4 ms·

It seems to me the only reason to remember the Mayerling incident is the role it played in the start of WWI and even then how significant that was could be que

It seems to me the only reason to remember the Mayerling incident is the role it played in the start of WWI and even then how significant that was could be questioned. The death of Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria, who had no heir, meant that the direct line of succession to the from the then emperor Franz Joseph was broken. The line to Austro-Hungarian throne then fell to the son of Franz Joseph's brother, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914 by Gavrilo Princip, a Yugoslav nationalist. The archduke's assassination then led to the 'crisis' that precipitated the First World War. Whilst the chain of events from Prince Rudolf's death 25 years earlier to WWI is likely tenuous it nevertheless does highlight the fact that the inbred and largely incompetent European monarchies were incapable of resolving the serious diplomatic issues that arose from the 'crisis', this then led to war. If any good could be said to arise from WWI then it seems that the demise of many of these monarchies is one of them albeit that the benefit from losing them wouldn't be felt until some 30 years later after WWII. My personal opinion is that monarchy and modern democracy are essentially incompatible.

anovikov 5y ago
Big question now, whether democracies are capable of long-term survival or not? So far we only had examples in either essentially, island nations (U.S. can be counted as such too: it doesn't have neighbours to speak of), or preserved by external military force. I don't think any democracies apart from UK (island) could sustain themselves in Europe if not American military "assistance". And now it becomes questionable if democracies are beneficial at all even if they can survive. It's more and more apparent that objective interests of the people (electoral mass, the numerical majority) is at odds with the objective interests of nations themselves. Choice increasingly seems to be between abolishing democracy (China), or washing it out till it becomes just a formal paperwork thing (Russia), or just slowly but inevitably declining into obscurity, irrelevance and civilisational dead end (Western Europe). Worst thing is that none of these paths is attractive to the actual people, yet one of them seems to be inevitable. Best i can hope for is that democracy survives in some rich island nations, funded by rich people who ran away from rise of dictatorships or collapse of societies in their country, and paid for by the money derived from them.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  This is a little over the top, I'd say. Canada and Mexico are large nations. They just are mostly not in conflict with the US. And Western Europe declining somewhat in relative influence is not a cataclysmic thing. I would say the aggressiveness of totalitarianism at the moment is not evidence of its superiority as a political system as much as of anxiety about retaining power. The problem with democracies is a problem with propaganda. The larger a prize the democracy is the more it is riven by propaganda.
- vkou 5y ago
  > I don't think any democracies apart from UK (island) could sustain themselves in Europe if not American military "assistance". France has nuclear weapons. That's pretty much a conversation ender when it comes to sustaining your territorial integrity. And the EU adding an extra percent... or two of GDP on military spending is all it would take to not be reliant on that "assistance". It doesn't do it because it doesn't have to. Why waste money when someone else is happy to do so for you? Sure, someone like Finland is a bit of a precarious position, but its a bit of an outlier among European nations. The main enemies to democracy are not without - they are within. In the United States, for instance, some of the most prominent ones are 147 congressmen. [1] You can't defend against internal enemies with an army or a navy. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/...
