Forums - General Discussion - Japan's new era name was announced: Reiwa

WolfpackN64 said:
MrWayne said:

Wow that's a hot take.

I get that some people like to see the royal ceremonies and things like that but you also have to admit that it is a huge money burn with no real benefit outside of the entertainment. Also constitutional monarchies might be more stable but they're not necessary democratic, after all the to this day longest lasting democracy in the modern sense are the United States.

The money burn isn't really an argument. The French republican system costs about 100 million euros a year to support. The Spanish monarchy around 9 million. Technically the British parliamentary system is older then the US.

It is a good argument. You're comparing the cost of the french republican system with the costs for the spanish monarchy but you completely forget to mention that spain also has a republican democratic system they have to pay for. The 9 million spain spends on the monarchy are mostly redundant costs. In a republic the president fulfills all the roles the monarch normally would have without spending money on useless things like royal marriages and the royal family in general. Also most royal families acquired huge amounts of money and properties throughout the centuries, when a monarchy gets abolished most of these money and properties go directly to the state.

I said democracy in the modern sense, at the time of Declaration of Independence only a very small amount of people in the UK could actually vote for the british parliament and until 1911 the house of Lords, a parliament consisting of unelected aristocrats, had a significant amount of power in the government. If you call the UK a democracy in 1776 you could as well call the holy roman empire a democracy because the emperor was elected by the seven Prince-electors.



Around the Network
manuel said:
HollyGamer said:
What a time to be alive, we can see a transition of Japanese era.

Yeah, that doesn't happen too often. Should be very interesting, especially for people interested in the Shinto religion.

What does the new era mean for the Shinto religion?



WolfpackN64 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

IIRC Belgium set a record for longest period of time without a government or something so yeah...

Edit: Yep, https://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/belgium-government/index.html

Pretty shitty indeed. Although it would still be shitty even without the unwanted record due to the monarchy. Nice to see their pro-"glorious leader" propaganda is working though, I guess Belgium has more in common with north Korea than I thought. My condolences.

The parliament and government in Belgium caused the problem, the monarchy was instrumental in actually fixing the deadlock.

Yeah that part of Belgium is too divided to do anything quickly.



HylianSwordsman said:
manuel said:

Yeah, that doesn't happen too often. Should be very interesting, especially for people interested in the Shinto religion.

What does the new era mean for the Shinto religion?

The abdication of an emperor (almost never happens) and the ascension of a new one are (I assume) pretty huge rituals, because they happen so rarely.

I've seen a few very intricate and long rituals so far, so I'm interested how this one will be.



Need something off Play-Asia? http://www.play-asia.com/

WolfpackN64 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

IIRC Belgium set a record for longest period of time without a government or something so yeah...

Edit: Yep, https://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/belgium-government/index.html

Pretty shitty indeed. Although it would still be shitty even without the unwanted record due to the monarchy. Nice to see their pro-"glorious leader" propaganda is working though, I guess Belgium has more in common with north Korea than I thought. My condolences.

The parliament and government in Belgium caused the problem, the monarchy was instrumental in actually fixing the deadlock.

Yeah, for those that think that the monarchy is just a symbol, well not really, at least not on the Westminster system. The Crown had to step up and fix stuff many times on Commonwelth kingdoms like Canada, UK and Australia.

Of course some agree that it wasn't exactly the Queen acting, but some people on her behalf. However these people is still the Crown, they're not elected and act on behalf of the Queen.

So, while in republics deadlocks and stuff have to be fixed by a war between parties and complicated agreements, in a monarchy, the Crown can act and fix it.

The Crown can also guarantee that the gov will not stop by reasons like budget disagreement and the Crown can also protect the people against a tyrannical head of gov.

So, to sum up, the monarch don't act everyday, but he and his/her institution can act when it's necessary.



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


Around the Network

I'd have called it the Chazwazza!



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

0D0 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The parliament and government in Belgium caused the problem, the monarchy was instrumental in actually fixing the deadlock.

Yeah, for those that think that the monarchy is just a symbol, well not really, at least not on the Westminster system. The Crown had to step up and fix stuff many times on Commonwelth kingdoms like Canada, UK and Australia.

Of course some agree that it wasn't exactly the Queen acting, but some people on her behalf. However these people is still the Crown, they're not elected and act on behalf of the Queen.

So, while in republics deadlocks and stuff have to be fixed by a war between parties and complicated agreements, in a monarchy, the Crown can act and fix it.

The Crown can also guarantee that the gov will not stop by reasons like budget disagreement and the Crown can also protect the people against a tyrannical head of gov.

So, to sum up, the monarch don't act everyday, but he and his/her institution can act when it's necessary.

Yeah the Crown is used to unite when there is too much disagreement, does it have power itself or is it a mere tool?

Because when the Crown refuses to sign important laws then its power can be taken away to be able to pass that law.



Immersiveunreality said:
0D0 said:

Yeah, for those that think that the monarchy is just a symbol, well not really, at least not on the Westminster system. The Crown had to step up and fix stuff many times on Commonwelth kingdoms like Canada, UK and Australia.

Of course some agree that it wasn't exactly the Queen acting, but some people on her behalf. However these people is still the Crown, they're not elected and act on behalf of the Queen.

So, while in republics deadlocks and stuff have to be fixed by a war between parties and complicated agreements, in a monarchy, the Crown can act and fix it.

The Crown can also guarantee that the gov will not stop by reasons like budget disagreement and the Crown can also protect the people against a tyrannical head of gov.

So, to sum up, the monarch don't act everyday, but he and his/her institution can act when it's necessary.

Yeah the Crown is used to unite when there is too much disagreement, does it have power itself or is it a mere tool?

Because when the Crown refuses to sign important laws then its power can be taken away to be able to pass that law.

No head of state or gov has no reall power in itself and never had. Even in the middle ages, a king that crossed the line would be removed or attacked by the dukes and other peerage.

So, yeah, the Crown could be attacked by the gov if they refused to pass a law but at the same time the power to refuse to pass a law can be the last resource to protect a country against tyrany.

We don't think much about such things, because those countries are stable and unlikely to get in any huge constitutional problem, but it can happen. In a huge war or something like that, the parliament could cross the line and the Crown could be the last resource to protect the people. To remove the Crown, the gov could have to use force, but the armed forces as they're loyal to the Crown and not to the head of gov, could stay with the Crown and people could agree with that. This is possible.

The Crown has also the benefit of not being elected and not be part of any party. The head of state of the USA is republican while the head of state of NZ has no party affiliation, doesn't work with lobbyists and don't need to be re-elected. You can't buy the Queen, you can't buy the Crown, and that could matter in a state of rebellion, war or any other major crisis.

One example: King Rama IX was instrumental in fixing many crisis in Thailand, including avoiding civil war. No other political role would be able to do that.



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


Lol. In Russian Era Reiwa literally means 'The Era of Rave'. Whoop-whoop



Eat, bark, love.