Do monarchists have any justification in the modern world?

>>1614813
Autism desu

>>1614813
Long-term stability and neutrality, in comparison to the short-sightedness of politicians who are elected only for short terms and must waste time and effort on winning their next elections (allowing special-interest groups to influence them).

>>1614923
Couldn't you argue the same thing for a dictator/one-party state though too?

File: image.jpg (63KB, 347x581px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 347x581px

>>1614813
Communism, republicanism and all the other ideologies that spawned from the French Revolution have failed.

Larping

>Do monarchists have any justification in the modern world?

they wuz kingz

>>1614937
Sure, but the difference is how succession occurs, for example in the kingdom of North Korea, Turkish succession is practiced.

On second thought, the only real difference is how the propaganda portrays the despot's family.

>>1614813
In a constitutional monarchy, the king functions much like a king in a game of chess, possessing very little power, but occupying the symbolic supreme position so that the people will revere him, rather than power-hungry politicians.

>>1615388
This.
In the UK our armed forces swear and oath of loyalty to the Monarch. To prevent politicians having any serious power.

>>1614937

Monarchies can deal with succession better

Look at Portugal and Spain. Both were run by very successful dictators for a long time. Then both regimes collapsed after their dictators died

The need to feel like a privileged special snowflake in the 21st century can manifest in interesting and peculiar ways.

Being a walking, talking anachronism.

>>1614813

no. Its literally just autistic LARPers on the fringes of internet ultra-reactionaries and a handful of literally who rich European sociopaths

>>1614937
No. Especially once there is a functional state apparatus.
Once said state collapses, it reverts back to Monarchy, and is then reformed swiftly.
It even applies to unstable times.

It also means the head of state won't be some dipshit shithead for 4-8 year periods, but a real image of progress for their life time.

>>1614923

Monarchs are their own special interest group

>>1614813
Divine Right.

larpers and internet memers

File: 38925729375.jpg (52KB, 683x899px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 683x899px

>>1615534
This

>>1614923
Depends how you define stability. Democracies have the advantage of being heavily self-moderating. They make more mistakes, true, but they quickly recognise and correct them and can remove bad rulers effectively. Monarchies are heavily dependent on the quality of the ruler and often pursue failed policies far beyond the point of reason because of the egos tied up in them.

>>1615534
>>1615550
>modern world

>>1615560
Modernity was a mistake famalam

>>1615554
But anon, a monarchic democracy exists. Its a thing.
And it even allows a fall back if the Democracy kills itself.

>>1615599
>a monarchic democracy exists

Example? I'm not sure it's a true democracy. No such thing exists anyway in the modern, but these two wouldn't really be compatible.

File: uk-lgflag.gif (7KB, 610x305px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 610x305px

>>1615622
>Example?

File: 1464746280606.jpg (25KB, 290x263px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 290x263px

Why do so many monarchists/reactionaries call themselves """""""""""""""nationalist"""""""""""""""?

Isn't that a contradiction?

>>1615399
And yet we still get fucked over by career politicians in Westminster.

In all honesty, the royals would have to gain a greater degree of political power and exercise it well before I'd buy this whole "constitutional monarchy" meme.

>>1615676
as a vine expert, I'm pretty sure that is a tooturnttina quote

>>1615676
It's because they're retarded fascists wanting to pretend to be a part of a legacy.

Legit Monarchists need to stop siding with fascists and nationalists if they want to get anywhere, historically they were fucked over whenever things like this happened.

Also OP, Monarchism can justify itself by being surprisingly moderate in some senses, and of course with a few caveats. There's the issue of incentive between monarchy and democracy that seems to be mostly in monarchies favor, where a monarch rules for life and hands over his property (the state, his country, his subjects) to his son on his death, so he'd naturally want to keep it in a good (or at least optimally exploitable) state to give it to his son, while in a democracy someone is in there for 4-8 years (with term limits) and they're just trying to plunder as much as they can and then leave.

Also a Monarch acts as a good scapegoat when things aren't going well, and an inspiration when they are.

For Monarchy to really work however there needs to be a constitution, not necessarily democratic assemblies, but guaranteed rights for his subjects that the Monarch must not infringe upon.

>>1615625

Mascots are not monarchs.

Benevolent dictatorship is far better an arrangement than a bad democracy.

Compare Hong Kong (no political freedom since the British took over) to any other form British colony that was granted political freedom. Milton was dead on. Political freedom is diametrically opposed to economic and human freedom. Venezuela is a textbook case.

>>1615399

>implying parliament hasn't completely destroyed the Britain

Top laff

File: 1464733112449.jpg (91KB, 960x695px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x695px

>>1615726
>It's because they're retarded fascists wanting to pretend to be a part of a legacy.
You mean neo-national-socialists, right? You'll never see an authentic Italian fascist or Spanish national-syndicalist jacking off to the monarchy like NatSocs do.

The only reason why the Italian fascists (before 1943) weren't against the monarchy was because they would have lost a lot of popularity. Many of them, like Italo Balbo, were republicans before they joined the PNF.

But most of the kiddos that praise monarchy are from the alt-right. They pretty much take ideologies that have nothing to do with each other (i. e: monarchism, nazism, classical liberalism, etc.) and try to mash them together giving a very laughable result.

I'll take monarchy over this bureaucrat's paradise we have today. There is nothing more easily corrected than a corrupt monarchy. Tell me who in the American or Russian or British or French government we could kill to purge corruption from those governments? You'd need mass grave the size of Luxembourg.

>>1614813
Yes, revolutionaries didn't do anyone any favors overthrowing these ancient highly developed systems that served to temper tyranny in an imperfect world where some level of tyranny is inevitable.

Think about it, instead of some socio who ruthlessly rose to power you get an ordinary person like you and me raised from infancy to rule with the same values and traditions of the nation. Their priority is to remain King, a title they value dearly and which they would sacrifice wealth and power to retain. The colonies for example paid very little tax compared to England, if anything George was too generous and should have made them pay a moderate amount of taxes early on so they get used to doing their part for the defense of the realm and are grateful for any tax breaks they receive rather than feeling entitled to them.

