If you have a single family of accumulated wealth and political power and significant noteriety, who becomes king or queen is less significant than the place they join in marriage. Why do we want to listen to god instead of ourselves? That's why bastard is a formal way to shit on someone.
>>522746 >How could anyone have ever thought monarchy was a good idea?
Tbqh the emergence of specialization and hierarchy in pre-history almost precipitated the rise of monarchy, although when humans were isolated to small villages and tribes, the priestly class were the rulers pretty much.
>>522746 It's the best form of government for getting things done quickly. Unlike dictatorships it has a clear plan for succession where the next monarch is trained from birth to rule. Just because it doesn't necessarily your snowflake opinion like a democratic republic might doesn't mean it's a poor form of government. And judging by the fact that you make shitty off topic threads I'd say your opinion is pretty worthless.
Do you trust the average retards on the street to vote for someone? Or do you trust someone who was raised and educated from birth with governance in mind? Most non-brainwashed people want the latter. Its only til relatively recently in human history that blindless adherence to the democratic model became popular.
>ITT: fat kids having delusions of power thinking that THEY will get to be the king, when in reality they'll be stomped, laughed at by the king's croonies, overtaxed and sent to die for some stupid war WE
>>523651 Religious monarchy. Hierarchy is part of human nature. Everybody should be squashed between people. Social life should be your effort to serve those below and appease those above. Ultimate responsibility for your decisions is on you, and fear of those both above and below yourself will cause you to make decisions in an unselfish way. When you make masters out of slaves, and slaves out of masters, there is no longer anybody to please or anybody to appease. All decisions are made in selfish interest, and individual people learn to follow suit in their personal lives.
When you take the responsibility for government and place it in the hands of one man, and squash him between his entire country below and God above, most of the time fear of both will cause him to act unselfishly. A nation that eliminates this hierarchy, either in favor of making everybody rulers or elevating the ruler to godhood, will be beset by materialism, depravity, and decadence.
>The novels and their adaptation derive aspects of their settings, characters, and plot from various events of European history. A principal inspiration for the novels is the English Wars of the Roses
>>524040 Yeah, similar decentralized paradises like Somalia or Tribal Afghanistan sure are great places to live in whoopee. >>524041 Medieval Thrones barely got to control their whole realms due to the cancer that is Feudal Obligation & Rights.
>>524084 >Centralizing dictators spent their entire time in power at a constant state of warfare against traditional society. >constant state of warfare against traditional society. Traditional Societies usually get defeated.
As opposed to, you know, keeping the traditional societies alive...and having eternal tribal wars to no end over inane shit.
>>524102 By the way, even though traditional societies are often defeated, the more their traditions and institutions remain, the better.
There is a reason why England, with it's Magna Carta and ancient liberties, became what it became, while China, where the feudal nobility was crushed 2000 years ago, just goes from periods of stable stagnation to civil wars all the time.
Or, the difference between Switzerland, where medieval institutions still survive to the present day, or Portugal, where the House of Avis established the first centralized country in Western Europe by the 15th century.
>>523796 Unlike in democratic societies where pandering to an important demographic will let you get away with murder - literally, on occasion. Just look at cities like Baltimore, Detroit, etc. or any city where one political party is entrenched beyond reproach.
>>524127 >China under Feudal Nobility. >The whole period is literally known as the "Warring States." >Alternatively the "Winter of the Zhou." >Lasted 500 years. >Started with close to 40 competing kingdoms, fiefs, dukedoms, and whatnot that got whittled down to 7. >Meanwhile Dynastic squabbles are usually over within a century or so. Save for two famous incidences. Nice argument, friendo.
>>524160 It was also the period of greatest cultural fluorescence in the history of China. It wasn't even so bad, more people died in Qin Shi Huang's repressions than during the "Warring States".
Of course, the later dynasties also gave peace to China, but the problem with destroying the intermediary corps of society is that when the central authority falls (and it always falls, sooner or later), the fallout ends up being much worse. The "Warring States" were a period of peace and prosperity compared to the Three Kingdoms, or the Warlord period more recently.
