A Monarchy is the most pure and best governmental system in existence. The history of Europe is tied together with Aristocracy and Monarchy. The rise of Republicanism and democracy are already marking the end of Europe, through the means of mass-immigration, destruction of Christianity, marriage, culture and gender.
Now I will refute various myths regarding Monarchies. Please refrain from commenting in the first 2 minutes so I can list my rebuttals to common myths from Republicans.
>Monarchies are un-democratic! Not true. Actually, most monarchies in the world today are more democratic than most republics in the world. Further, in most republics (even the United States) the President is not directly elected by the people anyway. However, being democratic is not necessarily a good thing. Benevolent leaders and bloodthirsty dictators have both come to power through democracy.
>Monarchies are too expensive! Not true, not by a long shot. Some monarchs (such as the Prince of Liechtenstein) cost the public nothing at all. In the United Kingdom, the money the Queen grants the government from the Crown Estates is considerably more than the allowance she receives from the Civil List, so Britain effectively makes money off the monarchy. Republics often spend more on their presidents, past presidents and first families than monarchies do on their royal houses. Many countries (like Australia, Jamaica or Canada) share a monarch and pay nothing and monarchies do not have the constant, massive expense of elections and political campaigns for the top job.
>Hereditary monarchy just isn’t fair! Why not? How can any system for determining national leadership be absolutely fair? It hardly seems fair that one person should receive the top job simply because he or she is more popular. Surely the correct criteria should be how qualified a person is rather than if they are good at making speeches, more photogenic or being more gifted at graft and deceit. In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role. In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land.
>Monarchies are dangerous! What if the monarch is incompetent? The same question could be asked about republican leaders. However, rest assured, monarchs who are not capable of fulfilling their duties can be replaced and have been throughout history. Take two of the oldest and most stable monarchies; in Great Britain, when King George III became incapacitated the Prince of Wales was made regent and exercised his duties for him. Similarly, in Japan, when the Taisho Emperor was no longer able to fulfill his duties, the Crown Prince took over those duties for him as regent. On the other hand, even in the most successful republic in the world, the United States, only two presidents have ever been impeached and neither one was actually removed from office.
Jace Perry
>Monarchy is an archaic throwback! It’s simply out of date! Certainly monarchy is an ancient institution as it developed naturally from the dawn of time and the growth of human civilizations. However, democracy and republicanism is just as archaic. The Greek city-states of ancient times tried direct democracy and found it of very limited value, lasting only so long as people found out they could vote themselves the property of others. Republicanism was tried on a large-scale by the ancient Romans and yet they too found that it caused too many divisions, factions and civil wars before they decided a monarchy was preferable. The oldest republic in the world today was founded in 301 AD. How out of date is that?
>What about cruel monarchs like Nero or Attila the Hun? Surely no benefits could be worth risking leaders like that! Actually, far more people have been butchered in wars or massacred by those in power since the start of the revolutionary period than in all history previously. Nero or Attila the Hun were unsavory characters but nowhere near as bad as republican monsters like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot. It has only been in the post-revolutionary era of mass politics and political ideologies that governments have taken to killing their own people in huge numbers. Nero was cruel to his own family and later persecuted Christians who were still a tiny minority and Attila the Hun, as ruthless as he was toward his enemies, ruled his own people well from what we know and with justice. No monarch ever wiped out as many of their own people as the communist dictators of the Twentieth Century, all of whom did so in the name of “the people” and “fairness”.
Robert Young
>Royals are too out of touch. They have no idea how regular people live. Some people believe this, but it simply isn’t true. Queen Elizabeth II was a mechanic and truck driver during World War II, the King of Thailand is a renowned jazz musician and composer, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has painted illustrations for several books, including the Danish edition of “The Lord of the Rings”. The Emperor of Japan grows his own rice, the King of Cambodia was a practically anonymous dance instructor before coming to the throne and many royal heirs take ordinary jobs, often in obscure places where they are unknown, after finishing school. Despite what people think, royal life is not all champagne and caviar. Compare this to many presidents who have often never worked outside the public sector in their entire lives, never served in the military (as most royals do) or ever known any other life besides making speeches and casting votes.
