Monarchism

File: fd8fbaf37284b51a9a5409782470f9f87e9fac3f.jpg (729KB, 1701x2005px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 1701x2005px

>>2975816

Got overthrown by a better system

>>2975819
/thread

File: queen-elizabeth-angry-2.jpg (90KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1920x1080px

>>2975819
You take that back you ugly amphibious!

>>2975816
>What went wrong?
Just look at North Korea if you want to see what a modern day absolute monarchy looks like.

File: fold.gif (2MB, 297x229px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 297x229px

>>2975816
All it takes is one retard or one sterile guy and all of a sudden there's years of bad rulers or a succession crisis.

>>2975830
Because that happens often. One bad ruler can fuck up any system.

>>2975826
You mean Saudi Arabia? Which is pretty great if you're muslim.

>>2975816
Among other things
>Leadership skilsl are not genetic.
>Most monarchies did not teach the royal heirs the art of leadership.
>Many of them were also rather spoiled and treated the kingdom as a personal playground since they grew up in about as privileged a background as possible
>Trying to have a sibling replace the heir apparent usually results in power struggle if not outright civil war
>Furthermore, the lack of any sort of political input from the populace means that there is no way for policy redress outside of armed revolt; armed revolts are generally bad.
>The insulation of your chief policy maker from the effects of his rule promotes a system that selects for "good enough" instead of "best" when it comes to policy decisions.

>unelected rulers
>ever
kys

>>2975826
>North Korea
>monarchy

Pick one. Hereditary rule is not the same as monarchy.

>>2975826
I'll go on a limb here and say that most people aren't psychopaths/deluded beyond help and most populations aren't as submissive as best Koreans.

>>2975830
Succession crisis a lot of the time arose from multiple people not respecting their turn in line tho. The rules were usually in place to prevent them.

>>2975819
you can thank napoleon, a pseudo king, for that

File: charles-ii-of-spain_imagelarge.jpg (14KB, 448x312px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 448x312px

>this kills the monarchist

>>2975836
>Leadership skills are not genetic.
But genetics do affect character. It's mostly a "just in case" Thing.

>Furthermore, the lack of any sort of political input from the populace means that there is no way for policy redress outside of armed revolt; armed revolts are generally bad.
>The insulation of your chief policy maker from the effects of his rule promotes a system that selects for "good enough" instead of "best" when it comes to policy decisions.

One could argue that today, with the internet, and the ease of communication, would make this time the best for absolutist governments tho. As it would be a lot easier to have the population interact directly with their leader.

>Most monarchies did not teach the royal heirs the art of leadership.
>Many of them were also rather spoiled and treated the kingdom as a personal playground since they grew up in about as privileged a background as possible
>Trying to have a sibling replace the heir apparent usually results in power struggle if not outright civil war

Real problems, and i'm sure monarchy doesn't have rules written down, but if the system was indeed working as intended this could be solved.
And yes, I realize the same could be said about any system.

>>2975838
What's the difference?

>>2975853
>One could argue that today, with the internet, and the ease of communication, would make this time the best for absolutist governments tho. As it would be a lot easier to have the population interact directly with their leader.
Interaction is not necessarily politically influential. Being able to write in to your king when your king has no obligation to even read it (in fact, the pressures of government ensure that it's a virtual certainty he will not read it) won't help you try to reverse a tariff policy that will put you out of business, or any other policy that will affect you the subject personally.

>Real problems, and i'm sure monarchy doesn't have rules written down, but if the system was indeed working as intended this could be solved.
But often it WAS the system working as intended. Monarchy vastly predated modern forms of nationalism, the idea of an absolute monarch who was the perfect servant of some sort of political abstraction of the "country" is an extreme anachronism. The polity was there to serve the interests of the monarchy, not the other way around.

>>2975816
The Monarch has no incentive to keep his population in anything other than sustainability, the centralization of power in the monarch means that pretty awful descisions can be made, without any checks or balances other than a court insisting on the monarch doing something else.

>>2975853
>One could argue that today, with the internet, and the ease of communication, would make this time the best for absolutist governments tho. As it would be a lot easier to have the population interact directly with their leader.
Absolutist governments have no serious requirements to serve the people, this is why democracies have higher standards of living than monarchies, shitty prime ministers and presidents can be deposed if they do a bad job, the only measure against a bad king is abdication, which is soley in the control of himself in an absolute monarchy.

