Monarchism General
Edition: The Comeback Kid
This is a thread for the discussion of Monarchism, Culture and Traditionalism.
Resources:
pastebin.com
Q/A:
Q: Why do you support a dead ideology?
A: Ideologies do not die, they are merely abandoned by the ignorant masses.
Q: So you support North Korea then?
A: No, North Korea is a Communist Dictatorship - and goes against many values of Monarchism such as the strong connections to Tradition and Culture which the North Koreans have replaced with a mindless cult.
Q: Wouldn't Hereditary Succession allow madmen to get in power simply by birth?
A: No, the Rightful heir would by default be tutored and educated from birth to rule as a proper and efficient leader. In this way a Monarchy allows a much more smoother transition of power and long-term stability than democracy or a dictatorship.
Q: So you support tyranny and the loss of people's rights?
A: Monarchies still exist today, such as the United Kingdom and Lichtenstein with as many Freedoms and Rights as the United States.
Social Media:
Curious about being a Monarchist or our Beliefs?
Join our discord.
Discord code: dKXSSxF
/MG/ Monarchism General
Other urls found in this thread:
So how does this system keep itself in check?
I've heard of stories about inbreeding and power struggles with this form of government.
Bump
no system can keep istelf in check completely
but in the case of monarchy revolts happen when the king is shit
* blocks your path*
The entire British system.
>>the Magna Carta (1215), the Provisions of Oxford (1258), the Provisions of Westminister (1259), the Statue of Marlborough (1267), the Welsh Acts of 1535 & 1542, the Petition of Right (1628), Instrument of government (1653), Humble Petition & Advice (1657), Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701), and the Act of Union (1706), Acts of Union (1800)
...before 1911*
> constitutional monarchy
wow dude Sup Forums can't be that cucked
Don't talk about division of power between monarchs and public assemblies if you don't understand it. This is just National Conservatism in the UK, not monarchism.
This is idiotic. Read Moldbug if you want to see what the real monarchist movement looks like.
> sees digits
you're right senpai
claimed.
hi relative
I don't get why nobody on here ever talks about molding or any of the other nrx
>Monarchies still exist today, such as the United Kingdom
No monarchist would dare call that abomination of political system in the modern UK a 'monarchy.' Who are you really, shill?
British reconquest of North America when?
it was a meh tier answer in the discord, new threadposter accidentally used it.
There is no better monarchical system in the world in theory. In practice, the Queen has not signed Royal Assent in person since Queen Victoria, and the last refusal was 1707. Queen Victoria setting the precedence for a non-political monarchy is what degraded the Crown.
SAY IT WITH ME
KING EMMANUEL I OF FRANCE
They are to intelligent for nu/pol/
Because this board has been taken over my lebbit refugees and leftist shills whose political beliefs are informed entirely by mainstream political ideologies.
99% of the idiots on here will defend "muh vote" with the same mouth-foaming religiosity as progressives, even if you can rationally demonstrate to them that democracy is the most degenerate political system.
Don't expect nu-Sup Forums to listen to reason.
I can agree with this.
Yeah, horrible example.
There is only one absolute monarchy left in Europe, and it is Liechtenstein- literally the best place in the entire continent (and possible the world).
I have a question: You assume that the monarch will be a good person and agree with what you want and such.
What happens when the monarch engages in actions that are bad for the people of your country? George Soros, the Rothschilds, the Clintons, the Bushes, and the Lee family are all exactly what you want to be ruled by: Wealthy, powerful, detached, and not subject to checks and balances. Hans-Adam II is a literal monarch and he's filling his country with refugees. You might say that the royal family will remove them, but what if the whole family is doing the fucking (the Bushes, the Clintons) or is rotten (The Lees, who are currently tearing Singapore apart over petty property squabbles)?
> divine right
you can't just put any person on the throne. the person you're gonna put has to be pious, moral, and educated.
The terms for removal of a monarch was set out in English common law in the trials that came after the English Civil War under the banner of Rex v Rex, which establishes the Crown is a seperate institute to the monarch itsself and isn't one person.
However it would still resort to violence.
And what about the fact that the majority of monarchs have not been pious, moral, and educated even by the standards of the day? Obviously everything will work out if we give absolute power to someone who is perfect, but then have you ever met someone who is perfect? You might say "Yeah, Jesus/Augustus/Caesar/Napoleon/Lee Kuan Yew", but they're dead and not coming back. Someone could rule in their stead, but what if THEY aren't perfect? What then?
>absolute power
This usually comes under the banner of Royal Prerogative in any monarchical system more evolved than a tribal king. He/she doesn't wield absolute power all of the time, nor without ministers. Norway has or had this system too
>And what about the fact that the majority of monarchs have not been pious, moral, and educated even by the standards of the day
Are you kidding me? Monarchs were extremely pious, moral, and educated by today's standards. Stop pulling statistics out of your ass.
Monarchists do not believe monarchs are perfect, so you can drop that lazy strawman.
A monarch is to be educated from birth to be the best ruler they can be. If someone is exceptionally bad they either be forced to abdicate, an internal coup within the royal family can occur, or even a revolution by either the lower classes or nobility.
Vive le roi!
This tbqh
cuck
>they either be forced to abdicate, an internal coup within the royal family can occur, or even a revolution by either the lower classes or nobility.
These are all shitty options.
>Flag
Checks out
Divine right is fucking propaganda. The nobility ruled because they acted as a trained military force to defend the people they ruled. They stopped doing that centuries ago, and with it gave up any right they had to rule.
We really need a Monarchist flag to choose for Sup Forums. We've got some gay Kekistani flag but not one for the true system of governance!
Not here they didn't. The Queen is the Commander in Chief, which descends from the BoR 1689.
Worked absolutely fine with Edward VIII.
...what did was laziness of one monarch adding on.
That isn't what I'm talking about and you fucking know it you massive faggot. The nobility, including the king, used to go out and fucking fight. They stopped doing that when guns outstripped armor.
I'm wondering what you Monarchy Lads would think is the best.
Do me a favour Lads.
strawpoll.com
You claimed the monarchs forfeited their right to rule when they gave up military dominance. I didn't even bother responding to the rest because its stuff covered in the first pages of every book about monarchism and is basic reading level rubbish.
The Crown has done neither here, out of lack of military command.
>The maker of this poll should buy a bible
Kek. Voted eclectic fyi
>You claimed the monarchs forfeited their right to rule when they gave up military dominance.
They literally fought in the battles you dipshit. Standing back and commanding isn't fucking good enough.
So what is the connection between battlefield commanding and lack of legislative power, as opposed to say, overall command of the Armed Forces (CnC) and lack of legislative power?
Off with their heads!
Happy Bastille Day
The people with legislative power and the Commander in Chief in a republic are directly elected by the people, who make up the the entirety of the armed forces in a republic.
Huh? You said
>The nobility ruled because they acted as a trained military force to defend the people they ruled.
>They stopped doing that centuries ago, and with it gave up any right they had to rule.
At first, I thought you meant there was a direct correlation between lack of legislative power and direct battlefield commanding but even as a point, direct battlefield commanding has not existed for 500 years without roles being dispensed to Lieutenants on the field. Atleast not in recent British military history. So what's the difference between overall command, as Commander in Chief, and directly commanding on the battlefield & how does that result in forfeiting your right to rule?
To say nothing of the fact the Queen is a 5'3"ft 90 year old woman now.
>5'3"ft
Late, sorry. 5ft3".
bamp