Amazon.com Widgets

King George the VI: Should a monarch rule two countries who are at war with each other?

  • No responses have been submitted.
  • Fealty to the Crown should be first

    In a true monarchy, the divine nature of the monarch, renders their verdict irrefutable. How, then, can one wage war against one's own leader and divine inspiration? Unless the claim to the crown in nation or the other is disputed, it would seems that a King ruling over two warring nations could stand to do not but win the war and doubtless lose all dignity

  • This is the same thing that is happening with Obama.

    He is in charge of the United States and ISIS as well. It's a shame that the world is so far tricked that the elites can really control everything. It's just a matter of course that one day everyone who has power in life will have to be forced to join the elite or the peasant class. The middle class is dying.

  • Nobody should rule absolutely

    For the most part, monarchy is obsolete. Although, monarchs or presidents should not rule multiple countries at the same time. That is too much power in the hands of one person. The temptations to use power for one authority figure is extremely high but adding another country escalates the temptation to abuse power and hurt the people of one country or both.

  • It's a conflict of interest.

    I think it's ridiculous for a monarch to rule two countries who are at war with each other. Each country would need a strong leader, and having the same leader is a complete conflict of interest. I don't think a war can be resolved if there is the same leader for both countries.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.