If the nobility had been able to maintain power over the bourgeoisie,

>>2910344
>Yes, especially moreso as the nobility was exclusive and no peasant could hope to rise in the caste like a prole theoretically could.
>Medieval, urban merchant class.

>>2910344
>WE FOOL YOU
>show religious leaders
Were commies the original fedoras?

>>2910344
>Who knocked the nobility out of power in the first place?
Depends on the country.

England: English Civil war
France: French revolution
USA: never had a nobility
Most of the rest of europe: WW1

File: Nationalismus.jpg (31KB, 650x249px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 650x249px

>>2910344
>Who knocked the nobility out of power in the first place?
Not who. What.

Pic related.

>>2910683
Why didn't nationalists respect their nobility as embodiments of their nation's ancient culture? It's like modernists didn't think any of this through.

>>2910673
>USA: never had a nobility
Political family dynasties for all intents and purposes are nobility

>>2910664
Their whole ideology revolves around conspiracy theories, so yes.

>>2910708
I would say because the nobility didn't give a flying fuck about the nation, country was their property. Nationalism argues that the country belongs to the people living in it.

Don't really know much about the subject so I would really appreciate it if someone corrected me if I'm mistaken.

>>2910344
>Who knocked the nobility out of power in the first place?

You answered your own question. The nobility of Europe died first with the spectacle of revolution in America, which had elements of a proletariat revolution(Partly because of the writings of Thomas Paine), but it didn't really die until the bourgeois revolution of Napoleon.

>>2910344
What if the entire nobility turned into snakes

>>2910728
They're not wrong.
Religion is a cancer which society would be better off without.

File: Monarch.jpg (399KB, 995x1129px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 995x1129px

>>2910708
>>2911619

Because Nationalism as we know it came from liberal/humanities explosion of the 18th and 19th centuries that put the justification on statehood upon the masses. On the logic that people who belonged to the same race/creed/language group/what have you is the basis of the state and should have a say on how to govern the state.

Meanwhile Monarchical justification has multiple sources usually cultural-religious (i.e. Divine Right of Kings, Mandate of Heaven), Aristocracy (Rule of the Best), Universalist beliefs (i.e World King. All Under Heaven, God's governor in this world, etc.) and raw de facto power (i.e.I have the power to protect you and maintain peace in this land). Which didn't suit the liberal, democratic, and rational tendencies of the nascent Nationalists.

Another is the fact that empires containing multiple cultures held together by aforementioned monarchical justifications of rule clashed with Nationalists, since if anything, Nations tend to dislike other Nations. Which is why in the 19th century, the Empires tried selling themselves unsuccessfully as peacekeepers between races (i.e. what the Ottomans, Habsburgs, and the Qing did), who predicted ethnic savagery would ensue if they overthrew the Dynasty.

So there.

P.S.
>respect their nobility as embodiments of their nation's ancient culture?
Fun fact: they did.
Further fun fact: they forced them to. Touting your monarch as the embodiment of your "nation's ancient culture." is the ultimate sign that a monarchical dynasty has been cucked by Nationalism. The people expect the Monarchs to be the same as they are in almost every way possible. When this happens, you see shit like Constitutional """Monarchies"""" and Monarchs having to change their names to sound "more native."

>>2911660
This +in France nobility was associated with Romans whereas the people were Gallic so there you go.

>>2910708
>Why didn't nationalists respect their nobility as embodiments of their nation's ancient culture?
Because more often than not the monarchs did not even share the nationality of their subjects and prevented the nation-states to form since the borders of their states they governed were defined by inheritance rather than the nationality of the people.

>>2911660
Monarchs devote their lives to the wellbeing of their sole property, the state. Why would they not have respect for its culture?