Any monarchists here

>>90723164
I would love a marriage of monarchy and national socialism, kind of like Japan in WWII, where there is a royal family and aristocracy that maintains autonomous duties like maintaining castles, churches, and historical estates and serves as a symbol for the nation, and a national socialist goverment that runs the day to day affairs of the nation

File: handsome_pepe_by_shyskyrobin-d97gm8o.jpg (70KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 894x894px

>>90723164
>tfw no more monarchy
Feels bad man.

>>90723594
Britain had that before the 1940s especially the aristocracy but they were then taxed to extinction

File: '''''''english''''''_royals.jpg (122KB, 857x493px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 857x493px

>>90723164
SAXE-
>COBURG
GOTHA

>>90723164

>born too late to live in the pre-war 1900's
>born too late to live in an absolute monarchy

Gas the oligarchs tbqh.

>>90723769
>national SOCIALISM
>but they were then taxed to extinction

golly gee, i wonder why that was

>>90723164
My allegiance is always for the Most Catholic King of Spain. Death to Felipe the 6th cuck of Spain. He should be hanged for treason for letting Catalonia chimp out

>>90724007
i was not talking about england having NatSoc only the monarchy and aristocracy

>There are people on /pol/ who are not monarchists on le current year
Absolutely disgusting

I'm a huge fan of monarchy, in that it can check democracy and provide national unity in a way an elected official can't. They transcend the state and become a personified version of the state. Do you want the Hohenzollerns back?

>>90723594
when will this

>"le monarch is less trained to run the country than (((elected))) officials"

meme die

File: extremely_large_chaika_face.png (3MB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 10000x10000px

>>90723164
I just want the Kaiserreich back with immortal Bismarck running shit.

>>90724127
Oh, gotcha. Sorry.

One thing I'll grant monarchy, the period of biggest institutionally backed freedom of speech in Brazil was back when Pedro II was around. He was a perfect example of the enlightened monarch. Having a monarchy along the means to ensure personal freedom to the most is the way to go, instead of cucked (((socialism)))

>>90723164
>not supporting monarchies
Monarchies are the penultimate expression of private enterprise, property rights and the free market.

Republics on the other hand are an expression of Socialism, irresponsible politics and tyranny of the majority punishing innovation and rewarding destructive self interest disguised as popularism.

>>90723164
>I love monarchy!
>Monarchies send millions of young men to a pointless death in WW1

German, Austrian and Russian monarchies are worthless anyway, nobody should want to revive them

>>90724214
when it stops being true

>supporting bunch of senile welfare kangz with even less power than your typical crooked politicians

>>90723164
Christfags are monarchist by definition, or should be really.

>>90725146
Serbs killed Franz Ferdinand to ensure his ideas of a United States of Austria wouldn't work. Its a shame there aren't any true pretenders for Poland, though I think the monarchists have picked out someone descended from the Piasts (Silesian female line) or the Bonapartes.

>>90725578
it would be a bit risky to declare a republic in the kingdom of heaven

File: 1464445290902.jpg (169KB, 641x556px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 641x556px

>>90723164
Reporting in.

>>90724984
Very true. There's a reason Rome went from a monarchy, to a republic and then back to a monarchy. Republics sound good only in theory, after a few centuries they always decline and eventually fall out in favour of a better system.

>>90725421
>>90725146
>Poland
>a failed Commonwealth complaining about Monarchies

Oh the ironing, Polacks forgetting it was the British Empire that restored Poland's existence are we?

>>90725622
>there aren't any true pretenders for Poland
We still have aristocratic families

Anyway what I meant is that german, austrian and russian monarchies were just warmongers and despots. They allowed millions of their own people to be wasted in WW1. Why should you want to revive them?

>>90726117
>it was the British Empire that restored Poland's existence
Britain as a protector of Prussia actually helped to destroy Poland-Lithuania. And Britain wanted Poland to be ruled by the bolsheviks. Lloyd George effectively said that. So I don't really know what was this post supposed to mean

The only way for Europe to survive is to return to absolute monarchies, and put a patriot in charge. In Britain all we'd have do is get rid of parliament, keep Rex v Rex 1649 which stops any tyranny, and give old Liz absolute power.

