Tell me about Monarchy Sup Forums. I used to be a hardcore Republican, but a monarchist friend of mine recently made some really good arguments for Monarchy.
>Monarchies tend to be the default state of human government.
>They are ruled by people bred to lead, not those who strove for personal power. >Monarchies are inherently stable.
>They encourage development of arts and culture.
Democracies tend to follow mob mentality and special interests.
monarchy is just cover for "big government" type commonwealth of rainbows. So it's a communism of CIA lemon party gestapo. Sure they have created it on global scale by using network warfare by implementing various nodes of scattered castles. Monarchs serve just ceremonial role. They are like lobotomized donkeys that can be changed on the moments notice.
The strength of a monarchy, especially a constitutional one, is that the head of state isn't tied to the government. You don't have to like the government to love your country, which is much harder in a republican system
Monarchy is a good system, with proper checks and balances.
Consider the fact that you already are under what is in essence, a monarchy - or at least an oligopoly. Yes, you have a president or prime minister instead of a king ruling over you. But the president has so much power that they may as well be the sole ruler of your nation.
So then, when we consider that we will, as human nature shows, always be under one ruler, you must make the decision: do you want a ruler who was born into the position and was trained from birth to be a good ruler, or do you want some rich and famous person who will connive their way into power, power which is temporary and will take even more greed and conniving to maintain?
"Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." - C.S. Lewis
I agree. I'd like to see the Queen have more power though.
She's actually quite powerful, she just doesn't act on it which is one of the reasons I dislike the Windsors
read hoppe: democracy, the god that failed
>doesn't act on it
*can't
It's a legal matter, bruv.
>Monarchs serve just ceremonial role.
That's the problem.
Monarchs should have absolute power like in the good old times.
When I mean "absolute power" I mean power dictated by traditions, which is usually considered absolutism by most historians
Do you want the Emperor of Brazil back? I know there was a referendum on it 20 years ago.
monarchs never had any power. that is history orwelled by rainbow fight clubs that run monarchies.
Is she dead yet btw?
The problem with monarchies is that you end up with a bunch of inbred degenerates. Just look at the British royal family.
Also, Prince Charles is literally a cuck. Yes, literally. What an absurd farce.
Inbreeding can be avoided.
Elizabeth still has many powers, she also has the 'soft' power of being able to advise the government, which is more than it first appears because of the constitutional backfoot it puts the government on. But we have no idea what her political views are because she's never once gotten involved in anything and has taken her political quietism to a pointless extreme.
>she also has the 'soft' power of being able to advise the government,
Thin tightrope, because interfering with politics is a strict no-no. That's why Charles got in shit for trying to help farmers.
>British '''monarchy''
isn't a monarchy m8
If you want an actual monarchy, then go visit the house of Saud in the Arabian peninsula. It's one of the only monarchies left.
Britain hasn't had a monarchy since the 1600s
>They are ruled by people bred to lead, not those who strove for personal power. >Monarchies are inherently stable.
Confirmed for retarded history illiterate right there. The relentless failure of monarchy begat Communism among other reactions to degenerate monarchs.
How dare you be so naive? That old British cunt survives as a tourist attraction. They should stuff her for display afterwards.
Monarchists have no sense of history. Monarchs throughout time have always been under the sway of noble factions and powerful advisors out for personal gain. Or even worse they might be solely concerned with another country's goals over their own people. They suffered from the same flaws as democracies with none of the benefits with sole exceptionally good leaders being born or seizing power every hundred years or so.
>The relentless failure of monarchy begat Communism
Aristocracy did that, not monarchy. And you could never eliminate aristocracy.
While not perfect it's still far better than any form of shit tier democracy
Yeah, that's the thing, it would cause a huge upset. I'd still like to see it happen if for no other reason than to break the boredom, though. She wouldn't have much to lose since republicanism is a dead letter here.
I like constitutional monarchies because it provides a cultural, uniting foundation for the nation.
Canada, Aus, NZ, and the UK share a unique bond because as people we are all represented by the Queen. We each have our own respective governments, and Prime Ministers that represent them, but as a people we are united by the Monarch. It's a beautiful thing when your head of state is above the fray of petty politics.
>Monarchs throughout time have always been under the sway of noble factions and powerful advisors out for personal gain. Or even worse they might be solely concerned with another country's goals over their own people.
Yea, you'd never get that in a republic or democracy.
Would be good, but I believe it's impossible.
The referendum was a meme. Most huezilians didn't knew what they were voting for.
That's how it has always being.
Do you think that your current elites aren't inbreeds?
Inbreeding has always been common among the upper classes.
This. The Stuarts were the true kings
This.
