/Monarchist/ Cali Edition

ITT: Monarchists (particularly burgers) discuss how a totally Monarchical society will look and function in the U.S of A.

Scenario: A new President in the far future abolishes democracy and republican government as we know it, and begins to establish a new age of Kings, Lords, and Nobles. Said President becomes an Emperor, and is backed by a religious authority as divine. The populace is accepting, even some openly welcoming of this change. California, being the first to see some of these changes, will be the point of reference we go by.

Questions:
> In this scenario, what group would constitute this new Nobility of America?
>Should those closest to the "Emperor's" faction be given territory?
>Will Cities still function as democratic elections, or will one Noble house rule over them?
>How do Counties as we know them function? Will they be ruled by "Counts"?
>How many levels of Nobles should be between the Emperor and common man?


I know Sup Forums is pretty occupied with Wikileaks and ShillHills, but for those of you who want a change of pace, please feel free to discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Orange
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I'll start the thread out with my own answers to the questions.

1. Nobility should be made out of citizens who distinctly stand out amongst the populace. Wealthy, morally upstanding, and culturally representative of the people. As well as a sense of loyalty to Nation and King.

2. The States would be led by Kings chosen by those who are natural state citizens, and those who owe loyalty to the Emperor.

3. Cities will be handed out to Noble families. City government will still have council and workers, but will be led directly by said Noble.

4. Ruled by Counts, in charge of their home city, and over seeing the city Nobles and families directly under them.

5. Mayor

Bump

To expand on #1

Culture and Heritage is often seen as dying here in the West. Specifically California, as the original Anglo settlers are unfortunately being replaced with Asians and Hispanics.

So in relation to California being a Kingdom, it would seem quite impossible. Short of committing racial purging, the very identity of a Californian Kingdom would be hard pressed by cultural issues.

But, in respects to a King figure in the land, there exists the potential for the state to be given a cultural bedrock. A King who epitomizes the very essence of being "Californian" would allow the chance for a stronger, more unified state.

Thus, racial and cultural tensions could be eased.

To expand on #2

The identity of the States must be protected in this hypothetical scenario. Though many will say that an Alaskan man is culturally different from a Floridian, there still exists the core concept of being American first.

So when a King is uplifted from the common state populace, it is paramount that they come from the original native stock, and as well from a family with a long standing history of embodying these cultural traits.

If nothing comes of this, I can at least build a folder of Heraldic and Californian flags.

Also bump.

Interesting, but completely ubrelated to politics

Go somewhere where you can actually have a discussion about alt history

...

Is this not board appropriate?

I thought Sup Forums was for talking politics and government? I didn't even center on an event in which the U.S could've become Monarchical.

Which board should I go on?

I would like to be owner of Orange County and be given the title of prince

Prince of Oranges?

I think there's been dumber titles before.

Do you not know what the prince of Orange is?

Isn't that a Dutch title?

Not gonna lie, I don't know much about Dutch history. I think a Prince came and invaded England in 3 or so days and became King?

Not to derail the thread but

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Orange

Neat.

So if I skimmed it right, pic related is the Princess of Orange (currently)?

>who would the nobility be

We already have a nobility, it's called the Democratic Party, so that solves the first problem

So assuming nothing negative happens to the Clintons after a Trump win, how powerful would you say they be?

Kings? Dukes?

If a Hillary Win, probably Emperor if we're honest.

It's a prestigious title tied to many royal dynasties in Europe and currently denotes the heir to the kingdom of the Netherlands. It has also in the past been a title of the head of the Dutch republic and a title of the German emperor.

Sounds pretty cool.

Any particularly favorite bearers of the title?

Democrats would likely style themselves as all echelons of the nobility. They are, in reality, the descendants of the slave owning plantation holders of the old south, masking their true nature with progressivism. They still own their niggers by enslaving them with entitlement and welfare.

...

Good taste user.

Sounds about right. How old is the Clinton family? Were they really slave owners from the south?

I doubt they'd release their lineage, but like almost all party leaders, they're wealthy and from the south, so you can't take a guess.

I guess that makes sense.

So going back to thread topic, what else do you think? The titles of nobles I used (count, duke) aren't set in stone in this hypothetical.

Should this employ the English system, since they are our closest cultural brothers?

This post is wrong in many ways, ignore it

...

The Clintons have "humble" origins but older democrats like Carter are descended from slaveholders.

I know the old south (pre civil war) styled themselves as aristocrats.

Are all major Democrats, part of ex slave owning families?

Only qualms I have with this is I would title the state level rulers Governor-General, since it is an appointed position.

And I wouldn't give nobles absolute control over any territory, guaranteed seats on a council instead.

why is OC so comfy?

