>>The monarch now would be titled King of the French rather

Because it was more nationalistic and made them seem like a champion of the people. In the medieval ages you could be French but your king could be German but it wouldn't make a difference to you since all you care about is your own land. People were tied to land like France, instead of their fellow people, like French. Of the French implies he is the king of the French people who happen to inhabit territory, not territory that happens to have french people. It was also a nice reason to go to war in the name of freeing your fellow people who might be ""oppressed" by a bordering country and taking their land. It really took hold when nationalism was beginning to spread, with Germans wanting to live in a ""German""" state with fellow Germans ruled by a German king, rather than be ruled by the dutch.

>>1993713
King of the French implies the king rules the people/rules with their consent. While King of France the king rules over the land and by the will of god. After the revolution the idea of the social contract and nation was really cemented in public thought. So the king had to rule over the people of his country not the land to put it in the simplest terms.

File: 1475600942526.png (165KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 327x316px

>Citizen King

Was Louis XVI the ultimate cuck?

>>1993750
Yes

An old fashioned French would have crushed the revolution by the sword.

>>1993779
>old fashioned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roi_fainéant

Now almost half of the population of France is African descendant. Can't you see a difference?

>>1997123
>bumping a thread to post this

you seem lost >>>/pol/

>>1993740
/thread
This thread has no point in existing past this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_monarchy

Fyi, the Belgian monarchy is the only 'popular monarchy' left in the world. My king is king of the Belgians and he is never allowed to address the citizens of Belgium as subjects, something the Dutch kings did in the past, but only as countrymen. He rules with popular consent enshrined in the constitution, not by the grace of God like the Dutch monarch. He is the coronation of a republic.

Despite all that the Belgian King has more power than most constitutional monarchies.

>>1997232
>cuck king
What's the point?

>>1997232
>Germany in that list
Wasn't that mostly because the Emperor wasn't allowed to call himself "Emperor of Germany" because theoretically that included independent Austria? As far as I know it wasn't an explicit populist statement like "King of the Belgians" or "Emperor of the French".

On a different note, even as a Dutchman I'm actually pretty fond of Belgian history and very much respect Belgium as a nation. Such a shame that the single most popular party in Belgium is literally a separatist one.

>>1997248
>/pol/ catchprhase
What's the point?

>>1997248
to keep Belgium united?

>>1997253
Its weird, he was "German Emperor" and at the same time "King of Prussia".

>>1997253
Don't they want to join the Netherlands

>>1997276
Last time I checked more Dutchmen than Flemish want that union to happen. As far as I know Vlaams Belang wants an independent Flanders with a special relationship with the Netherlands and not much more than that.

>>1997276
flemish independence movements are largely economically inspired using a cultural excuse
its different from most other independence movements in that its success would result in the full dissolution of the mother country because the separated area contains most of the population and economy

as such there is no need or desire to join up with the netherlands

>>1997266
It's similar to being King of the UK, and King of England. The latter is part of the former, but still recognised as a separate thing.