royal education?

[AqD]

If people truly want a better world, why not raise their kids the same way good kings and emperors were (supposed to be) brought up?


There are many different kinds, but to start from the simplest and obvious Cardinal virtues:

1. To be just: that is, no preference to families or friends. In fact, 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.

2. rest omitted since people would stop at 1


Merely teaching one of them would create a world without nepotism and injustice, and solve the worst of our structural problems.

But of course most of people couldn't do it, and they complain the world is ed up

Is there a compromise? I don't see it.

[Sar1n]

No friends, no family. The country is everything. Where did I hear that....oh, right, USSR, North Korea, CCP...

[Cyclops]

Sounds like a cult or a recipe for sociopathic children.

Our system assumes (and in fact mostly relies on) the fact that parents (especially mothers) will care for their children, directing more of their personal resources to their child. It sounds Utopian to raise children with no concept of family but instinct and deep ingrained cultural values means the only parents that could do that would be psychologically abnormal. Its highly probable a child raised in that way would also be abnormal, whether from its psychological needs not being met or by the example of undifferentiating parents.

[basics]

Our Queen Elizabeth is the perfect example of a monarch who loves both family and country.

[Cyclops]

Our Queen Elizabeth is the perfect example of a monarch who loves both family and country.

HRM is a fine monarch. IIRC she was educated to a secondary level by a private tutor (Google says he was a qualified teacher).

Her heir went to University ( I think he was the first in his dynasty to do so) and is apparently as arrogant as his father without Phil the Greek's common sense. His little brother give the appearance of a dishonest sex offender.

Royal (and noble) education in the past was often conducted by family, with private tutelage. The notion of being blessed individually by god as his appointed ruler on earth is to my mind a fairly bizarre one (most monarchs in the past ruled with divine assent but it was conditional I think as a sop to human decency) , and would probably require a carefully crafted method to produce a functional sociopath. outsiders coming into the Royal family often get broken, and if they criticise the family way they are forced out of the country.

[conon394]

1. To be just: that is, no preference to families or friends. In fact, 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.

Sounds like a putting faith in a manufactured sociopath. Even Plato with his philosopher Guardians creates a college of them so they would have a community.

---------------

HRM is a fine monarch. IIRC she was educated to a secondary level by a private tutor (Google says he was a qualified teacher).

Her heir went to University ( I think he was the first in his dynasty to do so) and is apparently as arrogant as his father without Phil the Greek's common sense. His little brother give the appearance of a dishonest sex offender.

ON the heirs typical problems with being born raised in immense privilege and wealth.

On the Current queen she has been quite successful in the role allotted to her one wonders if she have done as well in AD 1500.

[Heathen Hammer]

The reason why monarchies tend to outlast other forms of government has more to do with factors other then education. Obviously monarchs had access to best teachers and tutors, but the primary factor is that it was in monarchs personal interest to make sure that his nation is stable and people are happy. Those that did not didn't last that long.
However its different with republics and democracies, where there is no accountability for bad governing. Nothing really threatens a bad ruler in democracy, other then possibility of not being elected again. So accountability is a far bigger factor then education.

Our Queen Elizabeth is the perfect example of a monarch who loves both family and country.

She is nothing more then a decoration. My understanding is that British monarchs have power in theory, but I don't think there was a single instance of her using her power in any significant way. At this point Brits could call some cute animal or even an inanimate object as "monarch" and bow to that, since there'd be functionally no difference. UK is pretty much same banker/corporate oligarchy as the rest of the West otherwise.

[Cope]

ON the heirs typical problems with being born raised in immense privilege and wealth.

The Prince of Wales isn't as impressive as her Majesty, but I wouldn't describe him as "arrogant". York is 9th in line, and has largely withdrawn from public life. Cambridge will make a fine king, when the time comes.

On the Current queen she has been quite successful in the role allotted to her one wonders if she have done as well in AD 1500.

Her namesake who ruled in the 16th century was one of England's most successful monarchs.

[basics]

conon394,

Quote, " On the Current queen she has been quite successful in the role allotted to her one wonders if she have done as well in AD 1500."

Different times and different situations and both were successful in their tasks. And, both were/are devout Christian women.

[conon394]

Different times and different situations and both were successful in their tasks. And, both were/are devout Christian women.

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.

@Cope

Her namesake who ruled in the 16th century was one of England's most successful monarchs.

No really cope that was an Elisabeth the I and to think all requires is the right name to a good ruler in any time under any differing situations be being a real one or just being a rich Figure head

------------

The reason why monarchies tend to outlast other forms of government has more to do with factors other then education. Obviously monarchs had access to best teachers and tutors, but the primary factor is that it was in monarchs personal interest to make sure that his nation is stable and people are happy. Those that did not didn't last that long.
However its different with republics and democracies, where there is no accountability for bad governing. Nothing really threatens a bad ruler in democracy, other then possibility of not being elected again. So accountability is a far bigger factor then education.

That is basically logical gibberish

[Heathen Hammer]

That is basically logical gibberish

Gainsaying + no counter argument. Come on now. You can do better, champ. We believe in you.