>>2975862
It would be like saying Trump is an elected monarch just because he's elected. A dude who doesn't call himself king who is head of a republic can hardly be called a monarch.

>>2975864
>Being able to write in to your king when your king has no obligation to even read it won't help you try to reverse a tariff policy that will put you out of business

True, but it would make the general opinion of a vast majority of the population (assuming we are talking about a developed country) a lot more apparent and harder to ignore. Especially if the king has, like presidents and PMs, an image assistant.

>Monarchy vastly predated modern forms of nationalism, the idea of an absolute monarch who was the perfect servant of some sort of political abstraction of the "country" is an extreme anachronism

Monarchy is very ancient, true. But we had monarchies well into the age of nationalism. Hell, European monarchs saw that whole period pass by before the socialists movements started. I'm not sure what the general vision of the role of the king was during that time tho. They all seemed to drink the "divine rule" kool-aid a bit too much, and it hindered their ability to reign even tho a lot of them seemed genuinely committed to serving their countries.

>>2975879
Well, democracies don't really have it either. And they don't. They often serve the upper echelons.
I would say that the desire to not get lynched by a mob and to not have civil revolts is a good incentive to keep your population happy. Even absolute rules are nothing without their people.

File: IMG_2899.jpg (30KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x400px

>>2975852
He was a beacon of purity that we should all strive to be

>>2975895
>Well, democracies don't really have it either.
Actually, they do, if a governmentis sufficently bad enough for the realm the citizens can vote the party that fucked up.

File: IMG_0852.jpg (92KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 720x616px

>>2975819
Agreed

What happened to Divine Right to Rule, lads?

is it possible to make a ruler answer to the people, without a voting system? if it were i would do that. what's good about democracy isn't that people get to choose, but that the rulers have to have the people in mind. The voting part of democracy is the worst part

File: Reinhard.jpg (124KB, 595x1440px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 595x1440px

>>2975816
Even this guy shits on monarchism while being the Kaiser

>>2975907
This might sound really stupid.
But I would say that once a party is in power they can basically do whatever they want. If their only interest is personal gain then the members can move around different parties, and most people would probably not even notice.
Furthermore, they would be in a position of power that could allow them to disrespect the democratic system by, for example, buying out members of the congress, members of other parties, or in the case of places like Cuba (tho I know this isn't really a democratic country), preventing the formation of opposing parties. Things that are all done IRL.

What i'm trying to say is, that, at the end of the day, all forms of government require cooperation of the population. And if the common people really hate a government, there isn't much the government can do to avoid being replaced either trough violent or non-violent means.

>>2975928
There's a world of difference between violent revolt and putting the other guy's name down on a ballot.

>>2975935
Peer pressure can be enough to force a monarch to abdicate. My argument might be flawed because it's assuming that the democracy in question is corrupted. Tho I find it hard to believe that there is such a thing as non-corrupt democracy.
Regardless my main point was that any form of government requires cooperation from the common people, and thus requires to keep certain level of happiness on them.

>>2975816
>rolling the dice time after time that a ruler will be fit to rule just because his sperm donor wasn't an atrocity
Gee I don't know how it could possibly go wrong. Putting aside the constant wars of succession, all it takes is one lunatic kid and your government is on the fast track to a comedy of incompetence.

Every form of government is, at the end of the day, a democracy. Even the most pure, straight-forward monarchies only let the king have the power he does because the majority of people allow him to.

>>2976007
That's what I think too. I've heard that the chinese, for example, are rather happy with their authoritarian goverment, even tho they don't get to vote.

dude just read history, the glaring flaws of monarchy are pretty explicit

>>2975881
Preposterous, trump isn't a monarch because he's an elected head of state within a constitutional framework with clear checks on his power and a definite date on when he must stand for reelection or relinquish power, he also has not placed his offspring to succeed him in an authoritarian manner. Not just because he doesn't call himself a king.

Kim Jong un rules by fiat and derives his authority from the fact that his father and his father did the same.

>>2975816
If you're asking why autocracy doesn't work so well anymore, it's because the masses are too conscious of policy and government decisions.

If you're asking why there aren't as many monarchs anymore, it's because technological and economic advances created a middle class, which had de facto power (which is to say, money and influential businesses) and no de jure power (noble blood). Much like the aristocrats that preceded them, they wanted representation in government, and because there was so many of them, the calls for representative government became much harder to ignore.