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > And the EU adding an extra 1% of GDP on military spending is all it would take to not be reliant on that "assistance". NATO countries are supposed to do that anyway, as part of their commitment to the organization. They've been ignoring that for a long time and simply expecting the U.S. to pick up the slack.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "Big question now, whether democracies are capable of long-term survival or not?" Right. This question has troubled presumably many others and me for years and unfortunately, I am inclined to agree with your assessment (inasmuch as I have gained from my perception of how modern democracies have functioned—or should I say failed to function—in recent decades). These matters are complex, so at the risk of misinterpretation through oversimplification I'll keep this to just a few general points (there are of course many more): • Assuming that democracy represents the view of the majority of citizens then its actions ought to reflect the will of the majority of its citizens. Unfortunately, this is rarely if ever true as those who obtain power are usually in a privileged position (having access to electoral funds, easy access to media, etc.). Moreover, the question of their motives for seeking office also arises (even when ethical, pragmatism often rules the day thus ethics are compromised). • Even when democracy is truly representative of the majority then two significant issues remain. The first is that the wishes of the minority remain unfulfilled and the second is that no matter how hard a democracy tries, its ability to resolve problems at the level of individual citizens remains strictly limited. Therefore, democracy is a blunt instrument—that is, through practical necessity, it governs at a granularity above that of individual citizens and thus cannot satisfy the wishes of individual citizens in a fulfilling way. (Perhaps I should express that more in terms of the utilitarian concept of the greatest good for the greatest number (as per Priestley, Bentham, Mill etc.), but then that doesn't fully articulate what I mean (as I'll explain). • Perhaps rather delving into political theory an example would provide the quickest explanation (I've used this case previously on HN to illustrate the point but it's only one of many, many similar instances). Take the issue of copyright law reform. Whilst concept of copyright has been around since the Statute of Anne in the early 18th Century, it didn't really come of age until the Berne International Copyright Convention of 1886 which came into being at the instigation of high-profile authors such as Victor Hugo. Significantly, the Convention provided for international recognition of copyright, more specifically its ability to be enforced across all signatory countries. (Whilst the undisputed necessity of copyright law, both the 1886 Convention and essentially all copyright laws in all signatory countries since then have been made at the request of (mostly powerful) copyright holders—and not in the name of the great unwashed masses, in effect, they have been grossly underrepresented throughout the history of copyright law.) Initially, copyright was essentially irrelevant to the average citizen, for even if an individual had wanted to violate copyright then he or she would not have had the practical—the extensive technical means to do so. However, some 80 or so years later in the 1960s that situation changed significantly with the development of the photocopiers and then again with the advent of digital technologies 20 or so years later. To cut it short, here are just a few of the many issues: - As copyright was essentially irrelevant to the average citizen at the time of the Berne Convention, there was no effective opposition to the arguments put by the authors, they therefore won the day by default and as a consequence of their success (in gaining the international treaty) their newly-found status further entrenched their position as it effectively 'legitimized' their claims in full whether they were deserved or not, thus their view of copyright has overwhelmingly dominated the progression of copyright law ever since. - Due to entrenched international law, reforming copyright law at a national level to benefit ordinary citizens has proved nigh on impossible. On the other hand, copyright owners have been spectacularly successful in further strengthening these laws to benefit themselves at the almost total exclusion of ordinary citizens. - Here, one must question whether ordinary citizens have a legitimate moral case for copyright reform or not and on the balance of evidence, it is very hard to argue that they do not. Clearly, I cannot argue the case here other than to mention a few of the more notable issues. For instance, abuse of the fair use principle by rights holders; copyright law fails to take into account that rights holders were mainly educated at the public's expense and thus have some moral obligation to the public; the ever-increasing (and unreasonable) duration of copyright and the perpetuation of copyrights for orphan works with the principal aim of making them generally inaccessible (the purpose of eliminating public domain access to such works being deliberate in that if readily accessible and free then they would contribute additional competition to extant works, etc.—thus further strengthening rights holders' monopoly). Obviously, the issue is that a privileged section of society has used both local law and international treaties (including WIPO etc.) to its enormous advantage and that it has done so in ways that democracies have been unable to resolve in any fair and equitable way (the fact is democracies simply do not have any effective wherewithal to do so). The trouble is that the small but significant numbers of citizens who have been disenfranchised are well aware that their governments have failed them (a) in that they have not managed to achieve any reform, and (b), despite their just cause; they further realize the almost total futility of trying to fight for reform due to their small numbers, especially so in the light of entrenched, politically powerful, opposition. What's at stake here is a more general issue, which is that democracies are essentially incapable of resolving legitimate issues for people who do not have sufficient numbers for them to be politically significant (although important, in the grand scheme of things, copyright is essentially a non-issue and the pragmatics of politics mean that it can be ignored—except for when the politically powerful are able to thrust it to the fore). Thus any such cause, whether legitimate of not, will languish especially so if its opponents come from a position of strength (which is often gained by virtue of their previous [institutional] success). Now, multiply this disgruntlement and discontent across many other similar causes then we have a first-class recipe for weakening democracy—especially so in an era when such disparities become ever increasingly obvious due to improving communications. Add to this the sudden rise of identity politics. Whether one considers its rise as beneficial or not is not the argument here, what is important is that it flies in the face of the more utilitarian/universal nature of democracy. Unlike causes such as copyright reform, identity politics has actually gathered considerable support due to society's increasing emphasis on a self-righteous individuality—in essence, the importance of one's subservience and acceptance of a common narrative for the greater good of everyone has diminished greatly in recent years. Thus, as far as democracy is concerned, the parable of The Man, the Boy and the Donkey seems more poignant than ever—that is whenever democracy 'tries to please all then it pleases none'. Of course, there is much more to such discussion that cannot be covered here such the failure of both governments and capitalism to ensure reasonable equity for citizens including the ever-increasing disparity in wealth amongst citizens etc. As you say there are alternatives but that none of them is likely to be attractive to the citizenry. I would also add that whilst any significant amount of discontent persists with any alternative model then it too would eventually fail. Perhaps in some hypothetical world a benevolent dictator whose powers extended to the minutiae—that of resolving problems at the level of individuals—may work. But then, this isn't even a sensible notion whilst human beings continue to embrace notions of free will. Such concepts are a non sequitur.
