140 replies to this topic

[light]

Why do you need a capable king in a constitutional monarchy? The best king in a constitutional monarchy is a person who'd do nothing. Then this begs question of why do we still need a monarch. Furthermore, why do we need to reverse the historical development?

We need a capable king in a constitutional monarchy because from time to time, the PM and his party will come and approach the king for advise..

Is there such a thing as a king in a CM that do nothing or a President in a republic that do nothing? This is the 1st time that I heard of such a thing..

If you look at today's so called Republic of China, you will realise that the President is still as powerful as the King in an autocratic dynasty. The only difference is that a King in a autocratic dynasty can kill whoever he wants and pass his throne to his son. The President can't kill anyone he wants but if he is powerful enough, he can still pass the President seat to his son..

So in this case, why not have a CM instead.

[light]

A Constitutional monarchy is another useless monarchy like England's and Japan's monarchy. There is little point in having a hereditary ruler who is powerless.

So you are saying that you want a CM with a ruler who is powerful?

In that case, there will be some crapsters who will say that the CM is a fake..it is a absolute monarchy(AM)..

[light]

One must note that in both cases, China still lacked a competent leader. Sun Zhongshan might have had a great vision and had the idealism to change over 2000 years of tradition, but he lacked the leadership qualities needed to lead a country, especially in times of peril. There is no person in my mind who could've lead the constitutional monachy either. I honestly believe that Mao was the best of all the people competing for leadership in China, and that the PRC was the best solution at the time.

Emperor Gunagxu!!!

[Ashura]

We need a capable king in a constitutional monarchy because from time to time, the PM and his party will come and approach the king for advise..

Is there such a thing as a king in a CM that do nothing or a President in a republic that do nothing? This is the 1st time that I heard of such a thing..

If you look at today's so called Republic of China, you will realise that the President is still as powerful as the King in an autocratic dynasty. The only difference is that a King in a autocratic dynasty can kill whoever he wants and pass his throne to his son. The President can't kill anyone he wants but if he is powerful enough, he can still pass the President seat to his son..

So in this case, why not have a CM instead.

Nope it is the other way around. In a constitutional monarchy, it is the monarch who asks the advise of the PM and the cabinet. A president in a republic has real power including the power to call an election, propose and veto law, appoint officials etc, whereas the monarch in a constitional monarchy doesn't.

If a monarch has power, then it is not constitional monarch anymore. And nope the president of China as of now is not powerful as an absolute monarch.

It would be interesting to know where did you get your ideas. I'd also to know would you like a third leg hanging on you body which can't move nor help you to move. Most sensible people would say no as they would also say no to restoring a constitutional monarch when it was demolished by the people at the first place.

[light]

Nope it is the other way around. In a constitutional monarchy, it is the monarch who asks the advise of the PM and the cabinet. A president in a republic has real power including the power to call an election, propose and veto law, appoint officials etc, whereas the monarch in a constitional monarchy doesn't.

If a monarch has power, then it is not constitional monarch anymore. And nope the president of China as of now is not powerful as an absolute monarch.

It would be interesting to know where did you get your ideas.

Why do you say the president of china is not powerful as an absolute monarch?

The president of china is the 1 making alot of decisions by himself..

You sure a president in a republic has real power?

You make a comparison between Lee Xian Long and S R Nathan and you will know who has the real power..

[Ashura]

Why do you say the president of china is not powerful as an absolute monarch?

The president of china is the 1 making alot of decisions by himself..

You sure a president in a republic has real power?

You make a comparison between Lee Xian Long and S R Nathan and you will know who has the real power..

This is fun.

1. President of China does not make all decision by himself. There is the poliburo, office of national affairs, various committees, the auditory, supreme court. What is president says is not automatically law, whereas the monarch in a monarchy is.

2. Let's see, presidents of the US leading the country to war, president of france signning treaties, president of Russia nominating judges.

3. why not make a comparison between president of US and monarch of UK or president of Russia to emperor of japan.

Let's retrack "The president of china is the 1 making alot of decisions by himself", say if he were, then what the hell is the use of a constitutional monarch? Just sitting on the throne? Say if he weren't then what the hell is the use of a constitutional monarch? Just sitting on the throne? Really, will it make a difference?

Better yet, let's say a constitutional monarch has some kind of power on par of a president of a normal republic, although by today's standard it will not be called a constitutional monarchy, then why do any people with the right mind want to make a life-termed hereditary royal throne all in a sudden? To create political turmoil for themselves maybe? Or do they just want the uncertainty that someday a nutjob will be on the throne and wonder what a jolly world it would be?

If you want to say that a president is same as a monarch then why change the name? Isn't that redundant? The gov't has too much time on its hands perhaps? Well then given the same logic why not all constitutional monarchs changes their titles to be president just to have some fun?

Please try to answer all the above questions.

[euarte]

During the late period of Qing dynasty, there was an attempted reform called "Wuxu" reform which attempted to model the government after that of Japan or England, where it became a constitutional monarchy. However, this attempt failed after Yuan Shikai betrayed Emperor Guangxu, and Empress Dowager Cixi had the gang of reformist executed and detained Emperor Guangxu.

