Search results for query: *

Fair enough, but I meant more along the lines of the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in Britain and England. Whilst the crown does the ruling and acts as the main body of government, there are things it can and cannot do. And the King has to answer to Parliament, which represents the will of...

Therein is the downside. Not at all saying Monarchy is a "superior" system, but it's rather comical how Medieval Kings tended to rule better than any Communist dictator or modern technocrat. Indeed, I think Edward I did more good for this country in the long run than any Labour Prime Minister...

Don't even need a perfect Monarch for that. Henry VII and Elizabeth I were deeply flawed people, but they patched up the fuck ups of their predecessors and then some. A good King can reverse a hundred years of error quite handily, which I think is a major boon to the system. Can a Democratic...

Oddly enough, I think Monarchy of all things comes in a semi-second best. Because when someone with half a brain sits the throne, Kingdoms can outperform Democracies quite a bit. The trouble is when you get a "Bad King John" or a Commodus.

I believe I said this in another thread, but I'll say it here. The fundamental conceit of the left, why I think it is a perpetual threat to good governance and the realm itself, is that it believes it can micromanage a perfect world into existence. Trying to make millions if not billions of...