>At best, monarchs are unnecessary. A president could do just as good a job. Not true at all. Some republics have ceremonial presidents that are supposed to be non-political but they still invariably have a political background and are beholden to the party that appoints them. A monarch, on the other hand, is above all political divisions and has a blood connection to the history of the country, its traditions and most deeply held beliefs. No politician could ever represent a people in the way a monarch can whose family history has been the history of the country itself.
Jaxson Martin
>Monarchies must be bad or else there would be more of them! That argument could only begin to make sense if most monarchies had fallen because of a conscious decision by the whole people to see them end. This has certainly not been the case. Most monarchies have fallen because of brute force exerted by a powerful, motivated minority or because their country was defeated in war and their state collapsed. How about looking at how people live? The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development annually puts out a list of the best countries to live in based on a variety of factors and monarchies invariably outrank republics by far. Last year, 2012, is a typical case with 8 out of the top 10 best countries to live in being monarchies; the only republics to make the top 10 were the United States and Switzerland. If republics are so great, shouldn’t their people be living better lives than those in monarchies?
>Monarchs are so set apart, they cannot represent ordinary people. Actually, that is precisely why they can represent everyone in a way no politician ever could. President Hollande of France is an agnostic socialist, so how can he truly represent those French who are Catholic or capitalists? President Napolitano of Italy was a long-time communist, which is certainly not representative of most Italians. President Obama of the US, a liberal from Hawaii, cannot have much in common with a conservative from South Carolina. Yet, a monarch, because they are set apart, can represent everyone because they are not from any particular group.
Samuel Rodriguez
>Republics bring progress, monarchies only oppressed. Historical fact says otherwise. Time and time again history has shown that the end of monarchy makes things worse for a country, not better. In France it resulted in the “Reign of Terror” that saw tens of thousands of people get their heads chopped off. In Russia, the loss of the monarchy allowed the Bolsheviks to take power who then created the Soviet Union which spread oppression around the world and murdered millions of people. In China the result was a chaotic period of warlord rule followed by the bloodiest civil war in human history and then a communist dictatorship that took the lives of 60 million people. The end of monarchy in Germany and Austria resulted in divided republics that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power, devastate the continent and butcher 9 million people. The fall of the Shah of Iran allowed a radical theocracy to take power that has spread terrorism around the world and brutally oppressed its own people. These are only a few of the examples that could be cited and the facts are inarguable.
Ethan Parker
THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT AND YOU SOULD FEEL BAD
One king can be good but their son will? Monarchy is a system where there is no equality in rights so it's not democratic
Daniel James
So who am I ? I cover royal history, which I have an interest in, looking at good times and bad. My goal is to aid in some small way in shoring up support for existing monarchies and restoring those which have been destroyed. I am a pan-monarchist, which means I do not focus on one country or one royal family or one monarchial tradition alone but on the world-wide monarchist cause. That is to say, I hope to foster support for what sociologists call “traditional authority” everywhere in the world. That includes supporting traditional figures in government and traditional values in society. For the vast majority of peoples throughout the world these traditional values are largely the same. I have very strong religious opinions (which I think are obvious to most people) but this is not a religious blog, Just because I choose not to preach does not mean I consider the issue inconsequential. When it comes to religion, I will say that I consider almost any religion better than none at all since, again, the vast majority have the same basic social values in common and the vast majority support the same basic form of government, which is monarchy.
Nolan Watson
I hope to unite monarchists rather than divide them. In France, for example, the monarchist cause has long been bitterly divided between the supporters of the “Legitimists”, “Orleanists” and “Bonapartists”. There is one which I consider right and always will. However, I would consider any of them a vast improvement over the revolutionary republic and abhor the manner in which the republic has endured by default because monarchists failed to come together for the good of their country and countrymen. My most basic definition of a monarchist is quite simple: you support monarchy and oppose republics. That means I do not and will not undermine any existing royal houses because in every case the only current alternative would be a republic rather than some other royal house or genealogical line. Anyone who would wish to undermine any existing monarchy for any reason whatsoever may pass their time elsewhere. Anyone who would seek to pursue their personal preference rather than remaining loyal to legal and legitimate sovereigns is a republican at heart and may do the same.