Towards 1905, there were further attempt to try and make Qing a constitutional monarchy, but it was too late. By 1911, the revolution overthrew Qing dynasty and a republic was established by Sun Yat Sen.

Do you think republic was the inevitable process in chinese history? Which would you favour, a constitutional monarchy or a republic for China?

The only solution to keeping China together (less Tibet) after the fall or total collaspe of the Communist thugs is a Constitutional Monarchy. This is both romantic and politically sound.

The person chosen must be very intelligent and very charasmatic(?) so that all ethnic groups will be attracted to him/her and feel part of his mission. The mission obviously is to keep China whole and at peace within and without.

Most likely it would be best to have someone from the last dynasty chosen but any dynasty ancestry may work.

The chosen Emperor will deal with a PM as in UK. The first PM should be from one of the smaller ethnic goups so as not to scare the larger groups.

[Prince of the South]

The person chosen must be very intelligent and very charasmatic(?) so that all ethnic groups will be attracted to him/her and feel part of his mission. The mission obviously is to keep China whole and at peace within and without.

Sounds like a beauty contest....

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

Seriously, the concept of emperorship and royalty triggered negative connotations and memories for the Chinese, at least of this present age.

1. Emperors stereotypes are:

- tyrants (sounds like Idi Amin of the Republic of Uganda and Army Sergeant-turned-Emperor Bokassa of the Central African Empire)

- dictator (sounds Castro, the Kims of North Korea and the now dead Saddam)

- totalitarian, absolutism (sounds like Singapore)

- Promiscuous (sounds like Hollywood playboys and filthy rich kids - well stereotype anyway)

- indulge in debauchery and wanton life style (movie stars and rock stars?)

- demi-gods (quasi religious heads claim divinity, all over the world...and Mao Zedong? Kim Il-sung?)

You can find lots of parallels in today's world dominated by democracies - socialists or republics. And really don't see the difference, conceptually, of an emperor of China in days of yond and say Mao Zedong, of China. Because, in any case, Mao was as powerful, if not even more powerful, than most of the emperors. Is this exaggerating? Perhaps not, if you watched footage of Mao's funeral, and more specifically the legendary Kim Il-sung of North Korea. Was he the emperor of North Korea? No. But, it was amazing how he could virtually "control" the hearts and minds of the North Koreans. And you don't need to be an emperor nor royalty to do that today. I don't think any Korean emperors of the past had such powers Kim Il-sung and now his son Kim Jong-il have.

Edited by Prince of the South, 15 August 2007 - 09:40 PM.

[snowybeagle]

As long as we're fantasising here, allow me to share some thoughts on revival of antiquated political structures in modern China.

In the 22nd century, a rich China now wanted to indulge in rose-tinted views of its past, and sponsored revivals of nobilities and royalties, their existence albeit more for show than any real political power.

To allow all citizens to feel represented, each region is allowed through popular vote create its own house of royalty or nobility.

Wealthy citizens ran campaigns to be voted to gain the right to establish a nominal hereditary dynasty.

Anhui - Principality of Shang was established, based in Bozhou, after the ancient capital Bo (亳) of Shang during King Tang's of Shang era.

Fujian - Principality of Yue established.

Hebei - Grand Duchies of Yan, Zhao and Dai established.

Henan - Principality of Zhou, duchies of Wei and Liang established.

Hubei - Principality of Chu established.

Jiangsu - Principality of Wu established.

Shandong - Grand Duchy of Qi established, with a separate duchy in Qufu reserved for descendants of Confucious.

Shanxi - Grand Duchy of Jin established.

Shaanxi - Principality of Qin established.

Jilin - Khanate of Liao established.

Liaoning - Principality of Qing established, though the royal house could not re-occupy the former palace at Shenyang which was a state museum.

Sichuan - Principality of Han established.

Tibet - Theocracy established.

Inner Mongolia - 12 separate Khannates established.

Xinjiang - 7 separate Khannates established.

Of course, this list is far from complete. Several provinces and regions still not accounted for, and many historical dynasties and kingdoms not represented.

Apart from ceremonial roles and attracting tourists, there are little duties for these nominal rulers who enjoy an annual stipend equivalent of 0.01% of the revenue of their respective regions. Once in a while, they throw a royal wedding with white-horse-carriage processions to the delights of the female crowds, or a military march in historical costumes to the glee of hormonally-overcharged boys.

For that price, the people are happy, they get to enjoy rose-tinted nostalgia of their histories, benefit from tourist revenues. Nobody really recalled that the royalties in the past lived off the backs of commoners who had the status of chattels.

[thirdgumi]

Lol, I believe snowybeagle's idea is the most viable and profitable.

[snowybeagle]

Lol, I believe snowybeagle's idea is the most viable and profitable.

Thanks for the show of support.

Would you like to nominate your own regional (ceremonial) ruling house/institution?

