Monarchism

Is monarchism the ultimate Redpill or is it inherently evil, or is it evil but a nessecary evil because the majority of the people is not capable to decide for themselves what they need?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/lesassemblesgnr00babegoog
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Would Sup Forums support a monarch?
If so, how much power should he maximum have? (A country should at least have a constitution to prevent your monarch to go shit on his people?)

If the people can reign in the king's power, then he can't take drastic measures when extreme measures are required. If the people can't, then the monarch has nothing to fear and will be a tyrant shitting on the people he was supposed to help.

Monarchy is good, because democracy is stupid. Monarch was going to good of the state and conserve traditional order. In effect of revolution, egalitarianism is most important and making equal degenerations.

Traditional monarchy, but not absolute (because role of the governement is way too high)

Monarchy is great if you get a good, wise monarch, but hereditary succession is always a coin toss. If there was a way to handle the succession so that a good monarch would be always followed by another good monarch, I would root for monarchy any day.

Also, is there somewhere where i can get a list of those flags?

Bad map bro

I used to believe in Democracy. I'm still a very patriotic American Citizen. But, I think Monarchy might truly be the best, long lasting political lead.

So long as the people can defend themselves and have the power to smack a stupid monarch upside their head things would be great.

Each generation you'd have someone groomed and capable of leading a nation, with a series of great Kings and Queens you can instill a vibrant loyalty.

Democracy often is about pandering to get votes which causes people to lose their moral compass for power.

Et vive le Roi, a bas la Republique!

That won't be a monarchy then would it?

Monarchy would be good if there was a way to ensure that the monarch is a good, responsible, benevolent ruler.

But there isn't.

Elective monarchy is a way to do it.

No, not necessarily. Primogeniture hasn't always been the rule.

pretty much what this guy said. i believe the 'crown' should be earned and not inherited.

Elective monarchy is the worst thing, it caused collapse of Poland in XVIIIth century. Only inherited.

Monarchy as we know it exists in either a constitutional form, where barely the King/Queen have power (Figurehead). Or, in places where the King is the absolute dictator with little to no power to confront him in a legal manner.

Understand in years past, the concept of the Monarchy was that the Nobility was superior to the common man, and Royalty was seen as divinely chosen. This is true, even in pagan and Christian societies to some extent.

But onto the point, Monarchy functions best when Democracy is not prrsent, and that Nobles (with actual power) are capable to contest or support the Monarch in question. The reason Democracy cannot work in Monarchy, or Monarchy in Democracy is simple. They each represent two different modes of power.

The Monarch or Noble rules until death or usurpation. The "Democract" rules for a limited term, and is often concerned with the continuation of his power.

I'm actually a big supporter of Monarchy. Will love to discuss this some more anons.

Monarchs used to be educated into becoming virtuous and benevolent.

>Elective monarchy
So not a traditional or real monarchy?

Monarchy always require a descendant to take the throne though

What? In reference to the people having enough power to reign a monarch in? Revolutions have always been like that. Leaders are supposed to respect the people as much as the leader is respected. If the monarch is acting Tyranical people will always rise to bring them down.

Elections lead to pandering whichc lead to decay. Inheritance with a good bloodline that holds tradition well and raises good heirs is the way to go.

Is it a good argument to say that king's children will be educated based on their later profession, and therefore have a better idea of how a country should be ruled, at least better than greedy modern day politicians?

There is no way to ensure that the monarch stays that way, or that the education has the intended effect.

A system without checks and balances is inherently flawed.

Well I guess you're right. When I think about monarchy I tend to focus on the single ruler aspect of it rather than the possibly implicit hereditary succession.

I agree that modern societies like Belgium and the Netherlands should work to one kind of government (either monarchy, which I doubt sadly, or democracy) because having the two isn't really working out and financing both of them slurps up lot of money

Even systems with checks and balances are flawed as fuck. Note my countries government branches, they were there to stop corruption but all it has done is caused more.

Far too many positions for greedy people to have a say in power.

>Is it a good argument to say that king's children will be educated based on their later profession
it is, although i am not saying that the king's children shouldn't get the throne in all cases. just if a more suitable candidate were around it makes sense for them to get it. although to go about seeing who would be more suited for the job would be a hard thing to judge.

Either Elective Monarchy (between the Royal family, or competing Nobility)
Or Oldest Kinsman inherits, (the oldest and arguably stable).