>>1615743
MONARKEKS BTFO
HOW WILL THEY RECOVER???!!!

>>1615399
The monarch doesnt actually have any control over the military though. At all

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>1615399

It's always kind of adorable when Brits pretend their queen actually has power. Tell me, how what laws has she made or enforced? She's hardly even allowed to express her own political views, so in a sense she has less power than the average person.

>>1616003
Its usually foreigners who think the British monarch has power, locals generally understand she is a figurehead

>>1615769
Pretty much, the alt-right that's formed this year is such a cancer on small movements.

>>1614944
xDDDD Absolutely euphoric mein fruend

>>1615403
Umm Spain "fell" because Franco's successor was the King. Franco wanted a monarchy the king supported democracy, so once Franco died the king gave up most of his power and became a figurehead. There is no way to have prevented that, except maybe to have the monarchy be a sham and only culturally important and basically have a dictator be Shogun and the real power in the nation.

File: sieg kaiser.gif (3MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x300px

>>1616003
Has there ever been a monarch half as cute, half as moe as Reinhardo?

Were Venice and Genoa real republics? I mean by the time Napoleon ended them.

>>1615676
Do NOT bully Carlos II

>>1615409
>this is what Ameriblobs tell themselves
>I--it's just fringe

You are literally terrified of the concept of monarchy lmao

>>1616103
Venice was a representative democracy with an elected monarchy.

The Citizens do not vote for the new Doge, but can still influence politics by airing their issues to their leaders, be it Guild Heads, a Patronizing Aristocratic Family, or liege lords.

>>1615775
French corrected their failed monarchy, with a grave of the size of luxembourg.

File: Norgetråden_17mai.jpg (1MB, 1536x1173px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1536x1173px

>>1615622
Do you even Nationalism?

>>1617987
So its not a monarchy. The monarchs are made pets to a national ideal.

I have a feeling that neo monarchists all feel like they'll become part of the new order. A landed gentry, sword noble or at least a well off court official when in reality they'll be worst off with everyone else.

Divine right of kings and the role of religion is no longer a serious aspect for most people in the world. Hell, even the conservative societies of the middle east or latin america would be seen as deeply heretical by someone coming from the thirty years war. Without religion you lose a powerful pillar to support a monarch in power, thus only nationalism could be used to prop him up but thats no different from a dictatorship anyways.

Plus running a modern society successfully requires a very robust and efficient civil society and meritocracy. Something anathema to an absolutist monarchy.

You could like it in a Tolkien sense.
Basically you just like the aesthetic and romantic image of a king, but don't believe they should hold any authority.

>>1615726
How is that constitution enforced?
Seems like there would have to be some other part of the government with power over the monarch.

>>1616079
That's pretty gay.

>>1618013
I have the same suspicion, these cute ideologies end up being power fantasies. The Monarchists see themselves as nobility, the Libertarians see themselves as model employees, Fascists see themselves as weapons, Separatists see themselves as heroes, etc.
No one would advocate for a political ideology that would put themselves in the losing bracket.

>>1616833
That sounds interesting. In practice I imagine it wasn't very different from an aristocracy.

Are there any good examples of a more directly democratically elected king?

>>1618090
I don't know if it was direct democracy but I'm pretty sure the king of Denmark was elected as some point
The holy roman emperor was also elected

>>1615726

Despite centralizing all power in himself, Napoleon established a constitution and put not only it, but his position, to public vote. There were rights that even he could not infringe. A basic constitution is needed, one that can gurentee stability and the rule of law without comprising the monarch's power too much.

no. they are literally nerds who think that anti-liberalism MUST mean monarchism. it's stupid. they are LARPers

>>1618013

>meritocracy is anathema to monarchy

Who is Napoleon?

>>1618119
And Napoleon's blood successor, Louis Napoleon, was shit

Monarchs are good when there is a constitution or system to constrain their power. Having a leader who is well liked and able to curb unpopular policy or corrupt politicians is pretty effective. Rules need to be in place to block tyrants, but the idea is that there is a long term power that can be relied on is helpful to public relations. Politicians are fleeting they come and go, they think only in the short term. A monarch and their family are forever tied to the nation so they must ensure it is successful or crumble with it. Sometimes it's just having a final power in the sytem rather than a series of different departments that makes the system run smoother. Sorry for the piss poor grammar I'm on mobile.

>>1618135

>rebuild Paris
>annex Savoy and Nice
>win the Crimean War
>double the size of the French Empire

File: hobbes.jpg (14KB, 368x403px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 368x403px

>>1618013
>>1618053
and commies believe they will live in a utopia

Monarchism is less spooky than modern authoritarian regimes that try to hide the fact they are a dictatorship or a highly corrupt democracy. Instead Monarchists openly accept it, people are more conscious of the distribution of power and thus can react to it. Many monarchies of the past exceeded North Korea in freedom of press and freedom of movement.

>>1618090
Directly elected as in chosen by the people, right? The only one that comes to mind right now is Napoleon, but l doubt that's what you're looking for either considering he was a crypto-dictator even before the people voted on the Constitution that crowned him Emperor.

>>1618184
>>1618103
The system of the HRE is sorta interesting. But both that and napoleon's election were essentially shams in reality.

I'm imagining a system where local governments are democratically elected, and then a king is elected by the "governors" or something. I would live under that.

>>1614813

monarchy = country run by one idiot
democracy = country run by millions of idiots (j.k. county run by big companies, and their lapdog politicians)

>>1614937
Dictatorships have major succession issues and no legal limitations unlike a king

ideally a King would be limited by a constitution of sorts, balanced by an aristocracy or parliament, and have a set heir whom would be brought up with the knowledge to rule.