>>90726337
That's why I see constitutional monarchies as a better choice both the republic and the monarch need checks on their power to ensure stability and rule out stupidity.

>>90726659
Britain is a constitutional monarchy and despite the Queen having immense power, when was the last time she exercised it? Probably her representative in Australia Gov. Gen. Sir John Kerr firing the prime minister in response to a government shutdown, but apart from that, despite having all these powers in theory, she could only put them into practice if parliament were stupid enough, for example, to declare martial law or any Commonwealth country.

She's an excellent check on power, true, and having her makes tyranny an impossibility, but she can't exercise her powers. If she could, we could've flushed out all the rapefugees and re-conquered London.

One thing that made me happy before Brexit was the Queen would truly keep Britain from ever forming into a United States of Europe.

>>90726659
>constitutional monarchies
Constitutional monarchies are impossible in Germany, Russia or Austria. Those were absolutistic countries since at least 16 century. Germans had their first constitution in 19 century, Russians in 20. Both countries have never had any proper parliament. I think in Germany it was put in place only in mid-19 century and in Russia parliament was restored in 20 century. Those have always been countries where rights of individual human beings were never respected and people served only as raw materials to achieve particular goals of the state bureaucracy or royal dynasties. WW1 shows it best. Millions of lives wasted because nobody gave a fuck about some ordinary Hans or Dmitry

>>90727861
I actually agree. The reason our monarchy is successful is because it's so old, and we've had hundreds of bills passed into law and regulations on the reigning monarchs power. All of which happened over centuries, not overnight.

That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean a monarchy would be impossible in those countries.

>>90723594
>>90724179
>supporting monarvhy
>in AMERICA
Y'know, if you want a king to worship you can fuck off to some shithole that has one, right? Nobody wants monarchist scum like you here.
>They transcend the state and become a personified version of the state
You say that like it's a good thing.

>>90728500
>The reason our monarchy is successful
Because enough people were killed during the civil war :^)

>>90726536
>and give old Liz absolute power.

This is the biggest problem I have with absolute monarchies. While I'm for them, all the current living Royals in Europe have absolutely no experience in running a state. While before the knowledge was passed on, the current royals have been living cushy for the past century and neither them or their children could hardly run a country

>>90728939
cromwell was justified though marrying a catholic and bringing idols into the church broke the kings oath to god and therefore needed to be executed

>>90723164
slide thread

>>90722443
>>90722443
>>90722443
>>90722443

>>90728939
Yes, the civil war did change Britain's constitutional history massively, but Rex v Rex 1649 had a much greater effect, and I can name other bills from the 1700s that had much greater effects on Britain's monarchy than any civil war in English history.

But that's an edgy way to look at it.

>>90728855
As I said, there's a reason Rome went from a monarchy, to a republic and back to a monarchy.

Give America a few centuries, the Roman Republic lasted 500 years. You've got a while to go.

>>90729023
I think Queen Elizabeth would be very successful. Her successor, Charles and his successor, probably not so much.

>>90729147
>everything I don't like is a slide thread

End this meme before it gets worse

>>90723164
US constitutionalist but with a monarch not a president is literally perfect.

Prove me wrong

File: Augustus Caesar.jpg (100KB, 756x757px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 756x757px

>>90729886
As I said, they will, just give it time.

Just ask pic related.

File: Trump284.png (1MB, 863x855px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 863x855px

>>90730088

Monarchists are a bunch of reactionary LARPers who somehow found a way to be more fedora than mainstream atheism and the alt-right.

>>90727861
They were possible in Austria but their reforms failed miserably since the nobles were too blind to even care about their subjects. In modern Austria it would work but would never have worked in the Austrian Empire unless they decentralized and created a proto-EU like Coudenhove-Kalergi or other political theorists advocated.

>>90727096
The real question is where is the line in which monarchy and the republic can overlap? Does the republic cede more power if the monarch is deemed competent? Does the monarch take more power if the republic is deemed useless? Its a very interesting political perspective and one that could have been used to protect the EU and national identity but has been flushed out as it offers a stronger opposition to the republic.

File: aa1.jpg (720KB, 3000x1767px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 3000x1767px

>>90730302
HAIL.