Not anymore, as the old guard dies out they're replaced with blacks and intellectuals instead to appeal to their voters. Until recently there were still former KKK members in the party leadership.

That's not important though. They all want to be despots. The Democratic Party has always been the party of powerful wannabe aristocrats who want power over the masses. Populism appealing to the lowest common denominator is the current way their achieving it. The party isn't about message but power. Hilary used to hate gays but now adores them.

Interesting.

So instead you'd have a more regulated monarchy/nobility? There's certainly a charm to that. How much power would you be comfortable with a Noble possessing?

It truly is well hidden.

So it sounds like they're shooting themselves in the foot by replacing competent individuals with lap dogs.

>So instead you'd have a more regulated monarchy/nobility?
Ideally, they'd be kept in check by each other, and championed by the King, but that was a bit iffy for the Shogunate.
Maybe a constitutional aristocracy?

As little power as possible. Enough to keep them placated, but enough to give a Baron's rebellion kind of rebellion any traction.

Basically I'm concerned with maintaining an absolute monarchy.

How sacred would we consider this Aristocracy?

Would (for example) the U.S constitution (adapted) be the basis for this new aristocracy? I'd imagine it would be similar to the "Mandate of Heaven" type of deal, but instead being an actual physical presence.

I'm not too persuaded by this type, but I wouldn't mind seeing some better examples of it.

This thread is a bunch of autistic fucking nonsense

I see.

Then with this in mind, how would you handle Nobles in-fighting? If they are given the ability to settle disputes in the field of battle, would that not itself regulate them?

I'd imagine being in a constant state of tension and aggression would keep them focused on either peace, or preventing war, considering they are surrounded by rivals.

I know.

Somewhat? As in, they'd be the ones who keep things going, as delegated by the King, so fucking that over would really cause the plates to wobble.
They shouldn't be micromanagers, just in positions to keep their jurisdiction happy and productive. They should also be able to have issues brought to them (ie. Joe Smith says that Factory X is causing problems with his farm, so they have to determine if it's better in the long run for their jurisdiction to rule against the farm or the factory).

>Discussing hypothetical politics on a political board
Crazy, huh?

>Then with this in mind, how would you handle Nobles in-fighting?
Have we gotten to the point of discussing levies vs. kingdom army?

I guess that would make the most sense. The primary appeal of a Monarchical system is speed, efficiency and decisiveness. Lord Bob doesn't need to run a million dollar campaign to smear his opponent enough to win

With that said, having limits doesn't really seem to encompass the benefits of having a nobility/aristocracy.

>Have we gotten to the point of discussing levies vs. kingdom army?

I'm fine with going there if you are.

Ideally you'd keep them in a state where they are constantly vying at court for the favor of the King, minimizing violence, but with you, through prudent governing, keeping the lower classes content.

Basically the same as your solution, but with bloodshed. Or as I like to call it, the French Model Done Correctly.

>Lord Bob doesn't need to run a million dollar campaign to smear his opponent enough to win
Absolutely. He also has to actually do well, not just be 51% more popular than whomever is the accepted rival.
>With that said, having limits doesn't really seem to encompass the benefits of having a nobility/aristocracy.
True, but you'd want just some rules so that if anyone crosses it, they can have some fingers wagged at them. The actual definitions would be quite tricky. And hell, one of the biggest things would be economic powers. Should the king allow Baron A to deal with Viscount B to start bringing down the economic prowess of Duke C?
>I'm fine with going there if you are.
Eh, if we swing back to the powers of the nobility. It could lead to more of a federation structure, anyway.

So Marxism, the left is already trying to do it. Monarchy is pretty much the same thing as nepotistic Marxism.

So a system of Nobility in which they are focusing on keeping their people/subjects pacified as well as trying to be prosperous enough to compete with rival Nobles?

There's a lot of different systems of Monarchy mate. What parts of Marxism and Monarchism collide?

True. Competency is important after all. A Noble house or family who can't function or run a government properly should (ideally) be ousted by their liege or defeated by rivals.

On limits, I would propose a simplistic lines of power. (Similar to layered federalism). Baron A is directly under the authority of the Count/whoever. Unless Baron A's direct liege lord is the Emperor, than any actions done against him such as punishment or reprisals must be done by their own liege lord, or those also under him.

So Baron A is free to faff around with issues personal to his city. But say his city pollutes or damages the neighboring Duke's city. The Duke cannot take direct action against the Baron, and instead must address with the Barons liege, this case the Dukes' own vassal, the count.

But! Since we're mentioning political favoring and economic trade wars, I'd imagine that would fall back under the idea of the Nobles in-fighting.

More or less yes. The competition would be economic rather than martial.