>>1614813
No. The answer is no.

>>1615676
No. The form of government is irrelevant to nationalism as long as the goals of nationalism are maintained.

>>1615676
I'm an anarchist and a monarchist.

>>1614923

If anyone honestly believes kings didn't bend to the will of special interest groups you literally, and I mean literally, have never picked up a history book in your life.

>>1618307

You're a retard then. A monarch is the basic building blocks of a state.

>>1615596
Centralized monarchies were a modern thing too.

File: pb5_img.gif (101KB, 375x309px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 375x309px

>>1618013
>Very robust and efficient civil society and meritocracy

>>1616003
>Not expressing/ using power is the same thing as not having it
Wew.
Edward VIII could have caused a literal constitutional crises if he had wanted to.

>>1615554
>They make more mistakes, true, but they quickly recognise and correct them and can remove bad rulers effectively. Monarchies are heavily dependent on the quality of the ruler and often pursue failed policies far beyond the point of reason because of the egos tied up in them.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Your argument is invalid.

File: 1460600470041.jpg (67KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x534px

>>1615534

>Divine Right
>existing

>>1618013
>I have a feeling that neo monarchists all feel like they'll become part of the new order. A landed gentry, sword noble or at least a well off court official when in reality they'll be worst off with everyone else.

I'm already worst off with everyone else, what do I have to lose?

Most people don't even vote anyway.

>>1618497
>Most people don't even vote anyway.
Ironically, this boosts the voting power of the remaining voters.

mandate of heaven my family. monarchy, but you get kicked out if you suck.

>>1618497
>I'm already worst off with everyone else

Says the manchild with access to a computer.

>>1618497

Being conscripted to die in a foreign land in the name of imperialism?

Overbearing taxes?

Nobility that could literally kill you on the street with no reprecussions?

Or are we talking about constitutional monarchy which means monarchy is a sham?

>>1614923
>lol guys i'm bored lemme just sell off chunks of the country and hire mercs to take it back at a profit
>then fucking do it again
>eyy fuck you brother i wanna be king instead of you
>lets tear the country apart i several years of civil war to settle it
>stability for the benefit of the people

Also, the whole tendency for monarchs and nobility to be able to shit all over the peasantry if it suits them and that this is somehow justifiable, not to mention a lack of social mobility. It's no wonder it brought about inventions like the guillotine.

Weird part is i still like our Queen and royalty, and think our country would be worse off without. A good monarch is great for a country, the only issue is that you run the risk of a really shitty one. Guess ultimately, the issues seem largely avoidable when you stay away from absolute monarchy.

File: Emperor Taizong.png (119KB, 250x441px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 250x441px

>>1618387
There's ongoing debate as to the absoluteness of Chinese Monarchy.

Since the Mandate of Heaven & Confucian beliefs advocate the removal of failing rulers, which everyone, from the Emperor to the lowest peasant, believed.

>>1614968
First time this shitty meme ever made me lol

File: 1469021543911.jpg (76KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 539x960px

>>1618013
>""""neo"""" monarchists

STOP CALLING EVERYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE "NEO" YOU MARXIST SHIT. THIS ISN'T THE MATRIX.

You couldn't even supply a viable "candidate" for monarchy, because the moment he fucked up people would say "hey, this fucking sucks, why did we destroy our republic again?" Cue power struggle between classes. It would be the French Revolution all over again.

How is this transition supposed to happen? Civil war?

>>1618720
Monarchist here, my idea would be a military coup. Bottom up revolutions tend to end up in a disaster and voting for a monarch democratically kind of beats the entire purpose.

>>1618570
All of that can and does happen in a democracy. We just call "nobility" police officers.

>>1618552
lol
It's 2016 moron, computers are a necessity for modern life they're not a luxury anymore. You might as well mock me for complaining while I have shoes to wear.

The simple act of replacing the executive branch with a monarchy would cause no change in how I live my life.

File: emperor_ferdinand_i_of_austria.jpg (779KB, 1400x1868px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 1400x1868px

>When he tried to consummate the marriage, he had five seizures
>He is best remembered for his one coherent command, to his cook when told he could not have apricot dumplings (Marillenknödel) because apricots were out of season. He said "I am the Emperor, and I want dumplings!"
>As the revolutionaries of 1848 were marching on the palace, he is supposed to have asked Metternich for an explanation. When Metternich answered that they were making a revolution, Ferdinand is supposed to have said “But are they allowed to do that?”
>Monarchists will defend this

>>1618570
>monarchy = imperialism

You're truly fucktarded. Republican powers (USA, nazi Germany, USSR, France) have been no less imperialist than monarchist ones

>>1618695
It's not a new thing. It's used to distinguish revivals or alterations of old ideas. See neo-Platonism, you goddamn simp.

>>1618619
>lol guys i'm bored lemme just sell off chunks of the country and hire mercs to take it back at a profit

At least they planned on taking it back eventually. When is your Parliament planning on taking back London from the Russians and Chinese?

The great irony of internet monarchists is that any monarch that requires their support isn't worthy of the title. If a king is fit to be king, he will become king.

>>1618570


>Being conscripted to die in a foreign land in the name of imperialism?

People can and do get conscripted in democracies. There is nothing exclusive to monarchies in that.

>Overbearing taxes?

This is another case of 'just because he can doesn't magically mean he will.' A monarch who likes his head on his shoulders doesn't overstep himself. Furthermore, democracies can and do have high taxes.

>Nobility that could literally kill you on the street with no reprecussions?

Meme harder. Even with an absolute monarch that doesn't magically mean the aristocracy has to be above the law, and even if they were it wouldn't mean they'd get away with murdering random people for no reason. An absolute monarchy doesn't even necessarily mean there has to be an aristocracy. There just needs to be a monarch with absolute power. You could make the president of the USA a monarch and still have a congress doing exactly the same thing, the monarch would merely be able to override them.