Those two are generally a good way to offer limits to the power of Monarchy, while still keeping it functional. But in terms of getting a bad "egg", this is often determined by the Monarch in question. Primogeniture is great for installing a tradition, or stability between successions. But in reality, life doesn't follow law quite clearly. Either no sons, no children, or plainly they're all incompetent.

Hence for those who question the stability can find the alternate forms I suggested above.

It's pretty rare for monarchs to just start acting tyrannical. The clergy used to be some sort of a balance.

There is a limit to the education, so some recognized advisors would be nice.

If rules well-educated gentry, there'll be an order. If rules average people, there'll be a chaos.

No form of government is inherently good or evil. There have been benevolent, strong, and competent monarchs who care for their country and lead their nations with competence. However there have also been malevolent, weak, and incompetent monarchs who only care about their own short term interests, bow to the pressure of foreign powers or their advisors, or just plain suck at their job.

Most monarchs just like most politicians in Republican governments have been resoundingly meh. Competent monarchs pop up every now and then like Louis XIV of France, as do incompetent or weak monarchs do like Czar Nicholas II of Russia, but more monarchs aren't notable in either direction, most monarchs are like Louis XV who are only known for having reigned between competent and incompetent monarchs at some point in time and only known because their names are numbered unlike presidents and chancellors.

As for my opinion on monarchy, I would oppose it, in part because at least elected officials have to be popular to come to power, a shitty king doesn't even need to be liked when he first comes to power, and in part because if given the choice between two equal outcomes the better choice is the one which allows more people greater freedom or greater say in their government. Beyond that Republics tend to have a more motivated population as displayed by the sheer success of the First French Republic in the wars against coalitions of European monarchies, as well as the Soviet Union compared to the Russian Empire (in 1905 the Russian Empire lost at Mukden to Japan, 40 years later the USSR overran Manchuria in less than 2 weeks).

There has to be a better safeguard against tyrants than civil war. Especially in a system where almost all power is concentrated into one man

>Elections lead to pandering which lead to decay.
>implying monarch don't have pander to prevent civil war as you yourself said

>Inheritance with a good bloodline that holds tradition well and raises good heirs is the way to go.
>implying that is often the case
>implying the sins of one bad monarch outweigh the deeds of one good monarch

Maybe the tradition of 'first son is heir' should be changed to 'most capable son/daughter is heir'

Monarchism is obsolete, however the Colonialism is not and theoretically can cure lots of problems the world have right now.

Think about it for a second.

Imagine that Spain would still have all those colonies in Latin America. Would this region be a safer and more developed place than now? Would there be need for any walls?

Why not oligarchy?

I am sure the education helps, but I'd imagine there are other factors harder to control and predict regarding the nature and the skillset of a person.

Furthermore, someone groomed to be the future monarch might be susceptible to some sort of spoiled brat superiority complex. I mean think about some kids of some rich parents, who probably had the genes, resources and education possibilities for similar success, and yet turned out to be utter shit.

>I tend to focus on the single ruler aspect of it
Then what u want is autocracy. I was pointing out that in your original post, you basically wanted monarchy but without all its bad parts.

Probably makes succession better (barely with all the kinds of powerplay involved) but no safeguard against tyrants or morons

Mon-arch just means one-rule. There are different forms of monarchy and it doesnt necessarily include a hereditary succession. For example the holy roman empire was a electoral monarchy, in navarra the first child regardless of gender would inherit, in the rest of europe the first son would inherit the throne, and in only some would allow a queen, and in arabia the king could choose which son he wanted to have inherit.

I haven't really studied on this subject before, so I don't know any pros and cons, care to give us some (pros/cons)?

It's not really about the form of the state, rather how different powers are countered. It does not matter if powers is shared out among several persons or a single one.

It's funny of the modern French republic dares to quote Montesquieu, when pretty much everything he says about a good state is against it. If I remember correctly, he referred to the first few centuries of royal monarchy (Saint-Louis and after) as a perfected state.

the problem is it being too open to interpretation.
say the king is assassinated and the country is thrown into a war. there are two sons one has a keen military mind and is not afraid of pushing the limits of his power and has been seen as a bit of a tyrant exerting total control in times of peace as well. the other is more timid in ruling and asserting his military power but is regarded by the people as being 'fair'. who do you choose?
now say we have a third option. a 30 year old nobleman that has not only proved himself as a great tactician and wartime leader but also fair and diplomatic ruler in times of peace, however he has no claim to the throne on account of not being related to the old king.