eadmund 5y ago
> the inbred and largely incompetent European monarchies were incapable of resolving the serious diplomatic issues that arose from the 'crisis', this then led to war I don't agree: the issue was less the monarchs and more the democrats. Even the supposed autocracies like Germany had a significant and influential democratic component. In an earlier era, I think it likely that monarchs would have sued for peace once the lines settled down, but in the modern era of mass newspapers and relatively large suffrage, they were constrained by popular sentiment and had no choice but to continue what was largely a hopeless conflict. And it really was hopeless, a stupendous expenditure of blood and gold for basically even odds of winning for any participant. > My personal opinion is that monarchy and modern democracy are essentially incompatible. I don't really care what the form of government is, so long as it preserves its citizens' liberties. I think that there is something admirable about the governments of the U.K., the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway &c. (and yes, they are all very different); France, Germany and Italy could plausibly benefit from their example.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "I think that there is something admirable about the governments of the U.K. <...>; France, Germany and Italy could plausibly benefit from their example." I don't disagree with your assessment but ultimately the writing is on the wall for monarchy (as, on average, the powers of monarchies have been atrophying steadily over the last few centuries and there's no sign of any letup). Much of monarchy's current appeal in countries that still possess monarchies and the concomitant [apparent] stability of their political systems comes from both nostalgia and a reticence to change (given historical circumstances, such views are hardly surprising, especially so in countries with a long and illustrious historical (monarchical) lineage). One wonders how, say, the U.K. would survive in a cultural sense if its monarchy were to be suddenly abolished. After all, its cultural heritage is extremely important to a huge number of its citizens, especially so given its loss of empire (from which the country has been smarting badly ever since WWI and especially so since WWII when in the wake of the War the country suffered significant loss of power and prestige on the international stage). Nothing could have made this more obvious than The Suez Crisis of 1956 when on the world stage the U.K. looked like a petulant brat sans any diplomatic experience (one even cringes when thinking about what happened). Whilst the U.K. has largely recovered from this hugely embarrassing incident and that it's largely forgotten by many of its citizens (likely because of its embarrassment), it nevertheless only ever achieved a partial recovery in status. (The evidence for the decline in power and influence of monarchies is reasonably solid. One cannot forget that monarchical power was once essentially absolute but these days (fortunately) it's only a shadows of its former self. It's impossible to put aside or forget the maniacal malevolence of Henry VIII or say the utter hatred George IV's subjects had for him. The fact is that whilst the monarchy represents stability in some countries it doesn't necessarily follow that it will always stay that way (and as we've seen with pre-WWI European monarchies, Hapsburg, etc., situations can change dramatically in just the spur of a moment). I'm not condoning such rapid political change, as it inevitably comes with considerable dangers as witnessed by, say, the French Revolution. Arguably, the Reign of Terror - la Terreur - that followed the French Revolution and the beginning of the First Republic has few equals in modern history with respect to its sheer brutality and its effects have been very long lasting indeed (as my French relatives keep telling me and demonstrating the fact with any number of present-day instances). Thus, in this regard, your comment about France, etc. plausibly benefiting from the example is rather apt; nevertheless, I don't see that detracting from my argument (as it's a separate issue). That said, the English were hardly any better, it's just that they started earlier. The Battle of Towton in 1461 during The War of the Roses, is almost unbeatable for sheer violence and utter brutality (although it's not alone with such a reputation): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton. I mention this and hold my views about monarchy not from any gloating republican perspective—in fact far from it—but rather from evidence that supports the position that monarchies are in decline. Of course, many could or would contend that I could be just saying this and that in fact I'm a diehard republican at heart—and I acknowledge that it would be difficult for me to disprove the fact. In my defense, I can only state that I'm from a Commonwealth country (Australia) and that I've U.K. parentage. Moreover, the fact that I'm still in possession of souvenirs of QE II's coronation that were given to all of us children when we were in infants school signifies its importance during my early formative years (yes, the propaganda began early and it was very effective; back then we kids had no doubt that the U.K. was the greatest country on the planet—even though it wasn't our native homeland)! Here's a reference to one of those souvenirs: https://picclick.ca/1953-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Coronation-Memento-Booklet-Pamphlet-154833726259.html https://picclick.ca/1953-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Coronation-Memen..., the other one I've not yet found any reference to but it was about the Crown Jewels and described the various items that comprised the collection together with an explanation about each (the meaning of the different crowns, sceptres, maces, etc.). Incidentally, given the once ubiquity of these brochures in that they spanned multiple Commonwealth countries, I'm somewhat surprised how hard it was to find any reference to them on the internet.