If I were to advocate monarchy, however, and I'm not exactly a monarchist, I'd still say constitutional monarchy is the way to go. The monarch has wide leeway, but is still subject to certain baseline constitutional rules to ensure there isn't a flagrant abuse of power. The monarch being subject to a constitution doesn't immediately make "the monarchy a sham".

>>1618831
Except neo-Platonism was clearly a defined thing with a specific set of ideas, whereas in case of monarchism or fascism these Marxist imbeciles literally just use "neo" as a synonym of "contemporary".

>>1618852

Neo just means "new" you sperg.

>>1618870
Yes, new. There is nothing new about monarchism, it's the polar opposite of new. Faggot.

File: 1472124258587.jpg (101KB, 1024x904px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x904px

>>1614813
They're Gods choosen to begin with.

>>1618874

So are you just assuming all monarchists are planning on turning back the clock to divine right and everything?

>>1618911
If they don't, they aren't monarchists, just generic authoritarian.

>>1618920

So you're retarded, got it.

>>1618828
>USSR, Nazi germany
>rupublican powers
?????

>>1618953
>Union of Soviet Socialist ________
Fill in the blank.

File: holy2.jpg (80KB, 542x547px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 542x547px

>>1618969

>Democratic
>People's
>Republic
>of Korea

In probably one of the closest things we have to an absolute monarchy.

Or if you wanna meme harder
>
>
>

It's not all about the name my nigga.

>>1618969
If I change my name to Queen Elizabeth will I be her?

>>1618981
Now here comes the point where you prove the Soviet Union existed according to the same model of governance as North Korea.

>>1618984
>Soviet Union was not a republic

Are you actually retarded enough to claim this?

>>1618989

That isn't what I said, I'm saying "fill in the blanks on the name" isn't always accurate when it comes to the reality of a state.

Lots of governments say they're one thing and behave entirely differently.

>>1618981
No, the closest thing to absolute monarchy are actual absolute monarchies. So Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei et cetera.

>implying you can be a "de facto" monarchy

Nope. This is actually a huge point about monarchism, it's extremely legalistic. So it NEEDS to be a monarchy on paper too, otherwise no dice.

>inb4 it makes no difference

Not only it makes a difference, it's the only thing that really matters. Unless you want to claim that buying something is the same thing as stealing it. Legality is everything.

>>1619009

It was a one party state. It's like going "You can cast the ballot but it only has one checkbox."

>>1619009
Yes because it wasn't. They lacked a class of voters who elected leaders to determine policy

>>1619022
>this faggot thinks republic and democracy are synonyms

>>1616063

Franco wanted one of his generals to take over but he was assassinated by the Basque a few years before Franco died

He named Juan Carlos his heir because he had no other options

>>1619023
Oh they didn't lack that, it was called the Central Committee and the Politburo.

>>1618984
I guess the Republics of Venice, Athens and Rome weren't actually republics too since their governments didn't precisely mirror 20th century American conceptions of representative government either right?

>>1619031
They didn't vote on the policy makers, they made the policy

>>1618852
>Except neo-Platonism was clearly a defined thing with a specific set of ideas

Not really. The distinction between it and garden variety Platonism is murky, aside from the fact Plotinus revived it. Even Plotinus himself just considered himself a Platonist.

>>1619021

>This is actually a huge point about monarchism

What is, exactly? That they need to be called King instead of Supreme Leader? Is there a monarchist manifesto that everyone signed off on? Did I miss that memo?

In practice North Korea operates as a monarchy, they just put on different airs. In either case I'm not going to split hairs with you over it since it'll be a pedantic waste of time, we'll just have to agree to disagree unless you can give me something concrete about precisely how every monarch on earth has agreed to define themselves.

>>1619036
>they didn't vote on policy makers

So you think the General Secretary just popped out of nowhere?

>>1619015
Protip: Just because occasionally a can of tomatoes gets labeled as a can of sardines doesn't invalidate the validity of first checking the label on the tin for an idea of it's contents.

>>1619047
It's a huge part of a monarchist theory, which is something you probably never even bothered to read.

>In practice

In practice me stealing your car is the same as me buying your car. You're an imbecile and probably American as well.

>>1619049
The general secretary was a figurehead who was hardly more influential than the others in determining policy

>>1619049
The difference is that those voters also made policy

>>1619026

I'd welcome learning more about how elections were handled in the Soviet Union, since you seem pretty well informed.

Unless you're going to start saying republics don't need elected officials either.

>>1619061
So you're unwilling to accept a republic as a republic unless it has a full democratic suffrage? You're very likely a dumbass.

>>1619053
>It's a huge part of a monarchist theory, which is something you probably never even bothered to read.

Speak up, what should I read? What's this big treatise of monarchs and what excludes North Korea from the running?

You're basically acting like it's a given and not validating your statement. If you give your argument without evidence, I'll dismiss it without evidence.

>>1619065
That you warped my statement into that shows your complete lack of intelligence. The essential qualities of a republic are that it has a class of people who vote on leadership who aren't otherwise involved in the state

>>1619063
Except the Soviet Union had elected officials.

>>1619085
You're French aren't you? Your lack of IQ is showing.

>>1619088

And like I said, I'd welcome hearing more about it. If you know, please explain.

>>1619095
I'm not french, that's irrelevant and you're retarded

File: aimimg_19.png (107KB, 214x173px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 214x173px

>>1619095

fucking REKT HIM M8 HOLY SHIT

B
T
F
O

>>1619085

just give up my man you got fuckin ROASTED

>>1619102
Why don't you start by reading the Wikipedia article on the government of the Soviet Union.

>>1619127

Ok. So from what I read, the members of the government were recommended by the premier and appointed by the presidium of the supreme soviet, who voted for said approved delegate, who ran unopposed. It also notes they didn't have free or semi-free elections until the 1980s.

Am I misreading, or is that right? I'm not trying to win an argument, if I'm wrong I'd like to know. Wikipedia can be imprecise.

