the OT is literal truth you kinda lost the game for me since its clearly not.

[Heathen Hammer]

Dude I just said I was working on a formal reply but you know real life is a bit more important that posting here is not a job and I told you I don't the same access to sources I once so lay off. If I don't make good on that you call me on it forever

Since you said 24 hours, I feel like I was more then fair by giving you half of a week. So do you have any evidence for your prior claim that modern wagie does not, in fact, work more and taxed more then peasants in middle ages? Nobody will judge you if you just concede. At the end of the day, when I first found out about that, I had trouble believing it too, until it was fact-checked to be true by academic sources that I cited earlier.

[conon394]

Dude I doing my best but I need to follow up on the links in the sources you cited. I thought I'd have more time but hey real life is real f---ing life. I got to drive a kid both ways to school 30 miles away. My wife is traveling for work unexpectedly I got 2 other kids to mange who while self driving teenagers (remain teenagers so need management) also need to fed and hey I have to work. Nor do I have easy access to say online journals that I once did so stuck waiting till I work in time to parse out searches in google books or Amazon or to get to the right page or note or find time to again drive to the sub par Idaho State University Library. I concede nothing except admitting my time here is a hobby and not my only one so yes your will get you reply when I can produce it to a level I believe well researched and not before. When I made my first post I though my weekend would be free, it was not...

I mean really It took 2 years to gather a reply to Roma_Victrix in the VV on his Macedonian post such that I though would do it justice an be properly researched and I am still typing away one on Athens that is 3 months in the making (or more forgot when that thread started). So realistically Hammer when comes down to it making a Japanese dish for dinner with my kids and then playing pinochle kinda trumps my feeling on a need to hurry and respond to your rather weakly supported assertions.

Also note it does take more time than you think to find sources that are not behind a paywall. Sure you can do My JSTOR for 3-5 or papers a month but that means I need certain on which one to cite if I'm not being a jerk and citing something most people can only read an abstract of.