Likewise, the impact of the fall of the Soviet Union in Russian society was made much worse by the fact that the Soviets completely dismantled Russian civil society.
>>523812 Just see what's happening in democratic countries. We are degenerating our societies. The best system would be a monarchy but with the monarch elected according to his or her skills of governance. This would only be possible with a king having many sons and daughters with multiple women, tho.
>>524194 >It was also the period of greatest cultural fluorescence in the history of China. Nice false argument, friendo.
That period of greatest cultural fluorescence in the history of China was the Spring and Autumn period. The last years of the Zhou Dynasty. The period before the Warring States. Nobody liked the Warring States.
Furthermore China has always been the rule of the stronkest thanks to their belief in the Mandate of Heaven. Those who can provide the best form of governance: will govern. You could say that when this belief rose up during the Zhou period it spelled the end of Chinese Nobility. Because it destroyed their justification for being noble.
Not to mention that aristocracy was replaced anyway with the rise of the scholar-bureaucrat.
>>523755 Because often the monarch was not edutaced on how to govern, only that he is the king and everyone should obey him and his will is absolute. A democracy has methods to prevent someone to obtain absolute power (even if they don't always work) and tends to be a better way for society to voice it's own interests
>>523806 >Social life should be your effort to serve those below and appease those above You wrote that backwards on purpose, right? Cause de facto what happens is effort is put forth to appease ( at least, only making sure they aren't so mad they are willing to kill you) those below and serve those above.
The thing about monarchy after the 20th century is what's the point?
All the arguments for monarchy are done better with fascism. At least fascism has a semi-meritocratic way of choosing their leader, with monarchy it's just arbitrary chaos.
Even as no less a monarchist than Thomas Carlyle pointed out, the hope is that by raising someone from birth to be a leader they will be a good leader. Which is not only the kind of tabula rasa thinking that reactionaries hate, but also most often wrong.
>>524286 Uh, quite a few monarchs were just murdered without much fuss because they sucked.
>A conspiracy was organized, some months before it was executed, by Counts Peter Ludwig von der Pahlen, Nikita Petrovich Panin, and the half-Spanish, half-Neapolitan adventurer Admiral Ribas. The death of Ribas delayed the execution. On the night of 23 March [O.S. 11 March] 1801, Paul was murdered in his bedroom in the newly built St Michael's Castle by a band of dismissed officers headed by General Bennigsen, a Hanoverian in the Russian service, and General Yashvil, a Georgian. They charged into his bedroom, flushed with drink after supping together, and found Paul hiding behind some drapes in the corner. The conspirators pulled him out, forced him to the table, and tried to compel him to sign his abdication. Paul offered some resistance, and one of the assassins struck him with a sword, after which he was strangled and trampled to death. He was succeeded by his son, the 23-year-old Alexander I, who was actually in the palace, and to whom General Nikolay Zubov, one of the assassins, announced his accession, accompanied by the admonition, "Time to grow up! Go and rule!"
Not saying it is a rule of thumb, but it wasn't too uncommon either.
>>524309 They wouldn't as in the middle-ages peasents armed with scythes and pitchforks at best would get absolutely destroyed by the king's heavily armed and armoured professional army no matter how many of them there were.
This is why popular uprisings only starting seeing any success after guns were invented and relatively freely available.
Not to mention that most often the petty nobility would ally with them against the centralizing power of the king, such as during the Barons' War, that gaves us the Magna Carta, ever heard of that?
Whatever is good in democracy comes from that tradition. I wouldn't even oppose liberalism if it were based upon an extended conception of Medieval liberties, instead of bullshit like "equality" and the "general will" that Rousseau got out of his ass.
>>524373 >Whatever is good in democracy comes from that tradition. I wouldn't even oppose liberalism if it were based upon an extended conception of Medieval liberties, instead of bullshit like "equality" and the "general will" that Rousseau got out of his ass.