Because if how I understand it from the wikipedia article you directed me to is the case, that's a sham. "Voting" for an approved, unopposed delegate isn't voting, he'd get in whether you voted or not. Unless I misread, that isn't a republic, that's a """"republic""""

>>1618827
>As the revolutionaries of 1848 were marching on the palace, he is supposed to have asked Metternich for an explanation. When Metternich answered that they were making a revolution, Ferdinand is supposed to have said “But are they allowed to do that?”
Kinda cute desu

>>1617995
Except that said Monarch is:
1. Fallback in case of a system collapse
2. Being nation Pet is worth a lot more for effort, and propaganda. And especially behavior campaigns
3. Hos a rather extreme support in the population, meaning media statements could allow revolution or complete policy changes

And that is the big thing.
The king may not be 100% in charge, but he can still change the course the nation is taking, even without any official power beyond signing bills.

>>1619029
LOL dude, listen Franco should have had a few other generals also on his council that he could hand power over to then. He isn't king, and one random general is not his son. It would be retarded to just have one and nothing else. That one may have been his favorite pick, but he should have had back ups in case something happens.

>>1616003
Lawfag here. Just because the Queen, by stint of a completely uncodified constitutional convention, does not intervene on such matters doesn't mean she does not still retain the capacity to intervene decisively as Head of State. If she genuinely thought it was vital to the survival of the British nation she has the constitutional power to do whatever she wants.

The first thing you need to know about British constitutional law is that it is pretty much entirely convention, convention that can be cast aside without much thought. Even collective cabinet responsibility was tossed aside this year in the UK due to the Brexit vote.

Just because no monarch has fucked with the legislative process for three centuries doesn't mean they cannot.

>>1619486
Dude this is the modern era. The people won't allow the queen to just rule however she wants unless something very big and bad happened. Culture changed, the monarchy lost it's power in England. It may in the future get it back. But right now most people would not obey the queen just because she is the queen.

5000 years of monarchies?

>>1619486
>If she genuinely thought it was vital to the survival of the British nation she has the constitutional power to do whatever she wants.

By law, but not in fact. If the queen started making decrees about anything important it would result in the end of the monarchy.

File: Pedro_II_of_Brazil_1850.jpg (2MB, 1183x1575px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1183x1575px

>>1614813
Yes. I'm still waiting for my perfect philosopher-king.

What do modern day monarchists think about the Mandate of Heaven?

Basically the chinese way to dispose of shitty/weak monarchs by claiming he was shit/weak and someone had to do it, thus i have the mandate of heaven now.

>>1614813

so much.

>>1619871
>this is the modern era

what, just because it's today?

>>1619882

People say this a lot, but I really don't think it's as easy to just drop the monarchy like a bag of wet concrete the way people seem to act like it is.

The monarchy is still one of the single largest land owners in Britain, and it's got enough good will that just going "fuck off your majesty" wouldn't be well received, as long as she didn't dig her heels in on some sort of massively unpopular edict.

I think all it takes is her and Charles to kick the bucket, normies love William, he just needs to have a bit of charisma and gusto and he could have a lot more influence than Lizzie's had through her reign.

To my knowledge Parliament wouldn't be able to just flat out abolish the monarchy because they felt like it, at least not without a LOT of political clusterfuck.

File: 62e7faf3385cff1e10e17dc2cb152c5a.jpg (3MB, 6428x3590px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6428x3590px

>>1616079
Reinhard a shit.

All Hail Lelouch!

File: Dusty_Atenbough_Space_Pirate.png (763KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 960x720px

>>1620011
>>1616079
Motherfucking FREE PLANETS ALLIANCE

>>1614923
> Oh no our King is a fucking retard. Pity about that whole "divine rights" thing eh

>>1616003
Tell that to Gough Whitlam's snapped neck

First of all a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit. Secondly the idea that an authoritarian system, whether absolute or oligarchical, is less corrupt than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of privileged groups. In the case of a feudal monarchy it's the landed aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. This means that the state is specifically designed to cripple itself for the betterment of the autocrats supporters over the interests of the nation. Thus because the law is not meant to address their needs and is not allowed to be changed to do so, the population must turn to either corruption or revolution in order to survive, both of which harm the nation yet again.

>>1620314
>a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit

there's a little more to legitimacy than that.

>>1620340
Not for a monarch there isn't. They may dress it up with ever more elaborate rituals and funny outfits, but that is all so much pageantry.

>>1620358

the nation literally would not exist without those groups you call privileged

does the military need to check it's privilege?

>>1620379
Without those groups the state wouldn't exist, the nation is a cultural and linguistic phenomena, the Hungarian nation didn't cease to exist whenever it was conquered, the state did

>>1620386

>the nation is a cultural and linguistic phenomenon

nah it's definitely biological

>>1620403
Please explain

>>1620406

the nation is mostly made of living organisms, and evolves and grows over time or stagnates or disappears.

>>1620379
The nobility were actually the greatest opponents of national consciousness and took great strides to hamper the creation of national identities, see Autria-Hungary, Tsarist Russia, Qing China, etc. You seem to be confusing some people being more well off/powerful as being the same a legally superior. The United States for a famous example did not need a legally privileged class to create a national identity showing your argument to be bunk.

>>1620415
How is that a refutation of what I said earlier?

>>1620417

how did noble households originally attain their positions?

>some people being more well off/powerful as being the same a legally superior

I implied nothing of the sort.

>The United States for a famous example did not need a legally privileged class to create a national identity

what are literally slaves?

>>1620423

you assign a nations identity as its people's etchings and words.

I identify the nation as it's people. The people as a nation.

>>1620425
Slaves were never a majority of the population and infant did not even exist in relevant amounts in most of the country. Slavery in fact was beginning to die out at the time of the revolution and would not see a resurgence until the cotton boom. Finally the whole point of the American Cicil War was that the majority of the country's population was against slavery as antithetical to the national identity while southern plantation owners wanted to shatter the nation and FORM an european style aristocratic system before Lincoln righteously struck them down.