Nathan Gomez
I am proudly reactionary and counterrevolutionary. I support that which strengthens monarchy and traditional values and oppose that which weakens them. However, I also strive to be practical and realistic and that means never sacrificing a preferable present in the hope of a totally perfect future. I support monarchs having actual powers and more than mere symbolic authority but I will support and defend even the most purely ceremonial monarchies as preferable to an outright republic since there is at least a root from which the tree can be restored. No matter how stripped down and muzzled, any monarchy at all provides more to work with than a republic for history has largely proven the last German Kaiser correct when he said, “Monarchy is like virginity, once lost, you can never get it back”. That is not always true, but in the vast majority of cases it is and that is why a republic is a calamity that is to be avoided at all costs and I will defend even the smallest nub of an existing monarchy rather than giving up on it in the naïve hope that something better can come from the triumph of republicanism. I believe monarchists must be resolute, determined and loyal to the death, whether in good times or bad.
Ian Stewart
In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role, under the best circumstances, where the Princes learn ethics, law, philosophy, history and all needed qualities for a King.
In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land. Next, the only priority of the democratically elected party is staying in power, while a King does not have to worry about such trivial matters and is thus not motivated by the idea's of letting millions of immigrants in who will vote for you. Instead the King can rule the lands with the best interest of the Country at heart.
If you want to see our side of the perspective, please listen to the following conversation: youtube.com/watch?v=KBvHBmpfXHM
Jacob Roberts
Represent
Michael Stewart
In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role, under the best circumstances, where the heirs are learned ethics, law, philosophy, history and all needed qualities for a King.
In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land. Next, the only priority of the democratically elected party is staying in power, while a King does not have to worry about such trivial matters and is thus not motivated by the idea's of letting millions of immigrants in who will vote for you. Instead the King can rule the lands with the best interest of the Country at heart.
Ayden Long
I only have respect for absolute monarchs. The others can go to hell. Monarchy should be absolute
completely unrealistic that's right on level with communism
Parker Ortiz
also, todays monarchies are retarded and worthless, they shame their glorious ancestors with their shitty ultrademocratic, supertolerant feminism
Brandon Sullivan
On this subject, Can anyone recommend some books both for and against monarchy?
Logan Cruz
"Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture" by Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet
"Patriarcha: Or the Natural Power of Kings" by Sir Robert Filmer
"Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions and other Human Institutions" by Count Joseph de Maistre
"Monarchism in the Age of Enlightenment" by Hans W. Blom
"On the Pope" by Count Joseph de Maistre
"Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism" by Juan Donoso Cortes
"Liberty or Equality" by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
"Reflections of a Russian Statesman" by Konstantin Pobedonostsev
"Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"On Monarchist Statehood" by Lev Tikhomirov
Recommended by Readers "The Menace of the Herd" by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
"A History of the French Revolution" by Thomas Carlyle
"Politics" by Aristotle
"The Analects" by Confucius
"Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises
Cameron Peterson
Any form of republicanism is already a form of leftism. Americans don't want to hear this because they want to believe their "Republican Party" is on the right. Yet they are not. Republicanism has roots in the French Revolution, which then paved the way for Communist Revolutions. If you want to define extreme right and extreme left than you would have an Absolute Monarchy on the extreme right and a Communist dictatorship on the extreme left. A republic is somewhere in between, but more to the left, while constitutional republic is generally more to the right. Believing in a Republican form of government is thus not right wing, contrary to popular believe, but actually in support of "the people" or "the bourgeoisie" whatever meanings you give to both of those terms. Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite are leftist ideals at heart. But what they really do is create the very fabric for an oligarchy, which is basically a primeval monarchy, and thus a way of going back in time. This is why I say, just avoid a republican form of government, and continue with the line of European aristocracy, because a repeating of history will then be prevented.
Aiden Watson
>constitutional republic I meant to say constitutional monarchy.
William Bennett
Monarchy is shit. No gods, no kings.
Jayden Russell
More books:
"Popular Government" by Henry Maine
"Reflection on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke
"The Shortest-Way With The Dissenters" by Daniel Defoe
"Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia" by Thomas Hutchinson
"Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion" by Peter Oliver
"History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the American War" Volumes I & II by Charles Stedman
"The Prince" by Machiavelli
"Le Morte de Arthur" by Thomas Malory
No Gods, No kings, No society. Just KYS already.