Compounding this was the advent of mass politics - EVERYONE came to care about how the government was doing things, and the first page of the electoral playbook is making people angry about how the government is doing things to make them vote your party into power. A government's every shortfall and misstep is carefully watched and spread around these days to the public (something that began in the late 1800s), and so it's considered a miracle if a singular ruling party keeps office for a decade.

Whereas a prime minister can buttfuck the country - or be made to be perceived as buttfucking the country by a vigilant media backed by people who would rather themselves be in charge - and be ruthlessly punished for it with by being forced to resign to a comfortable retirement or return to the private sector, a king has to abdicate, or get violently overthrown. His dynasty can be come to be perceived as the bad 'party,' and so the monarchy itself may be 'voted out.'

tl;dr republics can discard unpopular leaders far more comfortably than monarchies, and the rising importance of making a government popular made that advantage more important. This is the deciding factor; winning a popularity contest is no more 'just' than winning a falling-out-of-vagina lottery for deciding a ruler.

>>2976031
So was Hitler a monarch? Stalin? Mao? Pinochet? According to you every authoritarian is a monarch.

>>2976242
if they had promoted family succession then sure, but none of those did

>>2976265
That has nothing to do with it, not all monarchies have been hereditary (Poland and pre-Habsburgh HRE for example were famously elective). Like that other anon said, a monarchy needs to be a de jure monarchy in order to be considered a monarchy. There is no such thing as an unofficial monarchy, since monarchy is by definition a very legalistic system.

>>2976265

Oliver Cromwell's son took over, but both of them would cringe if you called them a monarch.

>>2975816
No opportunity for more talented leaders outside the family to rule, AKA Monopoly
This leads ambitous wannabes to try all kinds of underhanded tactics like assasination and war

>>2975872
Monarch owns everything and humans like to take care of what they own. Destroying something would literally mean self-destruction for a monarch

>>2975835
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV5O-0sYmkI
it isn't

>>2976007
No, it's a rule of violence. If you have the monopoly on violence, you rule. You can make the point that the wielders of violence are the people, however most people don't. Only a very small portion of the people wield the power, and they are almost always hierarchically organised, with a clear leader on top. That leader could be a monarch.

>>2975816
meritocracy + despotism > your shitty hereditary monarchy

File: Marines.png (182KB, 288x252px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 288x252px

>>2975816
Well there are a few issues that come with monarchism, mainly those being that it very much so eradicates the idea of a state

Back when monarchy was prevalent there was very little idea of a state, instead land was worked by serfs who were essentially renting the land from lords above them by paying taxes or offering a share of their produce. This worked because of the inheritance system, where instead of passing a kingdom down to your sons so the land could have a new ruler, you did so because that land is their legal inheritance much like how people can inherit property today.

There were a few confusing issues with this, one of which being if there were multiple children then do they all get a little bit of the land? Well conventionally that was meant to be the case, and in that whenever a monarch died their children would either become independent rulers or rulers that were vassals to their other siblings who happened to inherit the kingdom while they inherited duchies and baronies.

In the cases where you have total inheritance of everything to your oldest son, then that pretty much fucks things up too. Now one kid inherits it all, but what if that kid isn't very old when his dad dies? What if that kid has a kid, but dies before his dad does? Does that mean that his dead body inherits and then his son inherits after that because he's dead, or does the dead kid's brother inherit instead?

Not to mention these laws weren't uniform throughout realms, so at some points places would get scattered by three different inheritance laws among many regions due to one guy dying too early and the realm just gets all kinds of fucked up.

Now if we had a perfect inheritance system that always had a clean transition from one kid to the next with no error just for a hypothetical. In that case then there's still a likelihood that the kid could just be shit, since it can be hard not to raise a spoiled brat when you're monstrously rich and busy running a state.

>>2975819
>have revolution
>replace monarch with genocidal maniac

every time.

People just cant accept the fact of someone being over them.They cant accept that they will never be a King or Queen so they like to think of these people as undeserving.

Here is how a monarch usually comes into power its not just some asshole bossing people around:
>Group of peoples (usually a tribe because it is easier to rise up within small ranks)have a champion usually through military exploit.
>Wins territory declared chief or king.
>Because he won through his might his genetics will produce issues expected to be great.
>Other great warriors are formally or informally enobled and they marry between each other.
>After a few hundred years the stock gets lazy allowing for take over from within or without.

So you see peasants you too could have been King provided you be enobled probably first but the concept is pretty primitive and thats why these keyboard warriors seem so against it.