Yes.

t. 113 year old man

>>90723164
So to speak.

>>90730490
Well, in theory the Roman Empire was the perfect mix between a Republic and a monarchy. It was the Senate having the power, and the "Emperor" having overall say, whilst serving as a check on power but it was corrupted and gave degenerates absolute power and, of course, they abused it.

The Florentine "Republic" under the Medici was much the same, as in a match between monarchs and a Republic, but in the end, it was the monarch who prevailed once more.

Is there truly a reliable way to mix a Republic and monarchy? A constitutional monarchy could qualify, but living in Britain, it's not all that great so I can speak from experience in saying that's not my ideal form of leadership because of how limited the monarchs powers is.

Imagine a patriot truly in charge of Britain in the last ten years, with still checks on his/her power, what a better state we'd be in.

File: Monarchist BTFO.png (331KB, 800x510px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 800x510px

>>90723164

>life is scary
>I want a big strong man to make all my decisions for me

>>90731808
Isn't that essentially the same logic in voting for Trump or anyone under (((democratic))) systems?
Why would a monarchy be different? Can you make a point against the actual system or are you going to just greentext like a degenerate faggot?

>>90729023
A bigger problem to begin with is that they are all pawns of Judeo-Masons.

>>90723164
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLxYde-rw

File: lizzie.jpg (147KB, 582x767px)

147KB, 582x767px

>>90723164

Of course. Our country has been a monarchy for hundreds and hundreds of years.

>>90732183
>>90732078
Both of you are talking about current monarchies in practice, and not the system in theory or many of the successful monarchs in history and take in mind they didn't all necessarily hold the title of king/queen.

Who would pick a Jewish monarchy?

>>90729393
Could you give me a source on Rex v Rex? Google isn't turning up anything.

File: Political_chart.png (94KB, 2000x2177px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 2000x2177px

>>90723164
Where is monarchy on political compass ?

Absolute monarchy is objectively the best form of rule.

>>90723164
Nah im not a cuck willing to be a serf slave.

>>90731004
instead you get boris johnson and farage

File: Majesty.jpg (45KB, 640x360px)

45KB, 640x360px

>>90723164
Obligatory.

>>90732479
mid to bottom right, at the top-middle of the purple square

>>90732517
Constitutional Monarchy?

>>90732360
Of all the people you could have picked, do you really want to start arguing with me?
I simply pointed out a huge problem in the poster's argument.

>>90732425
It's non-specific, relating to a whole series of laws which limited the monarchs powers In Britain, and set terms for the removal of kings/queens. Most between the 16th and 17th centuries.

Try Rex v. Ashton-keymes, Rex v. Aftley, Rex v. Atherton, Rex v. Auftrey, Rex v. Auftrey, Rex v. Awre v. Newnham Aynhoe, Rex v. Aythorp-rooding to name a few.

>>90732601
you'll just vote to be more of a serf than you would be under monarchy?

>>90732479
Its the same as fascism.

>>90732704
You both made the same point, so I included you.

>>90732479

Top right.

>>90732613
Fuck Boris Johnson. What is wrong with Farage? Hell, I hope he becomes king.

>>90732677
No. Fuck that shit. Needless bureaucracy.

A King does well and earns more when his country does well. That's good enough reason for a King to always do the best he can.

>>90728855
Nothing wrong with monarchy.
Democracy and a republic are failed concepts. People are too stupid, foolish, misinformed and emotional to elect people who will get the job done. Politicians lie and do outrageous things just to get votes to stay in power. Government is prone to corruption. The people usually have no idea what they're actually voting for. There will be too much division amongst the government. Changing the ruler so often only results in them changing everything the last one did and so policies and reforms are never stable.

Monarchy is centralized and avoids all of these problems.

File: 1415744522984.png (36KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 853x543px

>>90732728
Interesting, thank you.

>>90732921
I wouldn't trust an City trader for running a country even if I have to kill myself

>>90733246
Farage would make an excellent Prime Minister, not king, albeit, I'd rather have him as king than say Corbyn as PM.