PicassoCTs 5y ago
This assumes, that the crisis was perceived as one and not just as a chance to send the lower-classes into a meat-grinder, stabilizing the regimes by creating a external threat. These people were not very well informed about the changes technology was about to inflict on warfare. The american-civil-war was far away - the last war in living memory was a "smashing success" for those starting WW1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars There were no nuclear weapons to be feared and unions/socialism to be silenced and demands for shared power by the growing industrial bourgeoisie to be ignored.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "These people were not very well informed about the changes technology was about to inflict on warfare." It's hard to say how accurate that statement is but in all probability much of it is likely true. However, any reasonably well educated person of the day would have been well aware of the new highly industrialized nature of warfare from both the Crimean War and the American Civil War, both of which represented a new kind of 'advanced' warfare (especially so the American Civil War). Moreover, it wouldn't have been difficult to project that new developments made in the intervening 50 or so years since the Civil War, would likely make warfare considerably worse. Right, 50 years is sufficient time to forget a war but nevertheless many veterans of the Civil War were still alive at outset of WWI. (Remember, Buster Keaton's Civil War film of 1926, The General failed to gain universal popularity as it was perceived by the many Civil War veterans who were still alive as biased in that it told the War from the South's perspective.) This 'corporate' memory should have had a substantial effect in preventing war but clearly its effects weren't nearly enough. No doubt you're correct when it comes to considering the less well educated. However—as with many wars—I'd maintain that whilst they didn't actually start the war, that national hubris combined with young male bravado played an important if not overwhelming role in perpetuating it, especially so at War's outbreak before the grim and tragic reality of the trenches became fully apparent.

anovikov 5y ago

Big question now, whether democracies are capable of long-term survival or not? So far we only had examples in either essentially, island nations (U.S. can be counted as such too: it doesn't have neighbours to speak of), or preserved by external military force. I don't think any democracies apart from UK (island) could sustain themselves in Europe if not American military "assistance". And now it becomes questionable if democracies are beneficial at all even if they can survive. It's more and more apparent that objective interests of the people (electoral mass, the numerical majority) is at odds with the objective interests of nations themselves. Choice increasingly seems to be between abolishing democracy (China), or washing it out till it becomes just a formal paperwork thing (Russia), or just slowly but inevitably declining into obscurity, irrelevance and civilisational dead end (Western Europe). Worst thing is that none of these paths is attractive to the actual people, yet one of them seems to be inevitable. Best i can hope for is that democracy survives in some rich island nations, funded by rich people who ran away from rise of dictatorships or collapse of societies in their country, and paid for by the money derived from them.

DFHippie 5y ago
This is a little over the top, I'd say. Canada and Mexico are large nations. They just are mostly not in conflict with the US. And Western Europe declining somewhat in relative influence is not a cataclysmic thing. I would say the aggressiveness of totalitarianism at the moment is not evidence of its superiority as a political system as much as of anxiety about retaining power. The problem with democracies is a problem with propaganda. The larger a prize the democracy is the more it is riven by propaganda.
vkou 5y ago
> I don't think any democracies apart from UK (island) could sustain themselves in Europe if not American military "assistance". France has nuclear weapons. That's pretty much a conversation ender when it comes to sustaining your territorial integrity. And the EU adding an extra percent... or two of GDP on military spending is all it would take to not be reliant on that "assistance". It doesn't do it because it doesn't have to. Why waste money when someone else is happy to do so for you? Sure, someone like Finland is a bit of a precarious position, but its a bit of an outlier among European nations. The main enemies to democracy are not without - they are within. In the United States, for instance, some of the most prominent ones are 147 congressmen. [1] You can't defend against internal enemies with an army or a navy. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/...