Adam Watson
And what places no one is making any claim to any throne? How would you create a new royal house to be king?
Ryan Roberts
>ignoring everything he posted not to mention >no gods tippingintensifies.webm
Xavier Foster
Why didn’t you post the best king?
Brayden Reyes
...
Cameron Rogers
"Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse." By Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
"The great survivors: How monarchy made it into the twenty first century." By Peter Conradi
Logan Mitchell
I'm not against monarchy but this nigger should receive less money. It's retarded that he and his family members get a shitload of money.
Aaron Lopez
...
Easton Torres
...
Adrian Rivera
How do you expect anybody to read any of these books you're referencing? Do you have links to them online somewhere?
Jonathan Anderson
If you are against the Monarchy you are a leftist, revolutionary, edgy teen and most like anti-authority as well. Any form of republicanism is leftist.
Being anti-Monarchy is being a youthful, rebellious phase of youth. You grow out of it eventually and come to accept the beauty of it.
Right now Europe is dieing because of parliamentary democracy.
Hunter Roberts
was that way for most of human history
Hunter Gonzalez
We kicked ass when we were still a Republic.
The second we turned into a Monarchy we became the most cucked country in Europe.
- explain this.
Zachary Rogers
also this.
Justin Walker
For heaven's sake, I gave you titles, you copy paste them, and search yourself.
Most of their wealth comes from their Crown Domains. I don't think less money is the solution, King Willem Alexander needs to rule instead. The Parliamentary Democracy wastes a lot more money.
Ethan Ross
I have no problem with the money he receives but he should at least kick all the current ministers out of the cabinet for their incompetence.
Chase Cooper
I'm all for monarchs but only if:
-they hold people's values, leaning to traditional and conservative ones. -they're not degenerates(not even in their private times) -don't get influenced by money / get bought ( which is pretty much impossible and has happened everytime but still wrong because muh shekels)
I'm saying this even tho the king of Romania has basically ordered to kill the nazis in the country(under muh influences of shekels & ruskies) to then drop-out like a bitch (again after the first time he was like underage) to let the commies planned brain-washing begin.
I believe Monarchs should be hereditary but have a right to opt-out.It would only make the bloodline look like shit but not everybody got preferences in politics(and you must have them)
Thomas Martin
>Monarchies are un-democratic!
The more I look at contemporary 'democracies', the less I care.
Landon Peterson
Half of the power in the Republic was in the hands of the Aristocratic families, the other half in the hands of Regents.
It's a common misconception that the Dutch Republic became wealthy because of the ''Free-market''. This is untrue. The VOC was given a monopoly from the state, including soldiers and forts to kill any competition (literally.)
We only became a Monarchy after Napoleon restored order in Europe.
The Dutch Empire grew sustainably under the King William 1st and 2nd. It were the revolutions of 1848 (stimulated by rich regents, oligarchs and, Jews) that we became a Constitutional Monarchy. Then the following 100 years more and more power was taken from the King, and during those years we became more 'cucked'. It is because of parliamentary democracy that we lost our colonies and the pressure of the oligarchs and the rebels in the United States government that despised Monarchies and European dominance in their hearts. So your statement is untrue.
Jaxson Anderson
Capital! Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, sir!
Cooper Morgan
...
Carter Wright
Art 40GW De Koning ontvangt jaarlijks ten laste van het Rijk uitkeringen naar regels bij de wet te stellen. Deze wet bepaalt aan welke andere leden van het koninklijk huis uitkeringen ten laste van het Rijk worden toegekend en regelt deze uitkeringen. 2 De door hen ontvangen uitkeringen ten laste van het Rijk, alsmede de vermogensbestanddelen welke dienstbaar zijn aan de uitoefening van hun functie, zijn vrij van persoonlijke belastingen. Voorts is hetgeen de Koning of zijn vermoedelijke opvolger krachtens erfrecht of door schenking verkrijgt van een lid van het koninklijk huis vrij van de rechten van successie, overgang en schenking. Verdere vrijdom van belasting kan bij de wet worden verleend.
> monarchisten verdedigen dit
Jaxon Bennett
But Caligula
Christian Hall
Why did you paint the lakes red?
Oliver Lopez
THIIIIIISSSSSS
Angel White
They're monarchist lakes. They run red with traitor blood.