>>1618013
That's one explanation.

But there's also the British monarchy which is beloved and plays an important role in shaping Britain. They also seem to embody British upper class culture which a lot of Anglos and other non-Brits love.

>>1614813
Europe under monarchy : Rule the World, High Birthrate, 100% white
Europe democuckracy : Fucktoy of the entire planet, Low Birthrate, Barely 70% white

>>1622173
Russia under Monarchy: Turns out a King Slav is the same horrible fucked up shit a Slav peasant is.

>>1618833
I'm no bong. There are other queens than whatshername.

>>1615998
It really depends on the military in itself, down to the individual soldier. Now, if there was a split between Parliament and the Monarchy in a civil war mk2 scale, i'd reckon I would have a safe bet that the Armed forces would side with the monarchy on the basis that nobody likes Westminister.

>>1615998
No, it will come down to this
>These asshole politicians
>OUR GLORIOUS ROYAL FAMILY!
At which point the army gave no fucks, and forsaken the politicians.

>>1623058
kek

That's why I love Russia. Whether Byzantine or Western(post-Petrine) monarchy, communist or democratic, there is a Russian spirit and way of life that perpetuates itself through all forms of government Russia has had.

>>1618039
In the Middle Ages it was generally believed that a Monarch who broke away from their duties to their subjects were Monarchs only in name, and this allowed other potential monarchs to make a claim to legitimacy. "Divine Right" was supposed to be backed up with empirical evidence of right actions, wrong actions implied that the Divine Right had ceased. It was only later, when republican mercantilism threatened European culture that monarchies started going totally absolute as a means to centralize state power so to combat the new mercantilism - this was the beginning of the nation state and its totalitarian forms of government ( modern democracy, communism, fascism). Old school monarchies were so decentralized that the Monarch was constantly walking on eggshells and had to deal with numerous intermediary sources of power and legitimacy. In old school Monarchies it was always more of a balancing act as opposed to a king having absolute authority over government. Different chains of authority and legitimacy had to be respected, and while the King was always the center, he was generally not much more powerful than a modern president. The whole "balance of powers" shtick we treat as modern and democratic is actually medieval and monarchical, it was transferred into the opposing form of governments to the new absolute monarchies.

>>1618570
Even in the worst part of the dark ages lords had to pay families of serfs that they killed, and would be subject to an inquiry if the right people in the crown or church heard about it.

>>1620314
You are arbitrarily importing theories of democratic legitimacy and nationalism into your definition of corruption. You are assuming that nations exist in the first place( they are at best abstractions), and should have priority over the individual groups of people under a Kings jurisdiction. You are also assuming that the non-wealthy never had sources of power and legitimacy, that the King had to deal with, which is inaccurate.

File: Fake_French_Naval_Fortress.jpg (54KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 560x407px

>>1619023
I don't think you understand THE LADDER.
Internally, it must always be voted on who will climb the ladder.
The ladder might be community official -> community area official -> county official -> higher levels of county official -> major -> county official in charge of EVERYTHING -> nation assembly -> higher level of national assembly -> actual policy makers.
But The Ladder remains. There will be votes, because somebody has to move upwards.
That you get the position for life, doesn't change The Ladder.

Even inside The Army The Ladder exists. If there is 10 officers, and one of them will be promoted, there will ironically be a vote. But said vote doesn't have to be counted, or be anonymous.
And even inside the army ladder, there will be a form of "voting for elected leaders to determine policy", merely by the fact The Ladder exists.


So in a lot of ways, Glorious Republic of Korea, Soviet, and many others, is Republics, if the only requirement is "a class of voters who elected leaders to determine policy".

>>1614813

When you realize just how corrupted the electoral process actually is, Monarchy doesn't seem so outrageous anymore.

>>1614923

Explain the events that lead up to WWI.

>>1614937

See above question.

>>1625709
>Explain the events that lead up to WWI.
Same reasoning as for why any attack on a NATO country must mean war. Any less than war and everyone is Hitler.

Exact same solidification of alliances and exact same clusterfuck/tragedy if the USA doesn't calm the fuck down with it's foreign policy dream of world hegemony.

>>1625709
Step 1: Have Global empires become too big to be able to do a practical war effort against each other

Step 2: Be in a period where technology advancement is exponential, meaning The War will have to be waged in a new way if its among equal enemies

Step 3: Have there actually be a period of peace, because the empires had a better time expanding and taking over the world(literally)

Step 4: Nations has large amounts of diplomatic diplomats. Which means during the peace time, that nations actually agree which they hate more, and defence pacts are signed.

Step 5: Something happens to make things go where they are headed, and the kettle finally boils over. World War ensues.

Because if you start looking into it, the saber rattling for World War 1 started in the 1880s, and a lot earlier. At ANY point after that, there would have been a world war at some points, and its a amazing it took 40 years for dramatic events to happen to fuel A World War.
Monarchy is irrelevant for the situation. To the point where its one of the wars in history, with the most diverse casts of state types.

File: 1469659760851.jpg (118KB, 1275x713px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1275x713px

>>1614813
Can somebody explain to me how I would become a king in the current year?

Preferably within the current borders of the United States and Canada, not enveloping the entire countries rather taking a sizable chunk next to the Pacific for my kingdom.

Besides the meme book The Prince, what other books or writings could give me a better understanding of what is needed to not only establish a Kingdom/Princedom but also run one.

picture unrelated.

>>1618619

>A good monarch is great for a country, the only issue is that you run the risk of a really shitty one

You can literally say the exact same thing about any form of government, including full dictatorship. A benevolent, smart dictator is great. No drama, no muss, no fuss.