File: 1496908457556.jpg (27KB, 540x337px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 540x337px

>>2975836
>Most monarchies did not teach the royal heirs the art of leadership.
If you are from a barbarian stock
>Many of them were also rather spoiled and treated the kingdom as a personal playground since they grew up in about as privileged a background as possible
Ironically spoiled Emperors are one of the most efficient ones i.e Zhengde Emperor.
>Furthermore, the lack of any sort of political input from the populace means that there is no way for policy redress outside of armed revolt; armed revolts are generally bad.
You have local magistrates to write complains too, no Monarch ever wants his populace to be unhappy, but sometimes just like a mother who protects his sick child against the knife of a doctor, it is the doctor who knows best, not the mother.
>The insulation of your chief policy maker from the effects of his rule promotes a system that selects for "good enough" instead of "best" when it comes to policy decisions.
When authority comes from law, and from character, a mediocre ruler always become a good one

>>2975819
>better system
>an oligarchy that turns the media into a psychological operation to brainwash young citizens into voting for them without realizing it.

Republics fail due to how they turn the media into pure cancer like you see in America, even before Trump the US media constantly shills the ideas of the Democrats of Republicans via stealth propaganda aimed at children and teenagers to make them think they like these ideas and vote for them.

That is why the lower humans were given the power to vote because women and blacks are so fucking stupid you can easily brainwash them with not much propaganda, White males are harder to brainwash which is something jews understood so they allowed white women to vote and now every jew agenda is being fulfilled as we speak.

>>2975816

Monarchy is the most natural and universal form of government ever, it will be recognized in all corners of the earth. We have had monarchy for thousands of years, and "democracy" for only a few centuries, why are we right, and our ancestors wrong? I support monarchy, i don't hate Republics or democracy, but this smug holier than thou attitude that republicans have.

>>2975816
>What went wrong?

In order to maintain the "Blood Roysl" at maximum purity: inbreeding, inbreeding everywhere! Primogenitor assured little or no culling. End result: monarch family trees soon look a lot like the typical West Virginian's family tree.

>>2976309
A monarch who does not like the word is somehow not a monarch?

>>2977430
>If you are from a barbarian stock
>muh no true kingdom

>>2977658
>In order to maintain the "Blood Roysl" at maximum purity: inbreeding, inbreeding everywhere! Primogenitor assured little or no culling. End result: monarch family trees soon look a lot like the typical West Virginian's family tree.

Bullshit, "pure bloodlines" gave you absolutely no advantage what so ever, in reality you married your sons and daughters to form/maintain alliances with other countries, you married them into other royal families, inbreeding happened for sure, but "muh pure bloodlines" is a republican myth, the plebs were inbreeding for centuries in their tiny isolated villages yet nobody gives a fuck.

>>2976065

ding ding ding

File: 1493051352128.png (575KB, 905x571px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 905x571px

>>2976065
>>tl;dr republics can discard unpopular leaders far more comfortably than monarchies,
this is really false. it is a pain to get rid of a party and the leaders who come from them
the whole purpose of the republic by the liberals is to make sure that the next generation will love the republican system more than any other fantasized system, and that no group will take over the people in republican authorities in order to turn to something else than a republic.
The leaders come from the the apparatus of the parties and those take several generations to regenerate themselves with different people. And discarding unpopular rulers through the vote puts in place another unpopular ruler, mandate after mandate, since it turns out, not so many parties take place in a republic. And the liberal rule of half the votes to win makes the whole idea of an accepted leader an utter joke, which becomes even more cringey once a few liberals propose that the limit be put at 2/3 of the votes.

File: 1492503825175.jpg (325KB, 1600x1400px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1600x1400px

>He hasn't even comprehended the true nature of auctoritas yet

File: yang.png (123KB, 560x365px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 560x365px

>actual, literal monarchists in this thread
You all do realize that Monarchies are subject to the very problems Republics can suffer from, but with the added issue of there being no legal means of changing administration other than waiting for the monarch to die, right?

>>2977791
>legal means of changing administration

kek. The will of the monarch is the law.

>>2977803
Yes. That's the issue.

File: plebs.png (189KB, 398x307px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 398x307px

>>2977813
Cry about it, peasant.

File: 1439340138858.png (258KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 500x375px

>>2977803
>The will of the monarch is the law.
And therein lies the problem. There's no recourse to remove a bad monarch.

File: 1392730289202.png (338KB, 778x658px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 778x658px

>>2977816
>peasant
What of it, noblecuck?