File: duquesadealba.jpg (35KB, 639x322px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 639x322px

>>90723164
>Monarchists

Your thoughts about María del Rosario Cayetana Paloma Alfonsa Victoria Eugenia Fernanda Teresa Francisca de Paula Lourdes Antonia Josefa Fausta Rita Castor Dorotea Santa Esperanza Fitz-James Stuart y de Silva Falcó y Gurtubay ?

>>90733600
No

>there are people in britain so desperate to identify with a movement they try to get rid of the royal family

Let that sink in.

File: dp2.jpg (8KB, 195x259px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 195x259px

>>90723736
Republic here was a terrible mistake.
>tfw we wuz empire and shieet

>>90731808

>the King makes all the decisions in a monarchy

Fucking wew lad.

If anything in a monarchy the people would be just as free or just as oppressed as a (((democratic))) system.

>>90723736
Portugal officially became a cuck state in 1910. I feel for you, anon, I'm a fellow lusobro and visited in June. Lovely country, but far too fucking liberal.

>>90733869

>there are countries that still waste a lot of money on incest damaged royals

>>90734243

>I can't do a 10 second google search: the post
>flag

Oh wait never mind Ahmed, carry on.

>>90733170
It is. It's also relevant to this thread to note that Rex v Rex its self established that the ruling monarch was not the Crown. The Crown is the institution in which the Queen or king serves, so you could remove the ruling monarch, but the Crown would stay in place.

>>90732621
Did you know she's a kike?

File: 9d09c4d4666127219dfc2be27ac25024.jpg (47KB, 450x565px)

47KB, 450x565px

>>90723164
Reporting in. The renaissance was cancer. Kill the Libtards, God's mandate rules the domain of the Lord. Hail His Majesty the King!

Everything that is non-monarchist is just Socialism in different colors.

>>90734243
Nice argument. Money. I haven't heard that a hundred times.

The Queen does not have to pay tax, but she has been voluntarily paying income tax and capital gains tax since 1972, she heads several charities which rake in millions annually of which none she keeps and do you think people would flock to London for tourism in the numbers that they do (enough to make it in the top 5 of the most visited cities in the world every year) to see a shithole that's barely even a British city any more?

She brings in far more than she takes. As for being incest, fuck off Ahmed.

>>90734407
suave

>>90734352

I will, fellow muslim.

>>90723164
Here i am.

File: doofus.jpg (42KB, 400x542px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x542px

>>90734407
Yeah, okay.

File: Canuckle Empire.jpg (82KB, 648x494px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 648x494px

Every day I pray that the Queen will kick Trudeau out of office.

>>90725806
Yeah, considering that is basically what Lucifer tried to do and God decided he was now the ultimate evil, I imagine it wouldn't go over well.

>>90725146
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia.... Just to name a few

File: image.jpg (438KB, 950x1000px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 950x1000px

>>90723164
No, shit government system, great kings are rare.

>>90735258
Ey bro, if your constitution is anything like ours, the GG only has to obtain royal writs, the they can fire the PM/majority party.

File: 1474222917318.jpg (31KB, 520x436px)

31KB, 520x436px

>>90735084
Oh look everybody, a colonial terrorist Mason! Let's laugh at the peasant together: Hahahahahab60%hahahahahah!

The fucking French built your nation.
>can't even into swords and armor
>thinks 18th century was "a long time ago"
>Has a fucking president
>doesn't even know what philosophy is
>has no culture
>spawned by indians
>literally a result of pseudo-communism and treason
Wew lad.

>>90735572
Haven't I already covered it in this thread?

The Crown is NOT the king or queen. Kings and queens can be removed and executed, and it would be beyond illegal for any ruling monarch to do that.

>>90735830
America doesn't even make it into the early modern period of the European Renaissance, but think they can analyze good political systems from their own kek.

>>90736032
It's sad how delusional they are. Must be hard to be an American. It's like they try to compensate for their non-country by hating real ones.. Every time.

>>90735883
then there is no point in a "king"

>>90733938
Eu concordo, anão.

>>90734407
Hope you already converted to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

>>90724984
>autralia
>logical and actually good post
Monarchy really have a divine power.

>>90735830
>a colonial terrorist Mason!
Hey now, only two of three apply.

>>90735883
That will be problem anyway, succession wars are terrible, and revolutions create internal problems.

