Marie Antoinette Online Forum

monarchy or MA?-
Page 2 of 4

Author:  Victoire-Adélaïde [ Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm interested in monarchy in general. My historical passions are about the nobility of the "Ancien Régime". I have got a good opinion about the monarchist systems, probably because of my origins...

But I like Marie-Antoinette very much! Her entourage, her family, her residences, her tastes are very interesting! :wink:

Author:  Altiste [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

I feel that monarchy, itself, was one of the contributing factors to the downfall of MA and her King. Based on my understaning of the particulars at Versailles, it seems that though a King and Queen were expected to mollify, solve, and invent, they were hardly qualified to do so. How unfair that two people who probably would never have chosen to become world leaders, were forced to make such profound decisions. Can you imagine?

Author:  Therese [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Louis XVI actually made some very wise decisions and passed some very wise laws. He was certainly a better ruler than many presidents who are elected.

Author:  Altiste [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree completely. (I actually don't think many of our elected presidents are qualified either!) I just meant that it was unfair that they were held responsible for so much when it was so unrealistic that they could have all of the answers!

Author:  Therese [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

That is true. It is also because the country was improving under Louis XVI but when changes were not happening fast enough, people got restless, and the king's enemies took advantage.

Author:  severina [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

i'm interested in monarchies as a while but i believe they only work when they are consitutional monarchies like here in the uk. for me MA is the ultimate dark fairy tale of history, fascinating and lavicious but ultimately tragic and we can all learn something from her life, however small.

Author:  Vittoria Francesca Savoia [ Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't think that Republic is less "expensive" than monarchy: I live in italy and people working in the Parliament earn about 20.000 €/month... and there are 600 people seating there :shock: :shock: And after retirement (that means 5 years "work") they have a rich pension...
:roll: :roll: It's not cheap at all! :wink:

I'm not very much interested in politics, but monarchy in history fascinates me: I like to read about kings and queens, I love history of M.A., Maria Theresia and Empress Katarina of Russia, but I also love reading about royal mistresses such as Madame Pompadour (I love her style!), but it's just curiosity, not a real interest for politics...

Author:  Monsieur Royale [ Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:09 am ]
Post subject: 

Pimprenelle wrote:
I am not interested at all in monarchy, and love Antoinette as a person.

Me too!

Author:  Axel von Fersen [ Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:  I like MA but not monarchy

It's a great topic.

I am interested in Marie Antoinette in spite of her politics and in spite of the fact that she was a monarch.

I prefer republics and democracy. As an American I have my homefield bias, but so be it. I like the American form of republican and state and federalist government the best. I also like the fact that this government was debated in 1787-1788 and adopted freely by the votes of each of the state or their legislatures or conventions.

However, that's not to say that there are not times in history when monarchy is beneficial and preferable to replublican government. Though just an outsider looking in, I think Juan Carlos and the Spanish monarchy has been quite beneficial to the country and well worth the cost. The monarchy in Spain I beleive has helped heal the wounds of that terrible Civil War 1936-39 and the residue of Franco. In 1976, it was the determiend action of Juan Carlos that ended the rightist plot to overthrow the pledgling democrady.

Also Winston Churchill in the first volume of his World War II history "The Gathering Storm" wrote of the vacuum left by the overthrow of the Hohenzollern monarchy that Weimar was unable to fill. I agree witht he author that a constitutional monarchy there might have helped.

But generally I prefer republics and like the idea that all being equal before the law and hopefully rise based on merit with no monarchy or aristocracy.


Author:  Jules de Polignac [ Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Vittoria Francesca Savoia wrote:
I don't think that Republic is less "expensive" than monarchy: I live in italy and people working in the Parliament earn about 20.000 €/month... and there are 600 people seating there

I understand what you meen, but maybe if we lived in a monarchy, the entire royal family (the king, the queen, the princes, the brothers of the king, the brothers of the queen), would earn so much that 20.000€ would be nothing...For instance, Prince Hary or Prince William (I don't know whom) earn 10.000.000€/year! For each member of a royal family, there are a palace in the city, a palace in the country and a palace in the beach...Also the ceremonys cost so much...

But, despite of my opinion, I do think that the moarchy in Nederlands works, although it is too much expensive..

About the American way of politics... I don't agree with Axel von Fersen also :P ... I realy think that the American Republic was a great development in the XVIII century, but today it is so archaic! I don't know very much about the american politics, but I know that it is a bipartisan votation and I don't agree with that: or do you vote in Bush or in Kerry :? And if you want to vote in, for instance, in the Communists or in .....

Also, I don't agree with the american way, were the President have too many power... And other thing, but I'm no certain on this: there's an indirect vote: you vote in a representative person that votes in the senator...I'm not certain about this :wink:

I agree with the portuguesse way of politics. Its a Democracy :idea:

PS: I don't want to offend nor Monarchists or defenders of the American politics... :wink: And, of course, I do love Marie Antoinette :lol:

Author:  baron de batz [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

I would be interested in hearing the reasons why you don't like monarchy as an institution...before I run you through with my sword! (Only joking!!)

Monarchy is a complex matter. We have to ask ourselves if the idea of monarchy is still feasible in modern society with modern technology and the near impossibility for any figure of state to enjoy any privacy. If MA had lived today, she would have been exposed to slander and attacks everyday on the Internet! In my opinion, and this is as far as I can see a new element in this forum, the idea of monarchy and religion, in particular the Christian religion, as we are talking about European monarchies, are indissociable. If you look at MA and Louis XVI, our last "real" monarchs in France, they pushed this religious side of their reign to semi-martyrdom. This sense of religion in Louis XVI is responsable to a large degree for his inaction in the face of the turmoil that surrounded him. He felt that his "déchéance" and his death were the will of God, a sacrifice required of him by the Almighty. If you read the last letter of MA or the last will and testament of Louis XVI which are stored in the "armoire de fer" at the National archives in Paris, they show an incredible intense religious fervour. This explains the almost saintly portrayal of MA in the Chapelle Expiatoire in Paris, which became a shrine to royalists after her death. I believe that royalty can only exist in its true form if the sovereign believes that he/she is appointed by God to rule and guide a country and accepts the enormous responsabilities that that entails. That is why no doubt the Queen of England is also the head of the Church of England. And the belief in the divine right of Kings is a difficult concept to accept in the 21st century for most people...that being said the existence of this independent power chosen by God and passed on by bloodline forms a stabilizing counterbalance to the party political in-fighting seen in most countries, because a monarch is by his very nature everyone's sovereign, unlike an elected president or prime minsiter who represents the political beliefs or tendencies of at best a small majority.

Author:  Therese [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Very good, Monsieur le Baron. I would beg to differ only on your remark about Louis XVI's religious principles being the cause of his downfall. It was not his religion but the illnesses with which he was afflicted, as well as the betrayals by relatives and politicians. Yes, ultimately he had strong religious principles that as a Catholic and a man of honor he could not betray. Neither could Marie-Antoinette, although she was not as devout as Louis. Madame Elisabeth perhaps outdid Louis in piety but she was very involved in intrigues for overthrowing the Revolution. It was not religion so much as health and temperament that determined how different people acted, although those with sincere beliefs could not be expected to violate them.

Author:  Jules de Polignac [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

But don't you think that religion would be separate from politics?

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree with you, Jules. But it is a today vision, however. For centuries, religion and politics were together.

Author:  Therese [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes, Pimprenelle. Especially in France.

Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group