Yes, either re-colonization or the western countries should stop sending aid to 3th world countries ('The white man's burden' clears up why)
The second thing wouldn't fix all the problems of South America though, since most aid goes to Africa / India

Checks and balances are always desired user, but as other burgers tell you, the checks and balances can be subverted, and slowly destroyed over time. To not sidetrack this point however, let us consider the child(ren) of the Monarch.

Education and training is something that can vary in there effects. But let us consider the Carpenter, or other trade skill. These are the trades which require skill, determination, and a bit of common sense to flourish as a business. The Carpenter in question would assumingly pass on his knowledge and trade to one of his children. Training them in the art of carpentry.

And once the old Carpenter passes his shop over to his successor, it is up to the Child in question to lead in a manner most profitable. If he followed his father's teachings, (which the Carpenter has much investment on insuring) then the child will eventually perpetuate the cycle.

Thus we often get families with long tradition of carpentry, and simply having more authority over all matters wood and carving.

So thus we apply it to the Monarch. Monarchy is born and bred upon the foundation of tradition and history. So thus a new prince is being educated, he has the benefit of years of ruling to look upon as guidance, and to be the model in which he follows.

>one man should rule me unconditionally and make all of the country's decisions

yeah very redpilled

Yeah my vocabulary about this subject is a bit limited, so I guess I didn't use the proper definition.

>monarchy is the same thing as tyranny
Seems like you've read a lot about this topic

Maybe a system like in the Roman Republic, but then for monarchs.

When a country is in peace, it follows the way I had described earlier (not necessarily the first son is the heir). But when hard times are at the doorstep and - as in your example- there is a third, better option. Than he can be elected for a certain period of time to lead the country through its hard times, just like the Roman Republic elected a dictator for 6 months (of longer if necessary) to fix the country

Ignore him. He probably is one of those people that judges things based on labels alone. I.E. Democracy=good

Monarchy/fascism/oligarchy/anything other than democracy=bad
They have no opinions on subjects they only know the labels that they have been given and do no research into the subject themselves. Thus they contribute nothing to the topic.

I would support absolute monarchy. I't just werks, it's resistant to foreign influences, it's nice and cozy, even muslim shitholes can live in prospeity if they have an absolute monarch in charge. Democraties are always corrupt shitholes with constant brainwashing and cucking of people.

>a bunch of corrupt politicans who only think for themselves and big corporations should rule me unconditionally and make all of the country's decisions

i support constitutional ottoman imperialism
rightful sultan/sultana at the head of the state and an executive turkish meclis chosen by the sultan ruling over the country. an elected assembly of politicians also get a place in the meclis to express the wishes of the people

ottoman caliph would be re-instated and put in a religious ruling body alongside with the orthodox/armenian patriarch of constantinople and other religious leaders. these religious leaders oversee the upkeep and direction of their respective religious bodies under the official meclis and see to it that their religious groups do not clash.

constitution is erected to protect the human rights of the citizens and uphold law and freedom in the nation. this core constitution can only be changed by a referendum

what do you guys think?

This is true, muslim countries under a monarch/'dictator'(ie gaddafi) are pretty stable and often flourishing countries, once they are 'liberated' and 'democratic' they suddenly turn into terrorist breeding nest shitholes

>Than he can be elected for a certain period of time
this is where the problem sets in.
say the nation prospers under the third option king, it would be fair to say that the people would be at the most split in opinion or probably favour the current king above the other options, and the current king most likely wouldn't want to relinquish his title. the 'rightful heirs' both 1 and 2 then join up and form a rebellion and suddenly you have a civil war.

of course this is just conjecture but i do believe it would be a very possible situation.

>this core constitution can only be changed by a referendum
I like the idea of referenda, but how can one assure that the authority (the monarch who is questioned by its people) does not manipulates the referendum in his favor?

>Either Elective Monarchy (between the Royal family, or competing Nobility)
Go ask the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth how well elective monarchy works.

>Ukraine
no such thing

>Ukrainians
>real nationality

op pls

I honestly blame the different cultures of the Commonwealth.

