I know there are some monarchists on here. What are the pros and cons?

I know there are some monarchists on here. What are the pros and cons?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 33K)

If shit hits the fan, you know exactly who to kill

Attached: 1521620576251.jpg (640x632, 59K)

it's just fascism for people who like crowns

republican imbecile

It's the best system. Cohesive, sustainable, fair and conservative. It needs more than a monarch though and a lot of decent people to be effective which was the case in Europe until the Great War.

Oversight. It's harder for corruption to work its way into parliament, or for a coup to take place.

maybe if were talking Divine Imperial tier kings without any nobles or heritage rules not set by the ruler.

No. Why is that necessary for the role? All that does is destroy parliament entirely which is a far worse place to be.

then how is any harder for corruption or a coup to form

The monarch monitors the affairs of their government daily, as a standard part of the job. The leader of government reports directly to the monarch, who had the power to request information on a broad range of topics regarding the government's activities. The nation has a head of state that cannot be bought, bribed, or otherwise co-opted due to their independent wealth. Any parliamentary coup is destined to fail without the support of the monarch. It is in the personal interest of the monarch to use their powers of oversight to preserve govt stability as this is linked directly to their health and well being, as the Romanovs found.

>The Monarch is supposed to be the supreme role model for a society to follow. This is why it requires the monarch to be impeached/excommunicated by the church when he starts being shit morally.
>Monarch is supposed to be as close to God as possible. Free from any stress or hardship that might negatively influence his judgment and rationality.
>Monarch is supposed to be most educated in land, understanding all concepts on which the society functions. Monarch is supposed to have clear judgment so that his word is final, unless the church deems it immoral.
>Monarch's hold on power is extremely tenuous. If he really does do a shit job, people can remedy situation very quickly.
>One man trying to juggle all those interests without the church keeping him in check leads to the monarch eventually abandoning his obligation to make decisions, pushing the job down to a parliament and prime minister, who then take the blame for bad decisions, and the monarch's prime role of 'smartest most rational mind in the room' is nullified, and the monarch becomes a purposeless figurehead like someone on a board of director instead of ceo.

The way the monarchy worked alongside the church was the way things were supposed to be from the original design of the concepts and political system. All that shit got corrupted as Protestantism spread, Henry 8 made himself head of church and state, monarchs passed duties down to parliaments so they could share blame for bad decisions, etc.

If you don't have a Church to keep monarch in check you have to have a constitution. But no parliament. And it just doesn't work at all in a multicultural society. A monarch has to look out for his people, and he should feel most attached and care most about his own race, that is what you feel naturally, and his feelings aren't sincere if he pretends to treat all races equally.

This

Attached: 1521477123708.png (1024x568, 1.12M)

Say your on a boat would rather have a expert captain trained from a young age to know the ways of the sea or the passenger commanding the boat. Thats my question for anti monarchests

We need space monarchy

Attached: 1506187294694.jpg (511x288, 108K)

If your society thinks that a bunch of competing identities making group decisions by majority vote or consensus is better at obtaining truth and success than one highest educated in the land monarch living a perfect life with no stress or misfortune to cloud their judgment, who lives or dies on whether he makes the right call....I just...how can anyone believe what liberal democracy is a sane system

So many plebs in here it smells like plebs.
Go read Machiaveli The prince
It will give you an idea.
Machiaveli on Islam
Purpose of a Muslim ruler is to implement the divine law Thus, the ideal Islamic state isa community governed by the *aw revealed by >odis it an autocracy that rests absolute power in the ruler The function of the Islamic state is to provide security and order sothat Muslims can carry out both their religious and worldly duties The +aliph or princeis the guardian of faith and the community (is role is enhanced by religious scholars because they provide him religious and legal counsel (e also appoints

How retarded do you have to be to give one person absolute power?

Reminder this is an outdated ideology.

One thing that you'll get from reading this is that a smart prince or whatever has no interest in abusing his people. He must be fair and square, he must not be a pussy and he must not be a psychotic cunt.

GOD SAVE THE KING!

Attached: Statue_d'Alfred_le_Grand_à_Winchester.jpg (768x1024, 89K)

>pros
none

>cons
everything especially the LARP

because democracy is more and more used when one talks about liberty. it's just brainwashing. people rarely even think about if democracy is good or bad.

ok if the monarch has an ambitious brother and everyone likes him more guess what happens next.

I disagree, a constitutional parliamentary monarchy is the superior system. A degree of democracy in any given system is a positive, as it provides a relief valve for a discontented people. It's a necessary feedback system, and when used correctly allows the elite to guage when the commons are being pushed a little too far, and so allow concessions at appropriate times. Without some level of democracy, similar discontent is revealed at a later and more dangerous stage, expressed in rioting, and considerably more damaging to state stability.

The Prince is useful for the individual, less so the state. In places it advocates seizing personal power at the cost of state stability.

>absolute
No

In a constitutional monarchy, that matter is arbitrated by parliament. The UK dealt successfully with that very situation, with Edward VIII only a few decades ago.

>It needs more than a monarch though
All western monarchs served the king of kings.

How retarded do you have to be to give people power, when other people exterior to the state are perfectly able to control them and their feelings/opinions/whatever they base their political opinion on,besides rationality?

Sure thing

Attached: Onkel Wilhelm.jpg (500x250, 15K)

Pros :
You get a leader trained from young age to be king
Corruption become extremely hard, as the king is embodiment of the nation and anything favoring him favor the nation
Can have long term plans (30+ years)
You dont rely of elections which inevitably attract narcissistic people instead of knowledgeable people
Cons :
Muh democracy
If the king becomes a tyrant you’re screwed

People only take care of what belongs to them.

Attached: cavalier2.jpg (236x362, 20K)

All other systems are a smokescreen to allow wealth to exercise power without taking responsibility.

Attached: O Cavaleiro Sorridente, Frans Hals, 1624._thumb[2].jpg (379x484, 73K)

>All that shit got corrupted as Protestantism spread
Bullshit the Catholic Church was a corrupt hellhole then and now. It had/has little to do with morals, let alone Christian values.

kings were elites the way nobody is today.

They weren't just knowledgeable on a single issue like today's elites, they were raised knowing about every important topic

You are simply painting an idealistic picture of monarchy and comparing realistic picture of democracy.

Tell me, if monarchs are oh so well trained, how comes Wilhelm II was so bad in foreign politics?