Agreed, but Her Majesty is a bit of a stickler since Her father did feck all, and apparently She felt like everyone was out for blood waiting for the first trip up. So poor role model there, and poor world view soured things a bit.
>The Stuarts were the true kings
Nah, they fucked up with the Catholicism thing. They lost all rights with that, and losing a couple of battles to the rightful line.
I like not just the presence of a Monarch, but the aristocracy that goes along with it. Let's bring back Feudalism!
Read my post again, my point was that they have all the flaws of a democracy with none of the benefits.
Protestantism was a mistake, the Stuarts are the rightful Kings of England and Scotland
>Nah, they fucked up with the Catholicism thing. They lost all rights with that, and losing a couple of battles to the rightful line.
Being of another religion doesn't make your kingship illegitimate. Especially considering that England/UK were united by catbolic kings.
Which benefits does the democracy have?
THIS, can approve 10x times. After that read Ride the Tiger (before read Medititations)
Monarchy is indeed the natural form of human governance. Even republics and democracies cannot escape its base social hierarchy and structure. No matter what form of governance your nation takes, it will always revert to some sort of aristocratic/monarchical form
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Why would i want to follow a (((leader))) this remote to the population?
Queen needs to go, we arent defeatists and we should seek total independance from the UK and the dominion
Meditations might just be the most overrated philosophical self-help book in existence.
t. zhang or pierre
Yea, i read that. Curious what you think the benefits are. But also no, far fewer of the flaws, since not a whole to to gain when you already have everything.
How? James II was coronated as a Protestant, and betrayed his people by converting. Is that something you really want for a king? Henry was bad enough.
Besides, the Windsors are literally the rightful line now, as they won.
>Being of another religion doesn't make your kingship illegitimate. Especially considering that England/UK were united by catbolic kings.
It does when the head of the church is the king.
And James VI & I was Protestant.
That book looks pretty interesting.
Down the bottom of the wiki page there's a link to a pdf of it. It changes your view of politics forever, it's a very good book.
The Royal family are a bunch of satanists that killed Diana in a sacrifice. They are also pawns of the rothchilds.
The populace under James II was largely Protestant though and he was unpopular, William III did nothing wrong. And then Queen Anne, who was Stuart and Protestant, died without kids and the line ended. Thats how political dynasties work, and the Anglicans would have won with or without the Stuarts at the helm
>They are ruled by people inbred to lead
FTFY
Interesting, I don't remember the Romans or Druids sacrificing animals by driving them into a tunnel wall at 100mph.
>bred to lead
More like inbred
>It does when the head of the church is the king
The king can abandon this if he want. The creation of the anglican church itself was a precedent.
Anarchy
>No law. Do not try this.
Direct Democracy
>Whatever 51% of the population says that day goes.
Representative Democracy
>Whoever can tell the voters what they want the best gets power.
Dictatorship
>Whoever can tell the party leadership what they want the best gets power.
Birthright Monarchy
>...
Diana deserved it
They were very skilled. That's what the aquaducts were for; building up speed with low friction.
>The king can abandon this if he want.
Only if the people are happy with it, which they weren't. He knew what he was doing, and hoisted his own petard. They can still be pretenders, but the Windsors have right of conquest.
/orange
But she was a qt
The only Royal waifu you'll ever need.
>They were very skilled. That's what the aquaducts were for; building up speed with low friction.
>Only if the people are happy with it, which they weren't
Fuck the people. They don't have a say on question like that, it's not a democracy.
>They can still be pretenders, but the Windsors have right of conquest.
William the Conqueror had right of conquest, the usurpers were just pawns of the protestant aristocracy
I believe it was Henry Tudor who claimed the right of conquest as well. (He had some loopy claim about being the nth degree second-cousin to one of his dad's mistresses or something but no one really takes it seriously).
>The Stuarts were the true kings
Also read what Peter Hitchens has to say about the benefits of constitutional monarchies.
You know that William actually fought the Jacobites in the field and won, right?
Viva Don Agustin Cosme Damian de Iturbide!!!!
Recommend reading
Anarcho-Monarchism is the final redpill
Good video about democracy
youtube.com
Restore Brazilian Monarchy.
Boot-licking faggots.
Kill yourselves.
William the Conqueror, the catholic Norman I meant
>Please government, tax me and rape my privacy, also gib more ficki ficki!
Paola, Princess from Brazil.
Dona Paola Maria de Bourbon Orléans e Bragança Sapieha, princess from Sapieha-Rozanski and princess from Swiatopolk-Czetwertynski.
Tend to agree, but pic related is the counter argument ofc
I know, I'm saying that William III also fought in battle and won against his opponents.
If you were really anal about this, you could probably build a far better case for William III than for William the Bastard
>a lack of monarchy necessarily leads to these things
Wrong.