But come on lad, you got to admit the Commonwealth kicked a lot of ass before it shit itself, right?

There is big difference between dictator and legal absolute monarch. Government under absolute monarchy is private, have effective owner who not interested in corruption, monarch interested in long term investments, even after his death he try to leave a legacy for their children with a functioning wealthy country. Dictatorship usually just a corrupted democracy with temporaly leader. North Korea, for example, is democracy, so as USSSR was.

All these posts are mine (OP)

Monarchism is all fine and dandy until you get a retard like Fernando VII in the throne

Elective Monarchy in itself was not so bad. The worst thing about commonwelth was how much influence and privileges the gentry had. They virtually paralised the king's rule and divided the country.

We can make the argument, that this is indeed possible.

But besides their father maybe feeling inclined to teach his children the ways of business, you will more likely find them living in decadence or opulence.

These are the children of businessmen, who arguably fight the most to keep their power and wealth form failing, as well as compete with others to maintain their income.

But a Monarch? A Monarch is tasked for life to maintain not only his power, but to ensure that his nation does not fall apart. Monarchy has had its fair share of failures, and "spoiled" children, but equally so these are the people who would more likely beat the child towards discipline, then face years of their lifework go down the drain.

Okay?

Not gonna lie, I enjoy a good discussion of Monarchy, and appreciate the Thread OP.

you cannot deny the efficiency of government by a strong leadership simply because tyrants do exist

Also, since government is private business there can't be any elective monarchy. It's just dumb. Monarch can and SHOULD be absolute asshole, who interested mostly in increasing the value of its own assets. And he risked too much if people do not like the way it drives.

Most classical political theorists say that "best" government form is relative to the group it's applied to. I think we've experimented enough the last few centuries to agree to that.

>so these are the people who would more likely beat the child towards discipline
Or manipulate that child to their will...

i figured there were too many french posters in this thread
this has been a good thread

>this map
are you retarded?

I support Traditional Monarchy, not so much absolutism. Traditional Monarchy with all the executive power concentrated in the Monarch, but under the rule of the law.

Btw that Spanish flag represents the liberal, usurper dinasty. Pic related would be a more proper Spanish Monarchist flag.

And?

These children, for good or ill, were born into Royalty/Nobility. There life is now entrenched into the ways of learning how to be a statesman, or to become a soldier of war for their nation.

If any good can be mutually agreed upon concerning Monarchy, then it would most likely be that of the Monarch central and inseparable role in the nation.

good map desu

Thank you, and I think Sup Forums needs some more 'adult' discussion regarding real politics (the Trump general meme spouting is fun and giggles but it doesn't really count as a 'intelligent discussion')

this is probably the best but its not as sexy as fascism

And the 'teachers' won't be using their children to wrestle more power or worse ideology into the nation?

>If any good can be mutually agreed upon concerning Monarchy, then it would most likely be that of the Monarch central and inseparable role in the nation.
Bordering on pure ideology senpai...

I can support fascism, but I fear it can only work with a leader which the people can look upon. But in this case this leader has no legal heir, so...? What after the fascist idol dies?

Modern example: shitholes like Qatar, UAE and Kuwait have oil and a absolute monarchy. Shitholes like Venezuela or Russia have only oil, so while Venezuela suffer Qatar prosper. There is barely any degeneracy or brainwashing in middle west monarchies, very little corruption, high birth rate. I't just werk. Monarchy is fine.

>middle west
*middle east, of course

>Monarchy functions best when Democracy is not prrsent
Not at state level for sure. But there was local democracy (either direct or representative depending on commune or city's size) in medieval France and it seemed to only have had positive influence. Tocqueville wrote that the loss of local democracy in 17th century contributed to the France Revolution, in the way that the people accepted idealistic ideas easily, or were indifferent to the changes, because they had lost the experience of public administration.

For frenchfags: archive.org/details/lesassemblesgnr00babegoog

Another question is, can monarchism ever return to Western Europe?

Are you implying Jewish influence? You seem really insistent on this point of fear.

But yes, education and ideology are very much important in raising a Future Monarch. But beyond that, I cannot sense much error in this. Children being educated in a Monarchy may very well be done in the House of a powerful Nobleman. Or even a simple commoner teaching the child (chosen for their skill of course) can be the cause of much dissent and doom.