File: 1474457373395.jpg (5KB, 205x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 205x250px

>>90735830
>>90736032
>Butthurt Europeans talking shit about another corrupted country while their own Kings and Queens are allowing their societies to demographically warp as well.
We're all in the same boat, fags. I'm just pointing out that your monarchies are as helpful to your people as my nigger president is to mine.

>>90736313
Already said it in this thread, but their system is already on the path to complete collapse. I wonder what system they will cling to after. But my guess is Fascism or the very reliable system, if exercised properly, of having a stable monarchy.

>>90736331
Yes there is. Most of all the bills passed under Rex v Rex were established when Britain was a constitutional monarchy, but the ruling monarch held more power than parliament, which is arguably still true but back when those powers were actually exercised regularly.

>>90734687

>people come to London to see the queen except that nobody ever sees here randomly

Clearly nobody gives a shit about London's architecture and city life, they all just want to see the queen. Is this something you're taught in school or why do I hear Brits repeat this all the time?

>>90736631
we have pseudo-monarchies, they have no real power anymore it is just a ceremonial position atm

File: The Decline of the West.jpg (128KB, 1044x1360px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1044x1360px

>>90736786
And we have a pseudo-democracy. Both systems have failed our people.

>>90736456
RARE

>>90736631
I have nothing against you personally, I was talking about the other Americans in this thread who were doing what I said. Analyzing good political systems from their own.

As for European countries dying, yes, as has been the point of this thread if you read. Constitutional monarchy vs absolute monarchy are very different, and absolute does not mean no checks on that power.

My point simply was that the pub I drink at is older than America as a country, thus using a system that's still in its early days as the model, as opposed to very ancient European countries which is what we were doing, is stupid.

>>90736741
They come to see the changing of the guard, the architecture (yes), and what is a lot of that architecture related to? Palaces and royal estates are some of the most visited parts of London.

File: né pour régner.jpg (409KB, 514x1206px)

409KB, 514x1206px

>>90736631
American education is strong in you. Britania isn't a monarchy. It have a queen for show but it's the oldest republic ever.

>>90735258

For all Trudeau's cancer, he doesn't appear to be a fervent Republican, or at least someone who is going to make any effort to end the Monarchy in Canada.

>>90737074
>britain
>a republic
>the queen
>for show

Pick two.

They hold immense power. Technically, she can refuse any legislation. Her representitive where she is head of state (Canada, Australia, Jamaica etc.) is called the Governor General. If things goes tits up, the GG acts on behalf of the Queen to sort things out.

She can use these powers under exceptional circumstances, but in history, that most certainly was not the case.

Driving licenses are issued in the Queen's name, yet she is the only person in the United Kingdom who doesn't legally need a license to drive or a number plate on her cars, according to Time.

The Queen does not require a passport, as they are issued in her name.

The Queen's consent is necessary to turn any bill into an actual law. Once a proposed law has passed both houses of Parliament, it makes its way to the Palace for approval, which is called "Royal Assent." The most recent British Monarch to refuse to provide Royal Assent was Queen Anne, back in 1708.

The Queen does not have to pay tax, but she has been voluntarily paying income tax and capital gains tax since 1992.

All information about the royal family is exempt from Freedom of Information requests.

While the overwhelming majority of the Queen's prerogative powers are devolved to her ministers, there is one exception that allows her to wield power herself. Only "in grave constitutional crisis," the Sovereign can "act contrary to or without Ministerial advice." With no precedent in modern times, it's not clear what would actually constitute this, but the possibility remains.

The Queen holds the ability to fire the entire Australian government.

As the head of state in Australia, the Queen has certain powers over the government. In 1975, for example, the Queen's representative in the country at the time, Gov. Gen. Sir John Kerr, fired the prime minister in response to a government shutdown.

>>90737074
Literally not a republic.

>>90737311
1972* not 1992 my bad.

File: Astronaut Americans.jpg (50KB, 700x448px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 700x448px

>>90737074
>Britania isn't a monarchy
I'm well aware of that. But don't you think it's about time for the Crown to regain its once glorious power. Your republic doesn't seem to have done much for your people other than demographically diseasing them.