>>2977828
>"Waaah the king is treating me badly!"

So why don't you do something about it? Raise your own army and kill the king, if you have the balls. Bet you don't though, fucking peasant. You're just gonna sit there and whine about "legal options". God i hate plebs.

File: nobleman.jpg (155KB, 960x850px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 960x850px

>>2977832
Enjoy pulling weeds out of the ground while i claim prima noctis rights with your daughters.

>>2975881
So if tomorrow Kim calls himself king North Korea will magically turn into a monarchy?

>>2977816
Better watch your words.
You wouldn't want your head in a basket, would you?

File: 1473208825364.jpg (332KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 960x720px

>>2977840
>just start a civil war!
Yes, because having the only solution to a bad leader being a devastating war is a great idea.

File: 1441071821441.jpg (88KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 960x720px

>>2977849
Not if I get them first

>>2977854
War is amazing, and a good time. Only a pleb would shy away from a little war. The king goes to war just for fun.

>>2977840
It already happened. The royals lost, that's why they either lost their balls or their head.

>>2977867
Correct. Plebs ruin everything they get their hands on.

>>2977873
Now who's being the bitch? You lost. You don't like it, why don't you raise an army and pick a fight with the republics?

Smart guy doesn't guarantee smart kid. You fell for the MEME

File: 1872a054b84f8377edfe32c3a59eee677c28cebb7f452cd2f157086942e8a59c.jpg (33KB, 353x347px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 353x347px

>>2975819
/thread. All monarchists ITT should get the guillotine

>>2977683
Royal blood gave you one huge advantage, if you were interested in becoming a king.

Here we are in jolly old England, and the King just died. We'd both like to be king, I am the son of a farmer in East Anglia, you are descended from the King.

It is certainly possible that I can lead an uprsing and somehow fight my way to the throne, over the traditional mountain of skulls and wading through the lakes of blood and all that.

But you got the blood -- your chances of being the next king are a shit-ton better than mine, as is your chance of holding the throne if you get to once set your royal ass thereon.

Your point about the inbred peasants is not really relevant -- the peasants being inbred didn't impact the leadership quality of the country, as they were not the pool from which the leadership was drawn.

>>2977952
>Royal blood gave you one huge advantage, if you were interested in becoming a king.

First of all, if you became a King, your blood becomes Royal, unless there are legitimate claimants from the previous dynasty, take for example William the Conqueror, previously known as William the Bastard, on one side, descendant from a Duke of Normandy, who was a descendant of a Viking raid leader, and on the other of a tanners daughter or something like that, not royal by any modern standard, yet he conquered England and became King, his blood was then Royal. Second of all, nobody denies that the Royal houses sought other Royal houses for marriages, Royal House A and Royal House B marry their children, so country A and country B are now allies. Thats useful, but this retarded claim that Brother from Royal House A, marries Sister from Royal House A to keep the bloodlines pure is absolutely retarded.

>>2977178
This. Imagine USA turning into a monarchy and then have common people who want to overthrow the king. They are fucked as long as the modern military behemoth is on the monarch's side.

>>2977880
>why don't you raise an army and pick a fight with the republics?

One day i will... Fucking plebs.

File: lad.jpg (47KB, 1550x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1550x500px

>>2975819

>>2978025
I'd be okay with the USA becoming a monarchy.
What about a form of Tanistry, where the next reigning monarch is elected from the ruling dynasty?

>>2977159
>Monarch owns everything and humans like to take care of what they own. Destroying something would literally mean self-destruction for a monarch
People: we want x!
Monarch: I don't give a fuck
People: but why?
*assembles modern army with modern weaponry*
Monarch: that's why.

Monarchies are not a good form of government. It's outdated and barbaric, with no real checks and balances or even incentives to rule in a satisfactory way. There is more incentive to abuse absolute power than to use it wisely. Humans are not saintly, most of them are bags of garbage that can talk. Expecting people to do good somethings with such naive certainty is what gave way to horrific governments such as Red China, north korea, etc.