File: 1471092033732.jpg (100KB, 511x559px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 511x559px

>>1623058
>Implying the Romanov senpai was Russian

>>1628181
Family* dont know how senpai came out

>>1627706
Calling Niccolo Machiavelli's masterpiece a "meme book", read some more literature, pleb.

>>1622150
prince edward married a fucking jew

it's over

File: Russian_science_bears.jpg (149KB, 768x666px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 768x666px

>>1628181
Its not terribly relevant that by race the emperor is a mix of Slav and Holstein Gottorp Dane(export age: 1721). That the first mix arrives for Paul I of Russia in 1754, isn't terribly relevant either.


What makes Ivan into Ivan, and not just a Slav, is that Ivan is a culture.
Muh Dane blood doesn't really change that from a Cultural standpoint that when it Talks/Moves/Smells/Behaves/Orders like a Russian Ivan, its a Russian Ivan.
To the point where if War and Peace is read carefully, you see a bunch of princes with no regard for public property of their fellow man. To Ivan, life is a game of self progress, but with no regard for things like maintenance.

It could be argued that Communism with all its public property made the Slav moral worse. I think it did, but it still show cases all the roots.
There is the things, like Hallways in building smelling like trash because its not washed. Or Outdoor paint of houses lacking completely, while the interior is extremely maintained.


tl:dr being a Danish/Slav king doesn't really change it behaves like a Russian, and the revolution happens because said King Slav behaves not different from Peasant Sergei.

>>1615743

Are you retarded? Of course a monarch is a mascot in a democracy. That doesn't make Britain less of a monarchy or democracy. It is a democratic monarchy.

>>1628221
>read some more literature, pleb.
Good idea, give me some recommendations.

>>1628272

Are YOU retarded? The British monarch has no power and therefore is not a monarch at all in any real sense: a mascot.

>>1627706
Inside the US the best route would be to enter state level politics and develop a party around yourself. Assuming you can develop enough of one to reach governorship and convince the legislature to succeed. Alternatively you could become a king at the state level and remain in the US, as to my knowledge there is nothing on a federal level that says states have to be democratic in nature.

It would be easiest to do in states with poor economic or disaster situations. Louisiana would probably be your best bet.

>>1628713
I appreciate the response.

>>1614944
>all monarchs ended up irrelevant, exiled or beheaded
>successful system

>>1628409
doesn't their armed forces still claim loyalty to the crown?
i thought that was the reason it was still kept around, the english monarchy waves around a big stick to keep parliment from being stupid

>>1628885
Where did you get this nonsense from?

File: 1419688409447.png (545KB, 543x447px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 543x447px

>>1614813
>Do monarchists have any justification in the modern world?
Bonapartism. Seriously, populist authoritarianism à la both Bonapartes (and debatably De Gaulle) is the only form of "monarchism" that can survive the modern age in the West, as evidenced by the fact that both Bonapartes were dethroned by external factors rather than internal ones, and were both rapidly popular among their own people right before their fall (though Parisian Republicans hated Napoleon IIIs guts, but on the countryside (the majority of France) he was much beloved). Though I could see monarchies returning once Europe fucks itself in the ass with progressivist multicultural tolerance.

>>1615403
The problem with this is that you cannot guarantee a succesful ruler has a good son. In fact it often creates a problem: a good ruler leaves behind shoes so large, nobody can fill them and the country declines. As much as I praised Napoleon, almost the entire 19th century France lived and stagnated in the shadow of Napoleon. He was simply too good for France.

The idea balance, in my opinion, would be Republicanism with a Roman-style dictator who seizes power in a time of crisis and then steps back when the crisis is resolved. De Gaulle would be the best modern example. Though that requires a very strong moral sentiment, patriotism and loyalty to Republican values. Early Rome had all three, modern day Europe lacks all three.

>>1614968
take your kek and get outta here

>>1618387
>Honourable Sun Wo Fei, you have written a beautiful 500 line poem about dewdrops resting on the petals of the lotus flower in very pretty characters. You are now Duke of Wei.
>Honourable Dang Shi, you have missed a stroke in the 400th character of your poem about wild horses. Your entire family will be killed.

>>1629627
reminds me of south African poltics

>>1620314
There is a case of The Great Warlord having 20 armies under him, but each is is separated enough that they don't really communicate.
But the armies are close enough that if the King needs them, they can be fielded.
Which means a conspiracy is 2-4 armies.

And thats very different from a modern army, where a linear command structure means nothing can actually stop any of the higher heads from just performing a coup.
Then again, feudal city states has it easier: Only the leading ranks needs rights. Anything below that really doesn't have rights, but at the same time rights isn't worth that much when people can bash in each others skull if things do happen.


I think that your post is confused, because you confuse a modern legitimate state which is literally scared of its own armed forces, and that is compared with a ancient monarchy.
You also confuse benefits with corruption, with a complete lack of understanding of what is what.

>>1615726
>>1615769
>>1616013

>this is another anti-fascism episode

>>1631538
No monarchist that was serious with a sense of self respect and an understanding of history would support fascists or national socialists because every time they tried to ally together the monarchists got betrayed and fucked up.

I'm not suggesting monarchists ally with social democrats or anything now, they definitely wouldn't want that, i'm saying that they need to either present themselves as moderate conservatives or just ally with liberals and see where it takes them. (Which is survival if you look at places like the U.K. and other Euro monarchies still existing)

>>1625208
>dark ages lords had to pay families of serfs that they killed
that's okay then

>>1618984

It would be extremely monarchal.

>>1620254

>he thinks the Queen had literally anything to do with it

Libshit detected

>>1614923
He said "in the modern world"

>>1618779
Yeah dude totally *hits bong*

File: li-thronespeech-cp-620-3655.jpg (175KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 620x349px

The monarch as an executive decision-making body clearly has no place in the modern world (see all current absolute monarchies being morally bankrupt totalitarian islamist shitholes), but a figurehead, constintutional monarchy I think is one of the best things for a country to have.