>>90737488
If Britain was a Republic, none of us would be speaking English currently, and the countries of Canada, America, Australia and New Zealand wouldn't exist.

Neither would Israel which would be fantastic, but I think the pros outweigh the cons.

>>90737311

>The Queen holds the ability to fire the entire Australian government.

The Queen can't do jack shit unless she is physically in Australia, in which case the role of the GG temporarily reverts to her.

The GG's role as a 'constitutional guardian' is also not settled. Nobody can agree where the boundaries lie. My understanding is that its much the same for the Queen in Britain too.

If this role were taken over by a president the same question would still be there.

>>90737003
Except pseudo-monarchy and pseudo-democracy is actually only one system called republic.
>>90737311
>but in history, that most certainly was not the case
Guess why. Because all this "power" you're talkign about is nothing but a show. I guess you think obama have more power than the jewish lobby too? There is a reason why the president of the biggers nation of the world have to listen to, almost take order from, the president of israel. A little state who isn't even stable.

>>90737784
That's what I said in my last point. She still holds that power though, so what I said wasn't incorrect.

I doubt she ever would, although I wish she would in Canada.

>>90737908
You should perhaps read my posts listing some of the many powers of the Queen. But that's an edgy way to look at the world.

>>90723164
>pls oh pls Mr. King pls rule over my entire life I beg you I'm just a dirty peasant I can't handle any amount of responsibility
Reminder that monarchists are literal cucks

>>90723164
a reactionary of jacobite type and sort of an anarchist here

>>90737908

It's more than just show. If these powers were ever attempted to be exercised, they would ver likely be respected. The sorts of people who deal with and make decisions on constitutional matters take these things very seriously.

The power is real and the fact that it is unlikely to be exercised does not make it any less real.

>>90738077
We went over this you stupid fuck. It's literally the same logic you use while voting for somebody under a democratic system.

If you're going to make the argument that PMs/Presidents don't rule over your entire life, neither do kings or queens necessarily.

They are people who have experience through their family and having been tutored from an early age in the art of ruling a state, and exercise that power their entire lives thus are much more qualified and experienced than any democratically elected leader could ever be.

>>90738215
>>90737784

To add to this, one of the strongest lines of thought about the Queen or the GG in Australia as a constitutional guardian is that they would have the power to step in against any moves to undermine the principle of responsible government, which is the hallmark of the Westminster system; that is, the line of accountability from the people through parliament to the executive.

>>90738454
Let's also not forget that if our respective parliaments were ever stupid enough to declare martial law or any form of tyranny, it would be overturned by the Queen within an hour.

And we wouldn't have a bunch of "muh second amendment" rednecks shooting at each other for the next ten years.

But the second amendment is pretty cool regardless, I'll give the burgers that.

>>90737993
It's called reality. The influence and the networks are more powerful than the so called law. I live in France, you probably know this country. We have a constitution that ensure freedom of speech, yet people goes in prison for talking about the holohox of being "conspirationist". Edgy or not, this is the truth.
>>90738215
>If these powers were ever attempted to be exercised
Once again, think about why they were never.
>they would very likely be respected
Burden of proof and too much trust into the pedorapist of the brittish government. It'll probably not be respected. Your queen have no power and it's not new.

>>90737311
>The Queen holds the ability to fire the entire Australian government.
kek Bogans BTFO

>>90726117
>British empire

Yeah yeah, let's completely forget the USA's involvement. We totally had nothing to do with World War One and Two.

>>90738927
>muh world wars
you didn't do shit in WW1 and the most helpful thing in WW2 was logistics aid

Russia did all the heavy lifting in WW2

Who here Anarcho-monarchy headed by a benevolent AI?

>>90738927
Shut the fuck up, that was far from the point you arrogant shithead.

>>90738911
Canada, and New Zealand too.

>>90723164
I used to be a monarchist, until I realized that other monarchists were just hippy roleplayers.

I'm a feudalist now, because feudalism gives way to monarchy but isn't subjected to state authority like monarchy is.

>>90738798

Anglo nations have always taken the rule of law more seriously than continentals. We don't and can't just ignore our constitutions because it wod be convenient.