>>2978274
1st, you're implying that people's wants are something that is good to fulfil. I do not think that is the case.
Secondly, people wants are not fulfilled in a democracy (this is a good thing in my opinion).
Thirdly, as you stated yourself, people are not saintly - why should they have a say in how the country is ruled. Moreover, an individual is interested mostly in his self good, not the good of the whole country - because he has no sense of responsibility over other parts, a monarch on the other hand does. His incentive is to improve his property (the whole country). Similar to an individual, he strives for the best for his interest and furthering of resources of his property. Therefore a monarch has the incentive to be good in order to improve his property - his country. His checks are the mutiny of his military forces - if he acts in a very bad way, he is under threat of guillotine. The next one in command is the leader of that mutiny.
All this said, I like and prefer monarchy, but I do not see a way it would resurface from the modern world - except maybe with a very large world war, but I don't want that to happen (for obvious reasons)

>>2975840
>Succession crisis a lot of the time arose from multiple people not respecting their turn
And you think that problem of impatience and selfishness will suddenly go away because "it's the current year man"

>>2978274
Thf though, OP meant more in the lines with someone like Augustus who took princeps because he wanted to do good and thought he alone could meet the people's wants and needs. If we have a person like that in power who tries(that's a key word here) to teach his offspring the same values it could work well. However...children do not always take after their parents and often being born in an easy comfy position makes people lazy and callous. Not caring enough for me to feel comfortable with the fact they have absolute power.
Then there is the small chance of being born with a mental illness. Or the child having to rule young because dad and mom died/murdered early for some reason. That's annoying.

>>2975816
I know I shouldn't ask this on this board but, I will anyway, will it be male only succession?
If it is, it's even more doomed to be a mess.

>>2977544
lolwhat? Majority white countries are literally the most blue-pilled countries on the planet

>>2975837
>Letting plebs choose your ruler
kys lad. Philosopher kings when?

>>2978695
>Eastern Europe

>>2975864
>But often it WAS the system working as intended. Monarchy vastly predated modern forms of nationalism, the idea of an absolute monarch who was the perfect servant of some sort of political abstraction of the "country" is an extreme anachronism. The polity was there to serve the interests of the monarchy, not the other way around

Isn't all systems to server the interest of the ruler or top people of the system?
It doesn't matter the type of government/system, always the people on top of it at the end will look for themselves not the country.

>>2978348
>the monarchs check to power is the army
Which is why monarchs all through history bribed generals and armies heavily to ensure their goodwill and allowance to do whatever they want to do outside of wantonly razing his own contryside to the ground (or prostituting yourself to your guard like elagabalus)

Having the military as a check is historically proven to be a bad check to power.

>>2977231
>In that case then there's still a likelihood that the kid could just be shit, since it can be hard not to raise a spoiled brat when you're monstrously rich and busy running a state.
Fucking THIS. Rich busy parents are raring good ad raising anything but spoiled brats a lot of the time. And it's hard for a child born in

I also want to hark on the idea that along with absence of state was the absence of the idea of citizenship. Most people (serfs) were not citizens with a list on inalienable rights by virtue of swearing allegiance to that country, but subjects.

>>2977668
>>2976265
The monarch is the embodied state, he is the state itself. The legitimacy of the monarchic (personal) state is based on the monarch himself and a hypothetical personal contract with each one of his subjects. That's what makes monarchy different from a modern dictatorship where the state is a separate entity of itself, lead by an absolute leader but with a legitimacy based in the people or the people's will.

>>2978856
Did you have a stroke while typing all that up

reminder that the only way people in parliament can be ejected easily is for them to be fired, but ofc people who create the rules do not create a such a rule.
Ho and those people who create rules are not responsible for the consequences generated by the people who are threaten to follow their rules

>>2978864
L'etat, c'est moi (The state is me) - Lous XIV

owoe

>>2975852
His reign was actually good for Spain, numbnuts

>>2975837
There's no such thing as an elected ruler.

>>2975921
>the rulers have to have the people in mind
Is this what you tell yourself?

>>2975921
Voting is stupid just let the bloodline determine your leader and hope for the best.

>>2975879
Presidents are the blame guy for Congress. Sure you can impeach the president but you cant do a thing to the guys who funded the president's party.

Republics are smokes and mirrors designed to make idiots think that they still are not ruled by elite bloodbased humans but have freedom to choose their leaders.

>>2978773
>Eastern Europe
>white
t. polack

>>2983012
>Presidents are the blame guy for Congress. Sure you can impeach the president but you cant do a thing to the guys who funded the president's party.
>Republics are smokes and mirrors designed to make idiots think that they still are not ruled by elite bloodbased humans but have freedom to choose their leaders.
Who owns both the House, Senate, and Presidency right now in America?

>>2977832
>>2977849
Is there one for a priest?

>>2975819
This