MONARCHY GENERAL
WHAT IS THE BEST FORM OF MONARCHY?
LET'S VOTE ON IT!
strawpoll.me
POST THE FOLLOWING
best Monarchy
best Royal Weapon
what USA would be like if it went HRE
how to restore the Von Hohenzollerns
how to make all countries like Liechtenstein
REMINDER THAT THE RIGHT IS YOUR FRIEND AND THE LEFT IS NOT
>REMINDER THAT THE RIGHT IS YOUR FRIEND AND THE LEFT IS NOT
I meant to say right wing and left wing, it's not about the picture
>america was founded in opposition to monarch-
Hmmm no sweetie
>Generations of students have been taught that the American Revolution was a revolt against royal tyranny. In this revisionist account, Eric Nelson argues that a great many of our “founding fathers” saw themselves as rebels against the British Parliament, not the Crown. The Royalist Revolution interprets the patriot campaign of the 1770s as an insurrection in favor of royal power―driven by the conviction that the Lords and Commons had usurped the just prerogatives of the monarch.
>Leading patriots believed that the colonies were the king’s own to govern, and they urged George III to defy Parliament and rule directly. These theorists were proposing to turn back the clock on the English constitution, rejecting the Whig settlement that had secured the supremacy of Parliament after the Glorious Revolution. Instead, they embraced the political theory of those who had waged the last great campaign against Parliament’s “usurpations”: the reviled Stuart monarchs of the seventeenth century.
>When it came time to design the state and federal constitutions, the very same figures who had defended this expansive conception of royal authority―John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and their allies―returned to the fray as champions of a single executive vested with sweeping prerogatives. As a result of their labors, the Constitution of 1787 would assign its new president far more power than any British monarch had wielded for almost a hundred years. On one side of the Atlantic, Nelson concludes, there would be kings without monarchy; on the other, monarchy without kings.
based, I saw you post this yesterday I think
Bumping for house of Bernadotte.
I posted more too. Funny how Ive never heard a murican talk about this. From Chile to the USA people revolted against parliament, not king (no wonder they created systems more like a king-centred one than parliamentarism), yet this was buried in history
Feel free to repost some of it if uppity hispanic or burger republicucks show up
BTW how does the dutch republic fare vs the monarchy, and why did you trade one for the other?
>strawpoll.me
A constitution is just a piece of paper. It can be ripped up, amended into irrelevance, etc. You need a physical balance of power.
>be monarcuck
>dumb roastie becomes absolute monarch because "she was the first child"
>media starts shilling strong womyn
>feminists run wild
>career wonyn everywhere
>pet shop industry through the roof thanks to a big monopoly of cats purchased
>birthrates collapse
>autistics kids everywhere
An absolute monarch in today's society and social media will be terrible once a female comes in power, and you just fucking know it.
Only absolute monarch that would work, is something like house of saud, unfortunately. Christcucks always get manipulated in the end. They're too soft, yet still fucking lame.
I dislike Islam, but they'll still be a society in 500 years time. Christcucks and the west won't.
We should restore the Hawaiian monarchy as the the monarch of the US
You must absolutely hate her
what about the house of Vasa?
Gustavus Adolfus was pretty ok
the Dutch Republic was really more of an Aristocracy than a Democracy and it was almost exclusively in the hands of the house Orange-Nassau
When Napoleon started conquering western Europe, he created the Batavian Republic client state until he eventually put his brother on the throne as the King of Holland
In 1815, after his defeat, the British allowed the house of Orange Nassau the throne and what used to be the Austrian Netherlands was given to him as well, with Luxembourg under Personal Union
The South eventually revolted because of our intolerance of Catholics (which has its roots in our independence from Catholic Spain) and Belgium was created.
The British, who used to support us, now forced us to recognize Belgium as a legitimate state and in 1859 I believe, Luxembourg became independent as well (a lot more peacefully though)
And that's how the Netherlands transitioned to Monarchism
it was the beginning of the Western Kekisphere
>who is elizabeth I
That description is literally no different than we have today.
This Queen would want an heir, and in order to get an heir she would have to get married. The man would then be King, and set things straight.
no, each state would become a monarchy and the USA itself would become a federal Empire, with the Emperor being elected by the Kings and Queens of each state-Kingdom
You're right, Queens Elizabeth and Victoria totally destroyed Britain
>best monarchy
No monarchy
Pic related could have been king of america pol, what do u think? Who are his descendents btw, who'd be king of america today if he was crowned? What about if washington became emperor?
