Thank you oldman for somewhat of a reply. If Norway and Denmark, etc are examples as potential models fine. Then my conclusion is, there is no committee; succession is hereditary; the King/Queen will have some powers; these powers will be transferred to his heir (almost always first born).
Now it is fine to argue that this is a good model for government, one may agree or disagree. But, you have to admit that any time you have hereditary powers, you cannot have a truely democtratic system, since some people (e.g. the king) will have power and he has not been elected. Is this not true???????
If you feel like to answer the question regarding YOUR opinion on whether or not RP has any legitimate claims to the throne, feel free to do so. I was unable to pry an answer out of Amirza and other participant only repeat tired old slogans.
I would also like to know what advantages a system like Denmark has over a system like Finland? Please elaborate. I just told you the disadvantge (not truely democratic), now you tell me the advantage. { as an aside do you agree that Monarchies in Iran have been closer to the Saudi model than the Danish model????}
Also please feel free to discuss how we will go about picking the first Monarch. Will it be an election? Who can participate as a candidate for the monarchy? Can I be the King? Will I need some Royal blood? How much will do? Is it 1/16, 2/16, 1/2 needed or should I be full-blooded? Which Royal blood counts, does it have to be Pahlavi blood or will Qajari relatives be able to be stand for the election to be the Monarch? These questions are not sarcastic, I am just trying to point out that instituting a monarchy is not feasible in a democratic system. Again you may argue that Monarchy is better that a democratic system, but I have not heard that argument yet.
Now it is fine to argue that this is a good model for government, one may agree or disagree. But, you have to admit that any time you have hereditary powers, you cannot have a truely democtratic system, since some people (e.g. the king) will have power and he has not been elected. Is this not true???????
If you feel like to answer the question regarding YOUR opinion on whether or not RP has any legitimate claims to the throne, feel free to do so. I was unable to pry an answer out of Amirza and other participant only repeat tired old slogans.
I would also like to know what advantages a system like Denmark has over a system like Finland? Please elaborate. I just told you the disadvantge (not truely democratic), now you tell me the advantage. { as an aside do you agree that Monarchies in Iran have been closer to the Saudi model than the Danish model????}
Also please feel free to discuss how we will go about picking the first Monarch. Will it be an election? Who can participate as a candidate for the monarchy? Can I be the King? Will I need some Royal blood? How much will do? Is it 1/16, 2/16, 1/2 needed or should I be full-blooded? Which Royal blood counts, does it have to be Pahlavi blood or will Qajari relatives be able to be stand for the election to be the Monarch? These questions are not sarcastic, I am just trying to point out that instituting a monarchy is not feasible in a democratic system. Again you may argue that Monarchy is better that a democratic system, but I have not heard that argument yet.