1. Considering most Americans aren't particularly religious, the only possible monarchs would be charismatic business leaders. The vast majority would be involved in energy, tech, and finance. Rather than Kingdoms, they would be Corporate Protectorates.

2. Each Corporate Protectorate would have land based mostly on their productivity needs. A tech protectorate needs lots of minerals and chemicals, so they would likely be found in mountainous areas with some port territory for trade. Energy protectorates would fill in the flyover areas, where there is abundant natural gas and rivers to barge out oil and coal and liquid natgas. Finance protectorates would be mostly coastal, and would likely control most port cities to profit off of the tech and energy protectorates.

3. Tech cities would likely operate based around technocracy, with the most qualified people being chosen by algorithms and big data. Energy cities would likely be democratic, and have very strong unions. Finance cities would be controlled only by elite families.

4. Counties would be mostly peasant class, producing food and textiles and components for the Protectorate. They'd likely be left to self govern, and the Protectorate's main representation would be in the Courts.

5. Several. Among the aristocracy, you have the king, his board of directors, his investors, his secretaries and lower executives, and then his managers. Below them you have the mercantile class and working class, that fill out the rest of the city. Then you have the rural peasant class, who generally have no power but also are generally left to their own devices.

This is the libertarian vision for America.

>A Noble house or family who can't function or run a government properly should (ideally) be ousted by their liege or defeated by rivals.
Ideally this wouldn't happen, as they're prepared from birth for it, but how would we deal with that? Like, would the King let another noble take over, or at least let them challenge?
I always find this is the hardest point to work out.
>So Baron A is free to faff around with issues personal to his city. But say his city pollutes or damages the neighboring Duke's city. The Duke cannot take direct action against the Baron, and instead must address with the Barons liege, this case the Dukes' own vassal, the count.
And yea, again, it's the addressing which is tough to put exact limits on. Like, would war be out of the question? Or would they just have to request sanctions from the King?
Or better still, act like big boys and talk things out until what's best for both can be reached.

This is actually starting to sound a lot like the political system in Dune.

Sounds pretty comfy mate.

So an oligarchic technocracy if I understand correctly? Would these Corporations eventually focus in genetics and controlled breeding to produce the best leaders/workers? Or will they eventually focus on robotics and mechanical engineering?

When it comes to a failing House/Noble. I suggest that the reason for failure and eventual revocation would rely on the Noble in question violating the contract between liege and vassal.

So let us assume the vassal contract states that the Noble must maintain the peace between his lands, pay tax, and commit no damages to his lord. (Simplistic so far)

Baron A's incompetency of running the city causes rapid crime and a corrupt system. Count B is visiting the city on a tour, and is assaulted or robbed. If recognized by the Count's other vassals (barons etc), it could be accepted that Baron A has failed, and thus loses his title.

This is more in the vein of the constitutional monarchy we mentioned before. That's one suggestion I have, but I want to hear your critique of it first.

>And yea, again, it's the addressing which is tough to put exact limits on. Like, would war be out of the question? Or would they just have to request sanctions from the King? Or better still, act like big boys and talk things out until what's best for both can be reached.

Depending on how much power do the nobles have. If very powerful, then anything up to war. If restricted, and or balanced, then diplomacy and settling disputes would be overseen by their respective liege.

I see.

But would any martial competition exist? Sometimes diplomacy and peace don't persuade people most times.

Bump

Calling it a night.

Thanks to those who did post.

One last bump.

There's problems with both.

With breeding or genetic alterations, you can end up with some unintended consequences.

If you make a genuinely superhuman designer baby, by the time they grow up they will be so much better at everything than the actual king that they could make a genuine case for taking over. With breeding programs, see the Silver Fox breeding program as an example; they made a domesticated fox, but also ruined its fur and made it worthless as anything other than a pet. Unintended traits can end up popping up with breeding programs.

As for robotics, you have a very different issue.

If too many jobs are automated, more and more power ends up concentrated in fewer and fewer worker's hands. While you end up with a more productive workforce, you might also end up with a new labor aristocracy that is actually more powerful than the monarchy.

In all likelihood, you end up in a situation where most genetics and robotics technology are reserved for the elite, and only filter down after the elite have made themselves untouchably powerful. They wouldn't want to accidentally create a coup by empowering the wrong people.

>If recognized by the Count's other vassals (barons etc), it could be accepted that Baron A has failed, and thus loses his title.
That would be almost democratic, then. Which could the be abused. (Yo, Kingliness, Baron A has totally shat the bed, we all voted to give me his fief.)
I'm not against it as a whole, but yea, it could depend on the constitution.
>If very powerful, then anything up to war.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying war is a great option, as it could damage themselves and their surroundings more. But some kind of martial test might work.
Hell, maybe there should be a designated "Warring Zone" where they can send their armies to see who wins.