I'm left wing and I support the monarchy
Or we can be like Canada and have the sovereign appoint their own lieutenant-general for each state
Catherine the Great, brought Russia to superpower status, while her husband was nuts
Try again
Very interesting
Thatd be hard. How do we get 50 royals? Maybe have general governors or something?
Any idea what hamilton and co planned to do?
What about a nobility? Hereditary, meritocratic like in Brazil, a lil bit of both? No nobility like in the orleanist regime (iirc)?
even a broken clock is right twice a day
>wanting to be led by corrupt power hungerers
yeah ok then
interesting, would the monarch be able to just get rid of the lt general if they do things the monarch doesn't like?
>von hohenzollerns on the American throne
can you imagine how based the alliance between the German Empire and the American Hegemony would've been?
>USA on the right side during WW1
>no Commie revolt to bring down the German Empire
literally cumming right now
...
Without american support Juarez might have been btfo too and Mexico would be a habsburg empire
Washington had adopted children, so it would had thrown the country into chaos when he died.
I do hate Bolsheviks, but he fucked up too much. If he had handled things better there might have been no USSR
if the USA would ever become a monarchy, the idea of nobility would have to be done away with.
in fact, I think in most of the west, the idea of divine right is outdated and no longer seen as legitimate.
I think a new "nobility" born out of land ownership would be seen as more justified. After all, inheritance is a valid method of transfer of property. So by letting people become barons by purchasing the land, you would have a "nobility" which anyone can join.
I don't even know what Liz I even done. Also, this is just 1 example.
Only monarch we were taught in school, was some fat fuck named Jimmy the 8th who had 8 wives or something.
Yeah, other pleb emperors were a failure in Mexico and Haiti too. They get no euro support and no legitimacy due to military might since they're not madmen like napoleon who conquered half of europe
Wouldn't it be easier to just restore all the native american monarchy and nobility?
Make it so the constitution is hard to amend. Make it so if the constitution is amended and the people don't like the amendments they can storm the palace and behead the monarch. Constitutional Monarchy Best Monarchy. Guarantee the people basic property and judicial rights then let the monarch and parliament worry about running the government.
That's George V, dipshit. Nicholas II isn't in the picture.
She brought stability to the Anglican church, fought off the Spanish armada, and began the colonization of the United States.
this
and make the constitution so there is a clear and distinct separation of powers, like the USA constitution
it'd basically be the USA, but without all the corruption and jewry by taking out elections and democratic politics
and comfy royal symbolism
>Victoria
Parliament had already made the monarch a ""monarch" by then, plus she loved kikes.
United states was a mistake and was built on freemasons, and the British empire was proto globalism for the Rothschilds.
Also, what's the best form of succession in a hereditary monarchy?
Oldest son?
Oldest child?
Oldest son, then oldest daughter in case of no son?
Oldest living member of the dynasty?
Appointed heir of the dynasty?
In brazil the nobility was formed by notables picked as appointees by the council of state (basically councillors) due to merit (and they had to oay large sums too), and then the emperor would confirm one noble out of 3 appointees and grant him a title. IIRC that is, woild have to reread the constitution. They also had no benefit, just the title and status as nobles
Do they make a difference? No, except maybe they'll be more inclined to defend the crown, but a monarchy without nobles is just odd
Hope we can bring him back as King of all Serbs.
If it can be done and the people are ok with it (in aegentina they were). What tribes had actual hereditary monarchies, instead of maybe just tribal chiefs?
IIRC the native nobles in Mexico were recognized , and to this day there is a Duke of Moctezuma de Tultengo in spain
They're equal tho. I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that theyre the same guy. I mean, youve ever SEEN them together?
in the system I envision, all land owners would be nobles, so there is always a nobility
and since the nobility are invested the country in the most direct way (by land ownership) they would support their country no matter what
How does the saudi system work?
>you will never have a cloak like that and be comfy 24/7
why live
>cherrypicks
>doesn't address that I'm actually talking about modern times, and not a time where "media" was drawing chalk on some stone wall for a villege of a few families to see
>look up kingdom of yugoslavia
>see pic related was first King
man nobility always have the best moustaches
I believe most islamic monarchies work with appointed heirs from among their sons
I was pretty close
en.wikipedia.org
>The Basic Law specifies that the king must be chosen from among the sons of the first king, Abdul Aziz Al Saud, and their male descendants subject to the subsequent approval of religious leaders (the ulema). In 2007, an "Allegiance Council" was created, comprising King Abdulaziz's surviving sons plus a son of each his deceased sons, to determine which member of the royal family will be the heir apparent (the Crown Prince) after Prince Muhammad, who is the current Crown Prince, either dies or accedes to the throne.