>>90738798
If you're going to make this a big Jewish conspiracy theory, then fuck off. The Jews have influence, which they do (too much), doesn't take away from a British monarch having power through a centuries old system that has evolved and withstood the test of time.

>>90739441
Feudalism is fine if you want 90% of the population to be farmers and a noble revolt against the crown every 10 years

File: 1466958977925.png (2MB, 1544x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1544x4000px

>>90724984
The fact you say monarchy is the penultimate expression of absolute property rights tells me you know what lies ahead.

>>90736631
>their own Kings and Queens are allowing
You misspelled (((parliaments))).

>>90739441
evolution stages of a maximal redpiller:
1. monarchism
2. fedualism
3. tribalism

>>90739441
Monarchy isn't subject to state authority because this "state" don't exist in a monarchy.
>>90739598
...but you do. On many levels. Not you personally but the leaders and a lot of the people.

>>90739734
Don't tell us what is redpilled and isn't based on your own opinions. This is a genuine discussion about monarchies, and if you wish to participate you can but that picture means fuck all.

File: triggered.png (116KB, 320x371px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 320x371px

>>90739734
>5
>libertarianism

>>90739936
The state does exist in a monarchy. Read the fucking thread before you comment.

The state is the Crown which is NOT the king or queen. That's what the Rex v Rex laws were which I cited earlier and gave multiple examples of. These are the same laws which allowed for a monarch to be removed or executed.

>>90723164
Non divine right monarchy?
Non incest monarchy?
Sure

>>90739936

Name an event in which one of our constitutions was flagrantly violated

>>90733150
>People are too stupid, foolish, misinformed and emotional to elect people who will get the job done.

What is Electoral college.

>Politicians lie and do outrageous things just to get votes to stay in power. Government is prone to corruption.

As do kings, but you can't kick them out. Unless you put a check and balance like UK did.

>Monarchy is centralized and avoids all of these problems.

Except it doesn't. If anything, it exasperates it. The monarch can be, and half the time is, too stupid, foolish, misinformed, and emotional to get the job done.

Dukes and lords,as well as the king, lie and do outrageous things just to stay in power. Except the king word is law, so if he wants your wife and kids to be raped by big hairy black men, he can have that done (constitutional monarchies are the exception, and thankfully much more common).

You think the democracies and republics are easily corrupt? Well the monarchs are corrupt to begin with. Go through history and you can see all the strife and turmoil under monarchs. Stable for a generations or two, then blam.

Furthermore, monarchs are extremely outdated. With a complex world as of today, most things need to be handled by different people, not one centralized person.

Lastly, changing the ruler often implies that that ruler has all the power. There are checks and balances to ensure this doesn't occur. You're also assuming that this is occurring in a third world country or 18-19th century France. Policy change frequently happens in first world countries, but the reforms are relatively stable despite constant change.

Now don't get me wrong, a monarch has it place. Hell, places like Iraq and Syria need a strong single leader. But that's for poor ass third worlders, not first world large scale governments.

>>90734243
>Waste money
In the UK, the monarchy pays £380-400million in a kind of tax, from which they get £45mil back, which is then taxed as per normal income.

>>90738911
I think you mean saved. Look up the last time it was used.

>>90740074
>Non divine right monarchy
that is just a generic autocracy

>>90740138
Interesting that people ignore the active flaws of democracy and make up fantastical attacks on monarchy, as though they would possibly be allowed to go through.
>Furthermore, monarchs are extremely outdated.
CURRENT YEAR
>With a complex world as of today, most things need to be handled by different people, not one centralized person.
Or maybe we don't need every aspect of life micromanaged? The government should be a guiding hand, not a bureaucratic mess.

>>90740138

Not even the most absolute absolute monarch ever tried to handle everything by themselves, they had the entire apparatus of the state to handle things for them and to who power could be delegated

>>90739952
I was discussing why monarchy is better than democracy the other day on /his/ I can go to the archives if you want to see my answers to the guy's retarded argumentation, but you have to promise me to give me (You)s.

>Monarcucks at it again

>>90740138
>Unless you put a check and balance like UK did.

Which is what most pro-monarchists advocate. Not somebody with unconditional power with no way to remove them. That would be a disaster. It goes without saying there needs to be checks on that power.