[thirdgumi]

Thanks for the show of support.

Would you like to nominate your own regional (ceremonial) ruling house/institution?

Ok this is what I have in mind. The monarchs would be from entertainment business, like actors, singers, because they look good, they are presentable and they know how to entertain the people. About 0.01% of the revenue would be given to the monarchs, I'm thinking more like 0%, yes they would get nothing, since they are actors or singers they already have millions if not billions. And if they want some kind of honor guard in the old style and that would be a must if they want to have an image fitting to the kings, they have to pay from their own pockets. They don't need to have brains, since it's a constitutional monarchy, the power lies on the parliament, where ministers, people's representatives would administrate the country. The monarch's function would be like todays celebreties, like the Super Girls, to keep the true master of the country - the people - entertained, and attrac tourists to contribute to the country's economy (this idea of yours is brilliant).

As for the Zhejiang province, we would have the house of Wu and the monarch would be given the name Fu Chai and we would have a queen called Xi Shi, that would certainly be dramatical and get people entertained. And then we would have a daughter of some central plain royal house called Wang Zhaojun and would marry to one of the Khannates in Inner Mongolia. And we will have a daughter of house Wu of marry the king of Shu Han.

[daodaodao]

Nothing is inevitable. History is always shaped by contingencies and accidents.

Personally I reckon that the reform was mingled with the political struggle and power redistribution at that time, unfortunately. GuangXu was the nominal highest leader of China, and the Emproress still had the final say over everything. Kang and his fellows were too bold and did not deal with the power shift from Emperess to Guangxu cautiously enough, and lead to serious misunderstanding between the two, and that resulted in the tragedy, personal tragedy and also the nation's. A similar story happened again, when Liu Shao Qi was persecuted to death while waiting to take over the throne from Mao.

[Prince of the South]

Ok this is what I have in mind. The monarchs would be from entertainment business, like actors, singers, because they look good, they are presentable and they know how to entertain the people. About 0.01% of the revenue would be given to the monarchs, I'm thinking more like 0%, yes they would get nothing, since they are actors or singers they already have millions if not billions. And if they want some kind of honor guard in the old style and that would be a must if they want to have an image fitting to the kings, they have to pay from their own pockets. They don't need to have brains, since it's a constitutional monarchy, the power lies on the parliament, where ministers, people's representatives would administrate the country. The monarch's function would be like todays celebreties, like the Super Girls, to keep the true master of the country - the people - entertained, and attrac tourists to contribute to the country's economy (this idea of yours is brilliant).

As for the Zhejiang province, we would have the house of Wu and the monarch would be given the name Fu Chai and we would have a queen called Xi Shi, that would certainly be dramatical and get people entertained. And then we would have a daughter of some central plain royal house called Wang Zhaojun and would marry to one of the Khannates in Inner Mongolia. And we will have a daughter of house Wu of marry the king of Shu Han.

I think the nominee(s) should be chosen from a set of rules, not just having playboy become king (err what am i saying as history is full of such examples)

- have moral values
- well respected by the people
- are filthy rich (so tax money no need to go into support them, anyway they would have already taken money from the people)
- have vested power
- birth right and ancestry. so half chinese mixed with european, can, but father must be Chinese (need some control, right?)

And being King or Emperor is not a right but a privilege. If your dynasty produced useless descendants, they would be overthrown....

Edited by Prince of the South, 16 August 2007 - 09:14 PM.

[snowybeagle]

Fact is many modern royalties don't even fit this bill of yours.

- have moral values

Many royalties around the world today, especially princes, are well-known playboys.

- well respected by the people

How can we tell? Should there be a "do you respect this person" vote? If so, what's the cutoff point? 100%

- are filthy rich (so tax money no need to go into support them, anyway they would have already taken money from the people)

That's thirdgumi's idea, I support it too.

- have vested power

On what basis?

If the office is hereditary, then they are not subjected to election, and thus do not have mandate.
Vested power in the modern world, where democracy is important, requires periodic validation, usually through the poll.

- birth right and ancestry. so half chinese mixed with european, can, but father must be Chinese (need some control, right?)

Why? Why should the offspring of a non-Chinese father and Chinese princess be ineligible to succeed to the title?
That would be chauvinistic, not to mention racist, sexist, discriminatory against females.

If people still want monarchy in the modern world, then they have to be prepared to accept what comes may.
Their fair princess or idol of a prince might marry a foreigner, and the offsprings look more like the non-Chinese parent.

So far, I know of 1 Thai royal princess who married an American, and was practically disowned. She later divorced the guy, and is now back with the Thai royal family.

IIRC, there was also 1 Japanese imperial princess who was unmarried for many years, and it was quite difficult finding for her to find a husband who meet the strict criteria enforced by the Imperial Household Agency.

I really wondered what'd happen if she wanted to marry a non-Japanese.

And being King or Emperor is not a right but a privilege. If your dynasty produced useless descendants, they would be overthrown....

No need to be overthrown, just have a legislation to allow impeachment.