User talk:BMSprint

Monarchists
I hope it is ok to do this - if not, please accept my apologies! But you did ask, & I am answering you: in short, I am a monarchist because I think the human condition still demands it (I am going to put this on your page as well, because I don't know if you get notified of stuff that goes onto my page!)FlaviaR (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you told me I have to do this here. Let me elucidate: I think people, as we are now, instinctively respond to a monarchical system best - & where it doesn't exist, we create it. I think America is a huge example of this: we try to make our politicians, &, indeed, any public figure, into role models as well as leaders.FlaviaR (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Monarchists; LouisXI reply
I'm a "monarchist" only so far as there's an Aristocracy to accompany it. The monarch is nothing more than a first among equals, which is the historical role of Monarchy before its later corruption but firstly Absolutists and later Constitutionalists. In this way, I also could argue for an Aristocratic Republic such as ancient Rome.

It's very hard to explain to someone the merits of my system if they have a very modern view of society - as far as I'm concerned, one cannot be a constitutional monarchist and still call himself a monarchist, for all he will ever be is a Republican who likes the idea of a useless figurehead that literally does and contributes nothing; a relic of an age where the corruption of the idea begins (Absolutism).

I'll give more of a reply if you can tell me what *you* are, good sir :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisXI (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)