• This topic has 20 voices and 53 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #343432

    Anonymous
    [img height=300]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Coat_of_arms_of_Serbia_%282004-2010%29.svg” />

    [size=11pt]Do you support the restoration of the Serbian Monarchy, as a constitutional monarchy.[/size]
    [hr]
    Constitutional monarchy (or limited monarchy) is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified, or blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the source of power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution and has the powers to regulate his or her respective government.

    House of Karađorđević
    [hr]
    The Karadjordjević family initially was a Serbian Royal House, then the Royal House of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and then the Royal House of Yugoslavia. When they last reigned they were called the Royal House of Yugoslavia. Crown Prince Alexander II was born in London but on property temporarily recognised by the United Kingdom's government as subject to the sovereignty of the Yugoslav crown, on which occasion it was publicly declared that the Crown Prince had been born on the native soil of the land he was expected to eventually rule. In 2006 Yugoslavia disintegrated geo-politically in such a way that Serbia re-emerged as the national state, on which devolved rights and obligations of the former state of Yugoslavia. Crown Prince Alexander, previously "of Yugoslavia", now also claims the throne of Serbia as the senior patrilineal great-grandson of the last King of Serbia prior to its inclusion in Yugoslavia.

    [table]
    [tr]
    [td][img height=170]http://www.klubmonarhista.rs/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/NJ.K.V.AleksandarII.jpg” />[/td]
    [td][img height=170]http://www.njuz.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/aleksandar-karadjordjevic-4-300×198.jpg” />[/td]
    [td][img height=170]http://www.vesti-online.com/data/images/2011-04-29/147583_karadjordjevici_f.jpg?ver=1304097374″ />[/td]
    [/tr]
    [/table]
    #385058

    Anonymous

    Well, I allready said I do, and only one who could claim it id Crown Prince Aleksandar, nevertheless I would bypass him. Personally, I think he is not charismatic enough, his sons look more charismatic. His late uncle, Prince Tomislav, also had better reputation. Crown Prince is better known as "Our King who does not know our language".

    #385059

    Anonymous

    In political sense they hold no weight, and also shouldn't, but they have their cultural values. Sweden, Denmark, England, Norway etc. all have monarchies that are great benefactors to the general culture of the nation, as well as its presenters abroad.

    So yes I am for constitutional monarchy, cause I see a great cultural benefit from it.

    Quote:
    Well, I allready said I do, and only one who could claim it id Crown Prince Aleksandar, nevertheless I would bypass him. Personally, I think he is not charismatic enough, his sons look more charismatic. His late uncle, Prince Tomislav, also had better reputation. Crown Prince is better known as "Our King who does not know our language".

    I agree that until he learns to properly speak, he shouldn't reclaim the throne.

    #385060

    Anonymous

    Restoration or establishment of any hereditary monarchy is complete garbage, since the usual royals are decadent and inbred degenerates.

    #385061

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Restoration or establishment of any hereditary monarchy is complete garbage, since the usual royals are decadent and inbred degenerates.

    But they are our degenerates Sokole, they are our degenerates. :)

    #385062

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    But they are our degenerates Sokole, they are our degenerates.

    I would rather live with as few of our degenerate parasites as I can mate, as few as I can ;D

    #385063

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Restoration or establishment of any hereditary monarchy is complete garbage, since the usual royals are decadent and inbred degenerates.

    You have my vote. Back to the Slavic roots is the best option.

    #385064

    Anonymous

    Constitutional monarchy isnt bad in my opinion but i dont care. If i were Serb i would first demand he learns language well and proves with his work that he is interested for benefit of all Serb people.

    As far as our ancestors goes well hmm i dont know how to say. Let us just say they had voting kingdoms (or realms). Rulers from "noble" ranks elected by other nobles. This was case the of Carantania, Novgorodian Republic, etc. These were not republics of today. It cannot be compared at all. Even Roman Rep. had aristocrats and they practicaly dominated whole political scene.

    #385065

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Constitutional monarchy isnt bad in my opinion but i dont care. If i were Serb i would first demand he learns language well and proves with his work that he is interested for benefit of all Serb people.

    As far as our ancestors goes well hmm i dont know how to say. Let us just say they had voting kingdoms (or realms). Rulers from "noble" ranks elected by other nobles. This was case the of Carantania, Novgorodian Republic, etc. These were not republics of today. It cannot be compared at all. Even Roman Rep. had aristocrats and they practicaly dominated whole political scene.

    Well, I agree with first point. Concerning second, Novgorod become elective monarch it is truth but before it was plain hereditary Rurik passed throne to Igor (With Oleg as co-regent), Igor passed to Svyatoslav (with Olga as co-regent), Svyatoslav to Yaropulk, Yaropulk was overthrown by younger brother Vladimir (no election). In Serbia we also had hereditary monarchies with lot of owerthorws, smae goes for Croatia, Bulgaria… well point Slavs were pretty much like all other European nations back then. Not better not worst, same.
    To get back on topic, constitutional monarchy places role of head of state on metapolitical level. He represents unity of nation and non of political groups could claim him (or her) as its own, monarch is symbol of national unity.