Those tend to flow fairly freely in a homogenous society anyway.
>>524209 That just means you have the same leaders as a democracy, but with much less accountability, and more absolute powers. The only reason any modern countries have monarchies today is because their rulers are so boxed in by checks and balances that they have no power anyway.
I find it interesting that the most powerful hellenistic dynasties tended to be fuck ups in the long run, and ended up being dominated by the oligarchic republic that was Rome.
If one looks at the specific histories, it is actually a great exception to see a successful monarchy, much less a dynasty. For every enlightened monarch you had maybe ten mediocre and several mad ones.
>>524329 >Societies become bigger >Complain about bigger wars. Boo fucking hoo.
That said, wars are more frequent under feudalshittery. I'd rather have a big one off and a few generations of peace ather than some shitty continuous low-intensity conflict that would happen indefinitely and fuck me, my children, and their grand-children.
>>524891 christianity helps mitigate decadence, the pagans are more likely to suffer from the 3 generation trap, the first generation is brilliant and rises to power (greatest generation), the 2nd is raised right but lives off daddy's money and doesn't see the importance of the values he taught (boomers), the 3rd are raised wrong and have none of the knowledge generated by the greatest generation, often throwing their wealth away or sliding into mediocrity (millenials)
>>524032 Modern Western Democracies have stood for hundreds of years with no major uprisings or rebellions, when old monarchies had an uprising and execution nearly every royal. This is how retarded you are
>>526283 We are too dysfunctional as a society to the point that fixing schools wouldn't do shit. There needs to be some philosophic revamp in the masses; ours is - surprise! - progressive ideology. Which fuels the dysfunction and which can really only come about in a free-voice culture.
I think that for now democracy needs to be swept aside for a moment while we sit down and figure shit out. But then again that will almost definitely lead to a dictatorship. Maybe something new needs to come along out of the blue before we get to that point.
>>526334 When was the last English rebellion that wasn't Irish independence? When was the last Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian revolution? Also, the transition from fourth to fifth republic was smooth and bloodless, and the end of the republic before that was caused by eternal conquest.
>>526340 it's not about political views, it's about what you base them on. a monarch actually knows what he/she is doing but i have met people who vote somebody literally because they like his/hers hair color.
>>526385 So we replace choosing leaders based on their hair colour with choosing leaders for their parentage? The thing about democracy is that not every voter is that stupid. Besides, the benefits of democracy aren't necessarily the quality of the leaders, but the stability and freedom.
>>526312 Tell me, was Finland better off when it was ruled by a king? Because I've read about fins on /int/ who more or less saw the Swedish king as tyrants despite the fact that Finland was treated like any other part of Sweden.
>>526338 > I think that for now democracy needs to be swept aside for a moment while we sit down and figure shit out. Why. Why not keep democracy while figuring shit out. There's nothing you can do in a monarchy that you can't do in a democracy.
>>523755 Most people confuse democracy with constitutional government, because the current forms of both originated together in America.
Pretty much all of the arguments raised in democracy's favor (limited power of the ruler, protection of individual rights, legal means of removing bad rulers from office) are attributes of constitutionalism, not of democracy. A monarchy or dictatorship where the ruler is bound by a constitution would be just as good if not better than democracy.
>>526796 The US, every country in european union, etc. I think you might have mistaken my "Republic doesn't mean the same thing as democracy" for "No republic is a democracy, no democracy is a republic"
>>526771 Presumably that's handled at the founding of the nation, prior to the first ruler being enthroned, so probably a gathering of military/economic/religious leaders and representatives of powerful factions among the people.
>>526860 Does anyone have the ability to change the constitution after that? Also who is responsible for making sure the monarch follows the constitution? Can he be deposed if he doesn't? Can he face criminal charges?
Actually, the emphasis on monogamy and bastardy meant that Christian dynasties were less stable. What if your wife is barren? What if you are barren? Henry VIII syndrome applies. I've heard tell that the Turkish system was best, a hundred sons, the best man wins.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.