Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
No monarch is a good one IMO. The very idea of a monarchy is repulsive to me.
However, there are certainly some who are worse than others. The trouble is that by the time you find out, they're already the monarch and you can't get rid of them without a great deal of trouble.
The moment I think about - UK - say, president Blair, Johnson or Sunak, I change my mind.
This argument comes up every time. What if you get a KING Blair, Johnson or Sunak? At least a president can be voted out.
I don't think you really understand how monarchies work.
FYI Charles I was voted out to all intents and purposes.
Ok, how do I vote out the current King then? What's that? I can't?
I absolutely do understand how monarchies work, so don't patronise me - or at least not without expanding on your point so I can reply with more than "Yes I do”.
A guillotine!
One who immediately abdicates in favor of self-determination
If titles are anything to go by, murderizing an absolute shitzillion of people makes monarchs pretty great.
Can't be remembered as bad if you kill all the haters.
Ordinary people just trying to live their lives hate this one simple trick.
Reminds me of how nobility are talked about in the Brandon Sanderson book "Tress of the Emerald Sea".
He’d apparently been quite heroic during those wars; you could tell because a great number of his troops had died, while he lived.”
A monarch understanding that they work for the people, and represent the people.
The same goes for any nation's leader, monarch or not.
I submit King Haakon VII - the first modern King of Norway. Throughout his reign he worked to support the Norwegian people, acting as a unifying and stabilizing figure, particularly in times of crisis. Examples are during the first few years of the country, during WW1, the occupation of WW2 and also after the 1927 elections, where he decided to uphold parliamentary convention and allow the workers party (which at the time espoused a revolutionary socialist manifesto) to form a government (against the wishes of the liberal and conservative majority in parliament, which had failed to form a government).
I agree, and for the most part C Gurra hasn't really been this kind of figure for us In Sweden, but in the last few years he has made a speech to the nation at christmas, which I feel have started to bring the out the unifying figure we need.
For konge og fedreland!
nice even wings, picks a safe milkweed plant to lay its eggs on, that sort of thing
I think it's pretty similar to what makes a good person, empathy, kindness, that sort of stuff.
A lot of the monarchs better thought of are the ones who made social reforms, bettering the lives of others much lower down the totem pole.
Like all people, it's kind of impossible to be all good, so even with the good ones there's awful stuff there, but it's all relative.
Well, perhaps Marcus Aurelius? Kind of the original philosopher-king.
Having 20 years of relative peace to start off is no small feat given the size of Rome and the issues mounting at the time. Still, he failed to in securing a good heir to lead the empire after his death. His son, a mere 18 at his death would be rather unprepared to lead the empire. It might have been more prudent to adopt a more suitable heir.
21 and guild backing
Maybe a Nissan Stanza
Maybe a Nissan Stanza
Maybe a Nissan Stanza
A Butter-Glider and solid henchmen.
The same thing that makes any other type of leader or ruler good. Simply seek to understand the people.