>implying we wouldn't use salic law
>implying king cokenose didn't just walk around in a vest and briefs when not in public
>implying princess flower roses and lavender didn't take a steaming shit before flossing her teeth
You're cute
>based Old Dutch law of women hating
Thats bound to cause trouble
I sometimes fantasize about meeting a noble lord and greeting him in a cultivated manner. But the upper class has been vanished, at least in common cities.
>wanting absolute monarchy
topcuck
it did plenty of times throughout history, I think the Ottomans had lots of disgruntled sons who wanted to be picked and would later cause rebellions
Absolute Monarchy was fine in the 18th and 19th centuries user
It wasn't as totalitarian as it seems
>muh monarchy
I still think you are not understanding there will always be a nero just around the corner. Not everyone will be Caesar
Absolute monarchs were quite weak compared to democratic presidents, and a phenomenon far smaller in time and geographically than republicucks suppose
>implying all monarchists are absolutist
>implying all absolutist monarchs were bad
John Barker's diary in 1775, a lieutenant of the 4th (King's Own) regiment, in Boston:
>Here is a report that the Mob at New York has disarmed that part of the 18th Regt. which is there and taken'em Prisoners; whether true or not I can't say. The Rebels have erected the Standard at Cambridge; they call themselves the King's Troops and us the Parliaments. Pretty Burlesque!
Your move
>implying the constitution would weaken a Great leader
If he was good, he would respect the constitutional rights of the citizens. giving absolute power is retarded.
My genes are the PUREST
>On June 1, 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania rose in the Constitutional Convention to offer the motion that would create the American presidency.
>The new federal executive, he proposed, should “consist of a single person,” and this chief magistrate should be vested with sweeping prerogative powers.1 His colleague Edmund Randolph of Virginia immediately objected, declaring that “a unity in the Executive magistracy” would amount to “the foetus of monarchy” and insisting that Americans, having just rebelled against the British Crown, had “no motive to be governed by the British Government as our prototype.”2 Wilson, as reported by Rufus King of Massachusetts, responded as follows: “The people of America did not oppose the British King but the parliament— the opposition was not against an Unity but a corrupt multitude.”3 With this remark, Wilson grounded his constitutional program in a particular understanding of the character and purposes of the American Revolution. The colonists, on this view, had rebelled against a “corrupt multitude,” not a monarch. They had sought protection for their liberties in the prerogatives of the Crown, not in the wisdom of popular assemblies. Those who would keep faith with “Revolution principles” ought therefore to favor the creation of a strong, independent chief magistrate — one wielding an “absolute negative” on legislation, plenary power of appointment to executive and judicial offices, the prerogative of clemency, and the dazzling authority of commander-in-chief. Only such a figure could truly represent the people as a whole and tame the tyrannical proclivities and partialities of the legislature. Wilson’s remarks clearly resonated with the man who transcribed them. Years later, Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri recalled a conversation with the aged Rufus King
>“upon the formation of the constitution in the federal convention of 1787.” On this occasion, he explained, King “said some things to me which, I think ought to be remembered by future generations, to enable them to appreciate justly those founders of our government who were in favor of a stronger organization than was adopted.” He said: “You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all opositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves ‘His Majesty’s most faithful subjects’; and we began the quarrel which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament.”
Reminder that William of Orange, who established constitutional monarchy in England (Bill of Rights), was financed by a Jew.
en.wikipedia.org
>A notable instance of the support of the house of Suasso to the Dutch stadtholders is the loan of two million guilders which Suasso made to William of Orange in 1688 in support of his invasion of England to claim the thrones of King James II.[1] The story is told that William asked Suasso what he wanted as collateral for the millions, to which Suasso replied: "If thou art felicitous, I know thou wilt return them to me; art thou infelicitous, I agree to having lost them."
Sup Forums is always right
>The Rebels have erected the Standard at Cambridge
Easy? Declare war on their ass and BTFO. How is that difficult? That's treason, any government would do that.
i don't explicitly want monarchy, but i want a society in which everybody knows his place and nobody is pushed or dragged down artificially. if someone is a top-tier noblemen, let him be. i don't want sjw cucks to ((((equalize)))) excelence.