    #385066

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Concerning second, Novgorod become elective monarch it is truth but before it was plain hereditary Rurik passed throne to Igor (With Oleg as co-regent), Igor passed to Svyatoslav (with Olga as co-regent), Svyatoslav to Yaropulk, Yaropulk was overthrown by younger brother Vladimir (no election).

    Yeah i didnt want to go into details. I just wanted to point out that all ancient "republics" were not republics in modern sence. Common folks didnt have much saying in politics. Slavic people had their Knezi, Boyars, etc. In Carantania and possibily Carniola it was like this;

    Common folks = no role in politics (maybe on local level?).
    Kosezi = voting class.
    Knez = elected by Kosezi class. Knez was probably member of some kind of plemstvo.

    #385067

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Yeah i didnt want to go into details. I just wanted to point out that all ancient "republics" were not republics in modern sence. Common folks didnt have much saying in politics. Slavic people had their Knezi, Boyars, etc. In Carantania and possibily Carniola it was like this;

    Common folks = no role in politics (maybe on local level?).
    Kosezi = voting class.
    Knez = elected by Kosezi class. Knez was probably member of some kind of plemstvo.

    Well, Knez is borowed Proto-German *kuningaz, it is etymologicaly King. Being somewhere between feudalism and tribal system Slavs have somewhat confusing societies ;D There was elements of democracy, oligarchy, autocracy etc. SImilar patter could be traced among Germanic tribes. But basically, your political might was derived from your military record. If you bear weapon you got your share of political influence.
    Most common differentitaion was Knez ruler, military and politicial leader, core military units and tribal leaders, embrionical nobility, free men available for conscription, this was most people, they participated in skupštine and veća. Also there were slaves, women children, foreigners etc. 

    #385068

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Well, Knez is borowed Proto-German *kuningaz, it is etymologicaly King. Being somewhere between feudalism and tribal system Slavs have somewhat confusing societies ;D There was elements of democracy, oligarchy, autocracy etc. SImilar patter could be traced among Germanic tribes. But basically, your political might was derived from your military record. If you bear weapon you got your share of political influence.
    Most common differentitaion was Knez ruler, military and politicial leader, core military units and tribal leaders, embrionical nobility, free men available for conscription, this was most people, they participated in skupštine and veća. Also there were slaves, women children, foreigners etc.

    I dont think it is so confusing. Common folks more precisely average farmers had their own communal semi democratic system since farming and village management needs cooperative labour. Warriors on the other hand need discipline and order with strong hierarchy. Since wars were constantly happening among Slavic tribes or against others our Slavic ancestors evolved permanent warrior class which needed some privileges in order to operate efficiently. Thanks to this evolution first glimps of nobility rose from warriors. Despite evolution of nobility village communities however never lost their communal rights nor charachter. Or at least not in Slovene lands.

    #385069

    Anonymous

    How I interpreted it.


      [li]In the Serbian Empire (as well as kingdoms):

      HIGH
      Tsar :: Emperor
      Despot :: King of a reign under the rule of the Tsar
      Kralj :: King of a reign without the rule of a Tsar above

      MIDDLE
      Knez :: Prince or sometimes Duke
      Župan :: Ruler of the

    župa, a territorial sub-unit
    Ban :: local ruler
    Bojar :: freemen, avaible for conscription, allowed to carry weapons and own land, obliged to go to war (boj)

    LOW
    [size=8pt]as title -[/size]
    Starješina :: Head of the zadruga, a rural community
    Otac :: The father of the family

    [size=8pt]as class – Sebar, common folk[/size]
    Meropah :: serfs, obliged to pay fees and taxes to the lord
    Vlah :: herders, not obliged to pay fees, but obliged to pay yearly tax
    Zanatlija :: craftsmen
    Sokalnik :: similar to serfs
    Otrok :: arguably slave, could also mean squire
    [/li]

    Similar or same like in the rest of Europe of that time, the peasants worked for all, the bojars (barons) fought for all, the clergy prayed for all. I am not sure if the bojar class is documented somewhere in the Serbian historical documents under that name, like in Bulgaria or Russia, Dalibor knows better I hope, I believe those people were simply denominated as ban's and vojvoda's here.

    I have to add that Knez and Župan were pre-Christian High titles, one became a king only after acknowledged by the Church as such, 'by the grace of god'.

    #385070

    Anonymous

    Interesting info Cvetinov. Anyway otrok means slave in Czech and child in Slovene. ;D

    #385071

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Interesting info Cvetinov. Anyway otrok means slave in Czech and child in Slovene. ;D

    Thats why I believe it meant, under-aged squire or servant, that belonged to the lord. Od-roka (not from age) > Otrok

    Interestingly we say, rob for slave and dijete or čedo for child.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

9 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Родни Никотин ☭
  • Piachu
  • Drizzt
  • Lyutenitsa
  • kony97
  • Yung Slav