>I want these things
Wrong.
He won't have won if all the british had followed their rightfull king on battle...
It was treachery
I never pledged allegiance to that cunt.
A monarch can be the rallying cry of nation which no temporary head of state or constitution can be. In the 19th century europeans knew they were essential, for example when Romania lacked a king they went shopping for one.
>Fuck the people.
Normally i agree. But it's still their country, so they do get a say. Just not a vote.
>William the Conqueror had right of conquest
As did a few others.
>the usurpers were just pawns of the protestant aristocracy
Doesn't make it any less legit. They still won.
>t. Paki
Someone risking a shittonne to help out farmers (ie. His people)?
t. more British than you are.
Apparently not, Ahmed.
>Doesn't make it any less legit. They still won.
That's a dangerous path... You may as well end like the chinese, with their concept of "mandate of heaven" that lead to soo much civil wars
Reptilian blood line. Blue Bloods. 13 families have controlled the world for centuries. Luciferians. It is well known they sacrifice humans and, yes, eat babies. They are the Illuminatti.We are their servants, money source and food source. In other words-we are their farm.
Were the Parliamentarians in the Civil War traitors?
>Apparently
Based on zero evidence.
I'm more British than you are, and I always will be. I know that irks you, because I'm not a boot-licking monarchist faggot such as yourself.
Then leave. Go to some anarchist paradise like Somalia, because it's only because of her benevolence that you are allowed to exist on her land.
Is Kara a Donald trump cuck?
Peter Hitchens is great. Also have you any good youtubers that are monarchists? I only know Fritz Imperial.
Truth. The church had power. The bishop was the real king.
The entire justification behind a monarchy is that the royal family was "appointed by God", and as such, with no god, the king has no power, and the king's power is entirely dependent on the religion followed by his realm. And this religion is controlled by the religious head. Religion is how you really control people, because you can control armies with religion, and with an army, dissidents are shut down.
That said - not all kings are powerless. Some kings have historically had plenty of power, by controlling the religious head. If the head of your religion is a flaccid cuck, you can control him to do what you want, giving you true absolute power as king.
Yes
>inherently stable
So stable in fact that it led to England/UK limited the size of it army that were stationed on isles. Monarchies aren't any more stable than any other form of govt. That's a dumb ass "point." US has had the most stable govt for the last 200+ years.
>bred to lead
Yeah, how did that work out with the Habsburgs.
>You may as well end like the chinese, with their concept of "mandate of heaven"
That's a great idea, though.
>that lead to soo much civil wars
So be it.
Duh.
>Based on zero evidence.
Well, you sound like a Paki, and got immediately defensive of it. I guess you could be Corbyn himself?
>I know that irks you, because I'm not a boot-licking monarchist faggot such as yourself.
Yea, see, Brits aren't as idiotic as that. Maybe try one of the more suicidal countries like Germany when next you claim refuge?
What the fuck did you just say about me, you little cunt? I'll have you know my great grand father graduated top of his company in the Kent Home Guard, and I have been involved in numerous secret trips to Eastbourne to see my great aunts, and I have over 300 confirmed watches of Zulu.
>because I'm not a boot-licking monarchist faggot such as yourself.
No, you're a muslim dick sucking government loving piece of shit that needs to be put against a wall, shot, then flayed, then doused in acid and then burned alive.
Now get the fuck out of my country you disgusting republican piece of shit. GET OUT!
>t. 1st gen chang
Not that I've found. Almost all of them are shithead republicans.
Republicans who live in monarchies need to be removed like cancer.
>US has had the most stable govt for the last 200+ years
Because it's a oligarchy masked as democracy.
Hereditary monarchy is degenerate. It's better than what we have (universal suffrage voting), but it's not as good as merit based selection processes.
kek
It is merit based, though. Just in reverse. They're trained for the position better than anyone else can, and if they fuck up beyond being salvageable, they get the haircut.
Ideal government:
Genetically engineered feudal leaders.
The US was stable because it was heavily religious and isolated from the rest of the word geographically.
How's your political system holding up now that both have gone? Also compare 200 years for America with over 2000 years in Japan and over 1000 in Britain.
even if we were to assume that your statement is true - you're making fundamental attribution error by transferring power from people into the labels who wouldn't want anything to do with those labels. It's very serious error almost implying to the child that cape is what makes superman fly. Children can kill themselves just by making mistake of "believing". So history is very dangerous discipline. It's very unscientific weapon of mass destruction.
Second this. Also anatomy of the state by Rothbard
Yeah, it's sad that there aren't more monarchist youtubers. I recommend Fritz Imperial and the website madmonarchist.
>Monarchies are inherently stable.
And merit is decided how...?