In an increasingly chaotic and confusing world, a politically neutral monarchy as a figurehead for the entire nation, politics aside, is one of the best things for a country to have.

Obviously monarchy works better in different places, I doubt any former monarchies will be restored, no matter how much Romanov/Hohenzollern autists dram about it, and the entire New World's history is born out of violent rejection of monarchical powers in Europe, but I think monarchies are a benefit to the countries that have them.

TL;DR: Don't let them anywhere near power but monarchies are good as a figurehead

>>1614923
And then you have the retard son inheriting the kingdom

>monarchs unironically secure their succession by inbreeding

>>1632031
This desu.
Modern successful monarchies are usually parliamentary or constitutional monarchies, where the monarch exclusively has a ceremonial purpose (like many parliamentary democracies with a president who has little to no political power).
Absolute monarchies are backwards shitholes.

>>1615769
>>1616013
>falling for the alt-right meme
The alt-right is just a catch all term created by the powers at be to denigrate ideas which do not conform the society's ideas.

If it became politically expedient to do so, I assure you the term "alt-left" would be developed and weaponize to insult socialists and communists.

File: 1472105017657.png (31KB, 162x149px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 162x149px

>>1634812
fucking canadian tire, I cant stop laughhing fuck man

>>1619963
>People say this a lot, but I really don't think it's as easy to just drop the monarchy like a bag of wet concrete the way people seem to act like it is.

>Queen makes move to reassert her authority
>Parliament hears this, universally decries this as "unconstitutional and undemocratic" and launches media campaign to stop her
>She loses

There are two forms of power in government. The people and the army, Parliament can easily sway the people, and the Queen sure as fuck isn't going to get the army to launch a coup.

I probably have an extremely romanticized view of enlightened despots like Catherine II or Frederick the Great, but the idea of a single individual who can and will take any action to benefit the people without going through the bureaucracy that democracy suffers from appeals to me. If there were a modern monarch who had the interests of the people at heart, was intelligent or clever enough, and the system in which he or she could enact laws to help them it would maybe be a lot more efficient , but probably not.

>>1618135
>Shit successor
>Makes the French state even more solid and expands it
Thats a good sign isn't it?

>>1634885
what ever you say you creepy alt-right apologist.

File: 017.jpg (443KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1600x1066px

>>1614944
Communism, Socialism, Republics, Democracy, Humanidm are all still around, writ large or small.

Monarchism and autocracy are dead.

Long live the Great French Revolution!!!

>>1636597
Sorry, "humanism".

File: 1472112084646.jpg (142KB, 1439x1374px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1439x1374px

>>1636597
>french revolution
>not the downfall of everything that was good

>>1636597
>patting yourselves on the back because you fucked shit up

>>1628409
If United "Kingdom" is not a monarchy who is the head of state?

>>1628409
Are you retarded?

The Queen officially has the power to invite the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. The Prime Minister has to give the Queen a report at the Privy Council meetings on how they are running her country, and the entire UK Armed Forces swear loyalty to the Queen, NOT Parliament or the Prime Minister

Although convention and limited parts of the UK's unwritten constitution prevent the Queen from exercising her powers, she can legitimately suspend parliament, enforce the arrest of all senior MP's and re-establish an absolute monarchy if she wanted to.

File: dont do it basil.jpg (11KB, 163x205px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 163x205px

>>1634936
Britbong here, if Prince Harry became king somehow he would probably have the popular support to re-establish the traditional powers of the monarchy. I trust him and his family more than I do any of the political parties, because the royal family wont just fuck off in a few years. They're here to stay and logically would want to ensure they stay popular through good decisions in the long term, rather than within the next 10 years etc that a politician trying to be re-elected will aim for.

>tfw you will never be ruled by King Henry IX

File: 1471124597045.jpg (121KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 640x960px

>>1619871
>dude it's (insert current year)

File: 1401060061380.png (142KB, 686x441px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 686x441px

>>1637646
>The army is loyal to the individual of the queen
>The only thing keeping the entire thing afloat is an unwritten gentleman's agreement
How disgusting. Make Britain republican again!

>>1637663
>he would probably have the popular support
Such a shame the British people aren't, and never have been, sovereign, making your entire point moot.

>>1639173
>How disgusting. Make Britain republican again!
Nah fuck off. Cromwell was a mistake, kill all whigs

bump2

>>1637663
>because the royal family wont just fuck off in a few years.
After Norway has practically been a member of the EU, since 1994, i got to say. I agree with this sentiment.

The current trend is that the people in the government, will try to setup follow up jobs in the EU parlament of other such organizations.
I.E Prime mininster Jens Stoltenberg -> Head of NATO
Even somebody reasonable, like Gro Harlem Brundtland decided it was a good idea to do random hireling work once she had been head of WCED and been Prime Minister for a few years.
And these are the reasonable people. The less reasonable people go for 8-12 in Stortinget if they can't get a job in a Mayors office in a major county. Then the less reasonable people will fuck off to CIVITA, do lawyer work for private enterprises leveraging their contacts in the governments, or they will fuck off to various EU organizations or something.
About 60% of them do fuck off and leave the country, without any real backbone. And things didn't use to be this bad before the 90s, where EU became a larger entity at the expense of Soviets fall.

Currently on the other hand, Harald V has been loyal to the nation. So has Crown Prince Haakon and his spouse Mette-Marit.
And so has the rest of the royal family. This isn't like Sweden, where the Royal family wants to be degenerates.

>>1642223
Fuck off Harold, knugen is based

>>1642230
Knugen might be based, but his children has seen some of the same horrible shit the British successors have.
They could just have cleaned up, and it wouldn't even been a problem.

>>1631856
That was in the worst part of the dark ages, which was a tiny piece of the time monarchy has been the main form of government. In the high middle ages practices like that would be considered completely unjustifiable.

>>1616814

yeah because its a fucking horrible idea you stupid cuck