Jaxon Ortiz
I like the spanish monarchy the most. King Felipe is based.
Aiden Adams
I see nothing wrong with it. The only thing that is wrong is that King Willem Alexander only has ceremonial roles. Our current cabinet consists once again (and all future cabinets will be, for how long that may be, I don't think we will hold for much longer) incompetent leaders that should be fired.
Wyatt Edwards
It's from wiki
Brayden Ross
God save the Queen! Long may she reign!
Nathan Johnson
This is cool and all but I still don't want to have a king rule over me.
Nathaniel Bell
are you implying that king willy knows how to actually run the country?
But Joseph Stalin, But Adolf Hitler, But Mao Zedong, But Pol Pot, But Fidel Castro, But Kim Jon-un, but King-Jun-Il, but Kim-II Sung, but Mussolini, but Lenin, but Mugabe, but Idi Amin Dada, But Brezhnev, but Saddam Hussein
All. Republican. Scum. That killed more people in the last 100 years then the last 1000 years of monarchy.
Tyler Turner
Because a president or minister is better how?
Nathaniel Richardson
The king AND his wife AND his mother both get a ridiculous amount of wellfare. If it was just the king i would not mind. He gets 5.4 million this should be bloody enough for his mother and wife.
Alexander Rivera
If it was up to me we wouldn't have those either. Just because I dislike monarchies doesn't mean I like bureaucracy and democracy.
Alexander Evans
You still didn't answer this . How do create a new royal family?
Brody Foster
Don't you think a King doesn't have any advisors ? His family will teach him, other aristocratic families will teach him, his teachers will teach him. A good King is surrounded by the best teachers, the most wisest of philosophers, the most intelligent of scientists. From birth princes learn all necessary traits that a good King should know, in law, science, rulership, ethics and philosophy. We don't live in 300 A.C anymore.
John Martin
Fair enough, but you literally can't have none.
You'd need either a warlord, or an invited claimant (ala Glorious Revolution).
Jordan King
i wish leopold 3 didnt fucked up so the monarchy still had some power today :(
Levi White
>>lost our colonies >>Implying it wasn't because of picture related
Jaxson Flores
Why not an elective constitutional monarchy?
Asher Murphy
So the benefits of neither system?
Ayden Butler
Heb je niks beters te doen, willy ?
John Wilson
Ask the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth why that doesn't work.
Angel Myers
>How do create a new royal family? If you are referring to the United States, it is impossible under current conditions. And you don't create a new Royal Family, you put one in power. The America's should then be returned to European Aristocracy (White Americans are inherently European, stop fooling yourselves.). Since the America's have developed, we will send European princes from either the Spanish or English royal family to rule over the America's.
The royal history of Texas begins with reign of King Carlos I of Spain, better known as Holy Roman Emperor Charles V of the German nation. It was in his name that Alonso Alvarez de Pineda first claimed Texas in 1519. However, he was simply exploring the Gulf of Mexico and though the map he made is the first document in Texas history it would be some time longer before Spain ever got really serious about the land of Texas. In 1528 Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca became the first Christian to set foot on Texas soil. He was shipwrecked on the Texas coast, washed ashore and was the first to make contact with the natives of Texas. It is rather surprising that he survived given how fierce the natives of the Texas coast were, particularly the cannibalistic Karankawas, however, he did so and eventually made it back to civilization to report on his travels. So, Carlos I, Felipe II, Felipe III and Felipe IV all reigned over Texas but throughout all that time most of Texas remained devoid of non-native inhabitants. In about 1541, during the reign of King Felipe II, Francisco Coronado explored north Texas during his epic trek through the northern reaches of New Spain. In 1598 near what is now the west Texas town of El Paso, explorer Juan de Onate (not many months before the death of Felipe II) celebrated the first Thanksgiving in Texas when he had the Franciscan missionaries with him say a mass of thanksgiving for their finding a place of abundant food and water during what had been a harsh overland march.
Grayson Peterson
Dont get me wrong, i dont dislike a monarchy, but a king should be thought how to rule and not how to be a celebrity. our king might be way to old to teach. and everytime i see him make statements its the same pro immigration crap the politcians push.