Friendly reminder that you're a cuck if you didn't vote for absolute monarchy
...
See also
America was born out of an unrequited love for a king who was to much of a liberal pussy to exert his powers
arrgghhh I am your king naughhhwwwww
>Doesn't value a constitution
The romans are rolling in their grave
>implying that not having a constitution means an absolute monarch shits on its citizens
Take a good long study of The Sun King, Louis the 14th, to see how wrong you are. Im not even an absolutist, you're just an ignorant burger.
>Im not even an absolutist, you're just an ignorant burger.
Bro.
Nero.
Our country is successful for many reasons, but one of those is we have guaranteed rights. If nero takes over, you have some wiggle room and freedom promised through the constitution. Without the constitution he can do whatever the fuck he wants to the country/citizens.
Even the romans knew this shit
>we have guaranteed rights.
Lol.
I like your constitution, but you're naive to think that it would matter one iota if it stood in someone's way.
>. If nero takes over
He has enough support and people care so little about the constitution that itd be just paper
>says the gunless aussie
>gadsen flag
>shits on constitution
Get the fuck out of here larper
M8, i have two rifles, a shotgun, and a pistol, as well as a few muzzle loaders.
But either way, it doesn't mean your constitution isn't just a piece of paper.
Monarchy:
>Lower taxes, less wasteful spending, less inclination to abuse of power, more respect for long term economy, less short term/one time tricks to temporarily lower (or create illusion of lowering) debt, less likely to start war
Correct me about what I am wrong. Not monarchist here, just want to hear opinions.
>it doesn't mean your constitution isn't just a piece of paper.
Fact. It literally is a piece of paper.
However, that is being reductionist. The constitution represents the will of the people. A decree that reminds the leader our rights, and should they be violated there is a price to pay.
...
Kiss me NOW
Your kind demands it!
Scandis are friends.
Carlos II was the shitposter of monarchy
>However, that is being reductionist.
I meant that it's not going to actually stand in the way of anyone.
>The constitution represents the will of the people.
Some people, at the moment.
>and should they be violated there is a price to pay.
Hasn't thus far with the amount of times it's been infringed.
>less likely to start war
That's the only point i'd say contentious. They're just as likely as any government.
A constitution is only good if people follow it. If enough people support a tyrant, you get one. Even de Gaulle got rid of a constitution he didnt like
>tfw hereditary monarchs
>tfw massive inbreeding
>tfw
>REMINDER THAT THE RIGHT IS YOUR FRIEND AND THE LEFT IS NOT
My enemy's left is my friend, and their right is my enemy.
My left is my enemy's friend and my right is the enemy's friend.
That's how subversion works. To advance one's own people however, dualistic thinking must be de-legitimised...
Make America Britain again! A constitutional monarchy is better than no monarchy at all.
>My left is my enemy's friend and my right is the enemy's friend.
My left is my enemy's friend and my right is the enemy's enemy.
>I meant that it's not going to actually stand in the way of anyone.
It's not suppose to. It is a line in the sand, and should a leader cross it, we are enabled legally to revolt. We also have a real chance of resistance because of the 2nd amendment
>Hasn't thus far with the amount of times it's been infringed.
en.wikipedia.org
>represents
At that point it isn't reductionist and it is now nothing but a piece of fucking paper akin to nothing more than a flag, a symbol. The will of a people is reflected in standard ideals in a society and its culture, that is an organic thing that cannot be stomped out easily. Since the time of the enlightenment , we have mostly had excellent monarchs. Neros were few and far between, and as a result the general idea that drove monarchs was that you were of the people, and thus should do by the people as is the charge of your office. Also Rome did not operate the same way as the monarchies of Europe did 400 years ago. Rome had many more issues and inefficiencies it had to deal with.
Try again.
...
>The bible is only good if people follow it. If enough people support satan, you get hell.
Basically you're a nihilist, we get it.
and this is only true for monarchies?
even anarchy can devolve into tyranny, tyranny itself is not an argument
Now this is my kind of thread.
Have you ever heard about Carlism? If so, what's your thoughts about it?
>yfw separatists are being noisy again and can't let you take a siesta
Maybe its too complex of an idea for you to grasp? For you to revolt, you must have a reason. Your reason is your rights that are protected by the constitution.
Go ahead, violate it. We the people have the right to kill your ass legally. So is it really worth violating? Depends, have you disarmed the population?