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > And the EU adding an extra 1% of GDP on military spending is all it would take to not be reliant on that "assistance". NATO countries are supposed to do that anyway, as part of their commitment to the organization. They've been ignoring that for a long time and simply expecting the U.S. to pick up the slack.
hilbert42 5y ago
"Big question now, whether democracies are capable of long-term survival or not?" Right. This question has troubled presumably many others and me for years and unfortunately, I am inclined to agree with your assessment (inasmuch as I have gained from my perception of how modern democracies have functioned—or should I say failed to function—in recent decades). These matters are complex, so at the risk of misinterpretation through oversimplification I'll keep this to just a few general points (there are of course many more): • Assuming that democracy represents the view of the majority of citizens then its actions ought to reflect the will of the majority of its citizens. Unfortunately, this is rarely if ever true as those who obtain power are usually in a privileged position (having access to electoral funds, easy access to media, etc.). Moreover, the question of their motives for seeking office also arises (even when ethical, pragmatism often rules the day thus ethics are compromised). • Even when democracy is truly representative of the majority then two significant issues remain. The first is that the wishes of the minority remain unfulfilled and the second is that no matter how hard a democracy tries, its ability to resolve problems at the level of individual citizens remains strictly limited. Therefore, democracy is a blunt instrument—that is, through practical necessity, it governs at a granularity above that of individual citizens and thus cannot satisfy the wishes of individual citizens in a fulfilling way. (Perhaps I should express that more in terms of the utilitarian concept of the greatest good for the greatest number (as per Priestley, Bentham, Mill etc.), but then that doesn't fully articulate what I mean (as I'll explain). • Perhaps rather delving into political theory an example would provide the quickest explanation (I've used this case previously on HN to illustrate the point but it's only one of many, many similar instances). Take the issue of copyright law reform. Whilst concept of copyright has been around since the Statute of Anne in the early 18th Century, it didn't really come of age until the Berne International Copyright Convention of 1886 which came into being at the instigation of high-profile authors such as Victor Hugo. Significantly, the Convention provided for international recognition of copyright, more specifically its ability to be enforced across all signatory countries. (Whilst the undisputed necessity of copyright law, both the 1886 Convention and essentially all copyright laws in all signatory countries since then have been made at the request of (mostly powerful) copyright holders—and not in the name of the great unwashed masses, in effect, they have been grossly underrepresented throughout the history of copyright law.) Initially, copyright was essentially irrelevant to the average citizen, for even if an individual had wanted to violate copyright then he or she would not have had the practical—the extensive technical means to do so. However, some 80 or so years later in the 1960s that situation changed significantly with the development of the photocopiers and then again with the advent of digital technologies 20 or so years later. To cut it short, here are just a few of the many issues: - As copyright was essentially irrelevant to the average citizen at the time of the Berne Convention, there was no effective opposition to the arguments put by the authors, they therefore won the day by default and as a consequence of their success (in gaining the international treaty) their newly-found status further entrenched their position as it effectively 'legitimized' their claims in full whether they were deserved or not, thus their view of copyright has overwhelmingly dominated the progression of copyright law ever since. - Due to entrenched international law, reforming copyright law at a national level to benefit ordinary citizens has proved nigh on impossible. On the other hand, copyright owners have been spectacularly successful in further strengthening these laws to benefit themselves at the almost total exclusion of ordinary citizens. - Here, one must question whether ordinary citizens have a legitimate moral case for copyright reform or not and on the balance of evidence, it is very hard to argue that they do not. Clearly, I cannot argue the case here other than to mention a few of the more notable issues. For instance, abuse of the fair use principle by rights holders; copyright law fails to take into account that rights holders were mainly educated at the public's expense and thus have some moral obligation to the public; the ever-increasing (and unreasonable) duration of copyright and the perpetuation of copyrights for orphan works with the principal aim of making them generally inaccessible (the purpose of eliminating public domain access to such works being deliberate in that if readily accessible and free then they would contribute additional competition to extant works, etc.