[conon394]

OK we can repeat

The reason why monarchies tend to outlast other forms of government has more to do with factors other then education. Obviously monarchs had access to best teachers and tutors, but the primary factor is that it was in monarchs personal interest to make sure that his nation is stable and people are happy. Those that did not didn't last that long.
However its different with republics and democracies, where there is no accountability for bad governing. Nothing really threatens a bad ruler in democracy, other then possibility of not being elected again. So accountability is a far bigger factor then education.

OK than all you have is a statement with no actual support no evidence nothing. Find me some hard evidence on the comparative length of a monarchy vs republic or democracy and I actually care. You made the assertion so back it up.

[Heathen Hammer]

OK we can repeat



OK than all you have is a statement with no actual support no evidence nothing. Find me some hard evidence on the comparative length of a monarchy vs republic or democracy and I actually care. You made the assertion so back it up.

I dunno man, last time I checked on TV, monarchy is one of the oldest form of government, while the whole liberal democracy thing that we have is a few centuries old, so was Republic by the time Octavian saved Rome from collapse. Asking for "evidence' to objective commonly-recognized facts does seem to hint to the fact that you have no counter-argument other then vague gainsaying.

[fkizz]

OK we can repeat



OK than all you have is a statement with no actual support no evidence nothing. Find me some hard evidence on the comparative length of a monarchy vs republic or democracy and I actually care. You made the assertion so back it up.

Kinda kills the mood to demand evidence when there is presented zero willingness to show some of your own, and not even 1 counter point on your side. But up to you.

[conon394]

Kinda kills the mood to demand evidence when there is presented zero willingness to show some of your own, and not even 1 counter point on your side. But up to you.

Kinda kills the mood when Heathen Hammer just asserts stuff and never backs it up.

Saying Monarchy is saying nothing. What type of monarchy. Elective. Acclamation. Is he accounting for dynastic change which is rather not fun for the little folk often. And what British Monarchy given the original point of this. The one Harold died defending, the one William imposed or the just rich figure head for a Parliament that E2 is? The One that existed before Cromwell parted head from neck or the one after. Just saying monarchy glosses over a crap ton change and difference.

[Heathen Hammer]

Is he accounting for dynastic change which is rather not fun for the little folk often.

As per the evidence presented in another thread in EMM, that little folk in dynastic/absolute monarchies worked less and was taxed less then empowered modern wagies in liberal democracies, so I'm curious what evidence do you have for this assertion.

[conon394]

As per the evidence presented in another thread in EMM, that little folk in dynastic/absolute monarchies worked less and was taxed less then empowered modern wagies in liberal democracies, so I'm curious what evidence do you have for this assertion.

Yes I have been working on getting around to how silly your post and sources are there but sadly my wife is no longer at a University where I free ride here online resource access easily. Alow me to table this for say another 24 or so hours till I can dig up my partial my started replies replay and sources.

But still dodging. No data on defining you 'monarchy' and no comparative data on defining what length of rule is. One example would be nice.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes I have been working on getting around to how silly your post and sources are there but sadly my wife is no longer at a University where I free ride here online resource access easily. Alow me to table this for say another 24 or so hours till I can dig up my partial my started replies replay and sources.

So... first you gainsay by demanding "data", and when academically-cited evidence is presented to you, you declare it "silly" without providing neither counter-argument nor evidence of your own. Come on now, you can do better.

But still dodging. No data on defining you 'monarchy' and no comparative data on defining what length of rule is. One example would be nice.

What do you mean? You don't know what monarchy is? Like what, you don't know the definition? Why post in this thread if you literally just admitted that you don't know what the subject is even about?
Plenty of monarchies lasted for multiple centuries. No republic/democracy lasted for long periods of time (compared to monarchies), so there's your length of rule. I honestly don't understand what "data" do you need to acknowledge basic conventional facts of history, other then lazy and bad faith tactic to gainsay against an argument you can't counter.

[conon394]

So... first you gainsay by demanding "data", and when academically-cited evidence is presented to you, you declare it "silly" without providing neither counter-argument nor evidence of your own. Come on now, you can do better.

What do you mean? You don't know what monarchy is? Like what, you don't know the definition? Why post in this thread if you literally just admitted that you don't know what the subject is even about?
Plenty of monarchies lasted for multiple centuries. No republic/democracy lasted for long periods of time (compared to monarchies), so there's your length of rule. I honestly don't understand what "data" do you need to acknowledge basic conventional facts of history, other then lazy and bad faith tactic to gainsay against an argument you can't counter.

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

What do you mean? You don't know what monarchy is? Like what, you don't know the definition? Why post in this thread if you literally just admitted that you don't know what the subject is even about?
Plenty of monarchies lasted for multiple centuries. No republic/democracy lasted for long periods of time (compared to monarchies), so there's your length of rule. I honestly don't understand what "data" do you need to acknowledge basic conventional facts of history, other then lazy and bad faith tactic to gainsay against an argument you can't counter.

Have they really lasted for centuries. OK do me a favor and define the monarchy of England that should be simple enough.

[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

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?

Have they really lasted for centuries. OK do me a favor and define the monarchy of England that should be simple enough.

Monarchy is quite the conventional concept. Which parts of it are unclear to you?