So if this is the point of fear, then I offer this as counter. Very much is it the job of the Monarch to teach and educate his next heir. If he desires prosperity a d wealth, this task would be paramount to his very interests. Educating the child would often fall to the Royal Family, close trusted kinsmen, who understand that the continuation of their power rests upon this young prince.

And yes, I'm quite the idealist, much to my own fault. I'll try to keep it logical more.

>his leader has no legal heir, so...? What after the fascist idol dies?
Nor did Roman Emperors.
So the Duce, before he dies, has to pick a successor.

Monarchism is outdated.

So we're they at the end of the Roman Empire, then again: the kind of monarchism that followed the Roman Empire were closer to tyranny than anything else

The french flag look much better like this

Monarchy is inherently unstable system. History has shown this, but Sup Forums glosses over its track record because it isnt as familiar with it like democracy.

Monarchies can be ruined with one bad ruler, at least (resource-rich) democracies can last long without territorial loss/revolution.

Are you suggesting local Mayorship? Then in some cases, yes you are right. Such small matters are usually good and benign. But much like Mayor's in the states (and perhaps modern day) we get all kinds of crooks and hacks who run our cities.

In all honesty, I wouldn't mind a Noble family to lead a town in the same manner as a Monarch.

Thanks for the thread lads, I am off now!

Modern absolute monarchies is most stable countries on the Earth. UAE have more foreign workers than locals, and outsiders still don't have any success in revolts or gibmedats. No democracy can allow such a luxuru.

Monarchy was fine until it was subverted by Jewish finance 500 years ago.

I always disliked constitutional monarchies, specially because of the way it was implemented here in Portugal.
D. Pedro IV was the liberal who won the civil war against his absolutist brother D. Miguel.
Pedro brought the liberalism, gave independence to Brazil, just so he could continue rulling over something, since he had to abdicate in favor of his daughter. Fucking traitor
D. Miguel represented tradition.

How is it evil?

>Jewish influence?
I mean power plays by interested parties. Everyone will curry favor with the prince or bend him over to their will. At least in democracies and republics, such things are more overt.

>Very much is it the job of the Monarch to teach and educate his next heir.
If it is the monarch, then what if the previous one is an idiot or tyrant? Or a good monarch who is just terrible at raising another (ahem Emperor Marcus ahem)

>I'm quite the idealist,
Nah senpai, you live in a country with no monarchy while my ancestral country has a rich history of monarchy and more importantly monarchs being morons or tyrants. Seriously the best monarchs in China are usually those who usurp power

All of it, complete power.

>hurr all power in one man is evil muh minorities

A complete absolute monarchist revolution, 1 king, 1 race, 1 path, 1 kingdom.

The only true and sovereign person is that which needs nothing, an absolute king is the only one who can protect the peasants from the intellectuals subversion, the capitalists and the foreigners.

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I suspected as much.

Concerning the issue of raising the Prince, it again falls under the Monarch, and by extension the Royal Family. It is of course in their best interests to ensure that the next Monarch is capable of surviving the incoming struggles of leadership.

And if the previous Monarch is an incompetent fool, then the Royal Family itself must raise it, or at least a Noble house loyal to the crown. Same goes for the Great Monarch, who lacks the art of teaching.

But as you said yourself, these things are just as apparent in Democracy and Republics as well. Corruption and leveraging for ones personal power.

And sadly yes, the US hasn't known a Monarch since the Revolution.

a fucking joke. people just need a leader they can brownnose and sexually fantasize about.

there's a reason why the Japanese have such a well-kept imperial dynasty.

Either a monarch or a democracy whitout womens suffrage.
It's because democracy isn't fit for arabs, it was made by european men and for european men. That's the reason western countries are falling apart, niggers voted for Obongo and made him win, muslims voted for Hollande and made him win (though Sarkozy was as bad as him), spics are massively voting against Trump when all he wants to do is for the benefit of the americans people and women are the ones fighting to let shitskins in and voting for every liberal bullshit that comes up.

thanks for helping in fucking up Africa

Something similar here. Well the first time it was an usurpation where the liberal masons put a 3yo girl as a queen over the king's brother, leading into 3 (arguably 4) civil wars, to impose liberalism, centralism, the red and piss modern flag, etc.

Then the grand-grandson of the usurper, Juan Carlos I, sworn a law that he imediately rejected so he could "reign" as a liberal monarch.

Fucking hell.