—thus further strengthening rights holders' monopoly). Obviously, the issue is that a privileged section of society has used both local law and international treaties (including WIPO etc.) to its enormous advantage and that it has done so in ways that democracies have been unable to resolve in any fair and equitable way (the fact is democracies simply do not have any effective wherewithal to do so). The trouble is that the small but significant numbers of citizens who have been disenfranchised are well aware that their governments have failed them (a) in that they have not managed to achieve any reform, and (b), despite their just cause; they further realize the almost total futility of trying to fight for reform due to their small numbers, especially so in the light of entrenched, politically powerful, opposition. What's at stake here is a more general issue, which is that democracies are essentially incapable of resolving legitimate issues for people who do not have sufficient numbers for them to be politically significant (although important, in the grand scheme of things, copyright is essentially a non-issue and the pragmatics of politics mean that it can be ignored—except for when the politically powerful are able to thrust it to the fore). Thus any such cause, whether legitimate of not, will languish especially so if its opponents come from a position of strength (which is often gained by virtue of their previous [institutional] success). Now, multiply this disgruntlement and discontent across many other similar causes then we have a first-class recipe for weakening democracy—especially so in an era when such disparities become ever increasingly obvious due to improving communications. Add to this the sudden rise of identity politics. Whether one considers its rise as beneficial or not is not the argument here, what is important is that it flies in the face of the more utilitarian/universal nature of democracy. Unlike causes such as copyright reform, identity politics has actually gathered considerable support due to society's increasing emphasis on a self-righteous individuality—in essence, the importance of one's subservience and acceptance of a common narrative for the greater good of everyone has diminished greatly in recent years. Thus, as far as democracy is concerned, the parable of The Man, the Boy and the Donkey seems more poignant than ever—that is whenever democracy 'tries to please all then it pleases none'. Of course, there is much more to such discussion that cannot be covered here such the failure of both governments and capitalism to ensure reasonable equity for citizens including the ever-increasing disparity in wealth amongst citizens etc. As you say there are alternatives but that none of them is likely to be attractive to the citizenry. I would also add that whilst any significant amount of discontent persists with any alternative model then it too would eventually fail. Perhaps in some hypothetical world a benevolent dictator whose powers extended to the minutiae—that of resolving problems at the level of individuals—may work. But then, this isn't even a sensible notion whilst human beings continue to embrace notions of free will. Such concepts are a non sequitur.

eadmund 5y ago

> the inbred and largely incompetent European monarchies were incapable of resolving the serious diplomatic issues that arose from the 'crisis', this then led to war I don't agree: the issue was less the monarchs and more the democrats. Even the supposed autocracies like Germany had a significant and influential democratic component. In an earlier era, I think it likely that monarchs would have sued for peace once the lines settled down, but in the modern era of mass newspapers and relatively large suffrage, they were constrained by popular sentiment and had no choice but to continue what was largely a hopeless conflict. And it really was hopeless, a stupendous expenditure of blood and gold for basically even odds of winning for any participant. > My personal opinion is that monarchy and modern democracy are essentially incompatible. I don't really care what the form of government is, so long as it preserves its citizens' liberties. I think that there is something admirable about the governments of the U.K., the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway &c. (and yes, they are all very different); France, Germany and Italy could plausibly benefit from their example.