Josiah Cook
It's primarily the United States who gave power to Soekarno because the United States was anti-colonialist (because of their history of anti-Monarchism and pro-Republicanism). They wanted Soekarno on their side and not on the Communist side. The US threatened to stop the Marshallplan if we didn't retreat our troops from the Dutch-Indies.
Carson Reyes
Reminder that de Oranjes are not rightfull rulers. They are not royal blood. Also, they were traitors in WW2. Fled to England whilst taking our gold.
Best rulers are philosopher kings as described by Plato. Not de fucking Oranjes.
Colton Howard
I fully agree. But the reason he's so politically correct is because the oligarchs have seized power and now partly control the aristocracy with their politically correct bullshit.
Alexander Gray
Communism > capitalism > dog shit > monarchy
Ethan White
>Nation which does incredibly well thanks to monarchy >Talking shit about system which allows them to do well
Christian Rogers
So, your idea is putting some foreign "aristocrat" in power? Goddamn, how deluded can you monarchists get?
Colton Price
You know nothing
Elijah Murphy
What's the problem there?
Stellar refutation, traitor.
Carson Carter
So if the current aristocracy is corrupt and corruptable, why should we have them as monarchs?
Zachary James
>Western cunt >endorsing Communism Why did Americans even try?
So by your logic we if we were to instate a monarchy we would have to put some Baltic-German in power?
Fuck off.
Matthew Sanchez
Patricians could veto the king on anything? Disgusting.
Constitutional monarchy probably isn't what I was thinking of
Christian Kelly
i wish we had our monarch back ); someone collage this btw
Luis Moore
The only good monarchy is an absolutist Monarchy. All other forms are castrations of said practice.
William Peterson
All European Monarchies are interconnected. Kaiser Wilhelm II was eldest grandchild of the British Queen Victoria. The Daughter of Kaiser Wilhelm II (The Emperor of Germany during WW1 for any ignorant fuck), Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia, is the maternal Grandmother of Queen Sophia of Spain, who is the mother of Felipe VI, current King of Spain. Do you guys even into Monarchy?
Alexander Fisher
My ancestors already left yurop to get away from your monarchs
Michael Long
Literally every single one of our monarchs has been great, maybe it's just the superior Anglo blood. Queen Victoria had a whole era named for her, and I'm sure after HM Queen Elizabeth II this era will be called the Elizabethan era. God save the Queen
Justin Ramirez
And now your head of state is a nigger. How do you think your ancestors would feel?
Camden Adams
We're incredibly grateful.
Benjamin Bailey
I wonder where the Commonwealth is now... Wait, you mean it was partitioned by monarchies for over a century? No way!
>Belgium Jihadist infection, cucked: some analyst mark it as a failed state >Sweden The definition of cucked >Spain Economically fucked and close to collapsing in new countries >UK Cucked
I really don't see how the Savoia cowards could have saved my country if the best aristocratic of Europe has not saved theirs.
Evan Walker
This. Somehow many people think that a Monarchy is dangerous because the King (or Queen) has virtually unlimited power. They don't somehow seem to understand that we don't live in 300 AC any more where you constantly had to fight and kill to keep your position as King or Queen. We've had the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, we've grown out of our infancy. Modern Kings get the best possible upbringing and education you can get. They learn everything from history to ethics to philosophy. If European Kings today where to rule they would rule as Enlightened Absolutists. The Dutch Queen Wilhelmina and Juliana were loved dearly by the majority of the Dutch. She would ride her bicycle to the Dutch soldiers and greet them personally.
And it's not just ruler ship, it's the culture and traditions that surrounds it that makes it superior to any form of decadent republicanism.
Aaron Lopez
Baltic German Aristocracy oppressed and ruled us in our land and treated our culture worse than dirt for 700 years. Then when Latvians finally can rule in their own state, they start trowing hissy fits despite still controlling most of capital and industry. Then these pompous aristocrats in their highest act of disrespect, despite being claims of belonging to this land as they had "lived here side by side with us for 700 years", fled back to Germany in less then a year after Hitler called out to them.
And then the "brotherly" Europe condemned its Eastern "brethren" to 50 years of Communist rule.
After all this you expect me to support some despotic filth as my countries sole ruler, who has no connection to the local traditions or pain what so ever, despite the well known fact that the West gives absolutely no shit about the East.