hilbert42 5y ago
"I think that there is something admirable about the governments of the U.K. <...>; France, Germany and Italy could plausibly benefit from their example." I don't disagree with your assessment but ultimately the writing is on the wall for monarchy (as, on average, the powers of monarchies have been atrophying steadily over the last few centuries and there's no sign of any letup). Much of monarchy's current appeal in countries that still possess monarchies and the concomitant [apparent] stability of their political systems comes from both nostalgia and a reticence to change (given historical circumstances, such views are hardly surprising, especially so in countries with a long and illustrious historical (monarchical) lineage). One wonders how, say, the U.K. would survive in a cultural sense if its monarchy were to be suddenly abolished. After all, its cultural heritage is extremely important to a huge number of its citizens, especially so given its loss of empire (from which the country has been smarting badly ever since WWI and especially so since WWII when in the wake of the War the country suffered significant loss of power and prestige on the international stage). Nothing could have made this more obvious than The Suez Crisis of 1956 when on the world stage the U.K. looked like a petulant brat sans any diplomatic experience (one even cringes when thinking about what happened). Whilst the U.K. has largely recovered from this hugely embarrassing incident and that it's largely forgotten by many of its citizens (likely because of its embarrassment), it nevertheless only ever achieved a partial recovery in status. (The evidence for the decline in power and influence of monarchies is reasonably solid. One cannot forget that monarchical power was once essentially absolute but these days (fortunately) it's only a shadows of its former self. It's impossible to put aside or forget the maniacal malevolence of Henry VIII or say the utter hatred George IV's subjects had for him. The fact is that whilst the monarchy represents stability in some countries it doesn't necessarily follow that it will always stay that way (and as we've seen with pre-WWI European monarchies, Hapsburg, etc., situations can change dramatically in just the spur of a moment). I'm not condoning such rapid political change, as it inevitably comes with considerable dangers as witnessed by, say, the French Revolution. Arguably, the Reign of Terror - la Terreur - that followed the French Revolution and the beginning of the First Republic has few equals in modern history with respect to its sheer brutality and its effects have been very long lasting indeed (as my French relatives keep telling me and demonstrating the fact with any number of present-day instances). Thus, in this regard, your comment about France, etc. plausibly benefiting from the example is rather apt; nevertheless, I don't see that detracting from my argument (as it's a separate issue). That said, the English were hardly any better, it's just that they started earlier. The Battle of Towton in 1461 during The War of the Roses, is almost unbeatable for sheer violence and utter brutality (although it's not alone with such a reputation): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton. I mention this and hold my views about monarchy not from any gloating republican perspective—in fact far from it—but rather from evidence that supports the position that monarchies are in decline. Of course, many could or would contend that I could be just saying this and that in fact I'm a diehard republican at heart—and I acknowledge that it would be difficult for me to disprove the fact. In my defense, I can only state that I'm from a Commonwealth country (Australia) and that I've U.K. parentage. Moreover, the fact that I'm still in possession of souvenirs of QE II's coronation that were given to all of us children when we were in infants school signifies its importance during my early formative years (yes, the propaganda began early and it was very effective; back then we kids had no doubt that the U.K. was the greatest country on the planet—even though it wasn't our native homeland)! Here's a reference to one of those souvenirs: https://picclick.ca/1953-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Coronation-Memento-Booklet-Pamphlet-154833726259.html https://picclick.ca/1953-Queen-Elizabeth-II-Coronation-Memen..., the other one I've not yet found any reference to but it was about the Crown Jewels and described the various items that comprised the collection together with an explanation about each (the meaning of the different crowns, sceptres, maces, etc.). Incidentally, given the once ubiquity of these brochures in that they spanned multiple Commonwealth countries, I'm somewhat surprised how hard it was to find any reference to them on the internet.

PicassoCTs 5y ago

This assumes, that the crisis was perceived as one and not just as a chance to send the lower-classes into a meat-grinder, stabilizing the regimes by creating a external threat. These people were not very well informed about the changes technology was about to inflict on warfare. The american-civil-war was far away - the last war in living memory was a "smashing success" for those starting WW1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars There were no nuclear weapons to be feared and unions/socialism to be silenced and demands for shared power by the growing industrial bourgeoisie to be ignored.

hilbert42 5y ago
"These people were not very well informed about the changes technology was about to inflict on warfare." It's hard to say how accurate that statement is but in all probability much of it is likely true. However, any reasonably well educated person of the day would have been well aware of the new highly industrialized nature of warfare from both the Crimean War and the American Civil War, both of which represented a new kind of 'advanced' warfare (especially so the American Civil War). Moreover, it wouldn't have been difficult to project that new developments made in the intervening 50 or so years since the Civil War, would likely make warfare considerably worse. Right, 50 years is sufficient time to forget a war but nevertheless many veterans of the Civil War were still alive at outset of WWI. (Remember, Buster Keaton's Civil War film of 1926, The General failed to gain universal popularity as it was perceived by the many Civil War veterans who were still alive as biased in that it told the War from the South's perspective.) This 'corporate' memory should have had a substantial effect in preventing war but clearly its effects weren't nearly enough. No doubt you're correct when it comes to considering the less well educated. However—as with many wars—I'd maintain that whilst they didn't actually start the war, that national hubris combined with young male bravado played an important if not overwhelming role in perpetuating it, especially so at War's outbreak before the grim and tragic reality of the trenches became fully apparent.