>Except the king word is law,
Not necessarily. Laws are approved by the ruling monarch, though they are not exclusively the law.

>You think the democracies and republics are easily corrupt?

Yes. Extremely so. Republics have always ended up corrupted throughout history. Democracy in its purest form which was Greek democracy is a complete disaster, and is the people having absolute power.

A monarchy is not corrupt. What do you mean by that? Isn't that what the whole check on power thing is? Nobody in this thread is advocating a corrupt monarchy, no more than anyone is advocating a corrupt Prime Minister or President, of which we have several of in this world.

>Furthermore, monarchs are extremely outdated
Says who? The American in a 300 year old country? Not a blow, but a genuine point. Who are you to say what's outdated or not? If systems have withstood the test of time, surely that's not the case.

>Lastly, changing the ruler often implies that that ruler has all the power.

This is only the case when the king or queen is literally the state, which again, is a corrupt form of monarchism. The Crown would be the state in an ideal monarchy.

>Now don't get me wrong, a monarch has it place. Hell, places like Iraq and Syria need a strong single leader. But that's for poor ass third worlders, not first world large scale governments.

Again, says who?


You, and a lot of people in this thread, seem to associate the word 'monarchy' with Henry the 8th, or Nero. This is not the case in a functioning, non-corrupt democracy.

>>90723164
sure a monarchy with a good leader but in the world we live in today do you really expect there to be a good leader let a lone a good leader for generations and generations of royalty?

>>90723164
YES!

>>90740505
Good on you, and I agree. But Libertarianism being #5 on that list removes its credibility.

>>90736636
My bet is in oligarchism

>>90740063
Sorry I thought you was talkign about the state as in what we have today. But what's wrong with the crown?
>>90740138
And that's why the church is the most powerful thing in a good monarchy, not the king.
>Furthermore, monarchs are extremely outdated
"Because it's 2016!" - juste un trou d'eau.
>the monarchs are corrupt to begin with. Go through history
You don't seem to understand that history is like 1500 years. Of course there is a lot of corruption. Compare this with 300 years of republic you'll see how much worst republics are.

>>90740926
Yep. It's better odds when stacked up against having to choose many more leaders over the same period.

>>90740917
non corrupt monarchy* not democracy sorry.

>>90741070
Nothing at all. The Crown not being single handedly the king or queen is an excellent system to have. It needs to go hand in hand with other laws to work successfully though.

>>90740926
At very least we could coup d'etat the king if they did bad job then we will get another good king until he dead. It's better than find good president every 5 years.

>>90740998
It is not mainstream, Gary Johnson libertarianism (dude weed, open borders, egalité, liberté, fraternité). If you read Hoppe's Democracy--The God That Failed you will see that he is a radical cultural conservative and destroys democracy. He says democracy is inherently against private property rights andexacerbates society's downfall. Next post will be an image of that the guy said on that thread and I'll copy and paste my reply. Give me a moment.

>>90741326
if he did*

>>90741352
traditionalism has libertarian elements and further you go traditional more libertarian it gets, but espousing a shitty ideology like that makes you no better than a liberal

File: 2016-09-28 17.23.37.png (145KB, 535x597px)

145KB, 535x597px

(1/?)

>1.
Indeed, but it is ridiculous to believe that the State has to necessarily be the only provider of justice. Private courts could easily do the job and, unlike the State, whose forbidding of free entry into the justice market and monopolistic nature mean that the quality of justice will go down as the price increases, a private court would need to be effective and efficient. No compulsory taxation is required.

>2.
The existence of just one (1) anarchist in society invalidates your argument. The fact most people vote is not indicative of consent to taxation or State power, but a mere tool they have to hopefully diminish the State's aggression towards private property.

>3.
The fact that monarchies constricted class movement (as in, it was less than likely that a member of the ruled would ever become a ruler and vice versa) meant that the lower class (read: the ruled) had strengthened bonds and comradeship. The fact they could not hope to ever ascend to a higher social status than a ruled individual meant they had a higher distrust of the State, and therefore the King. The King was perhaps not held legally, but his status as king rested on a mutual implicit respect for private property rights and justice. That is, the King did not, unlike a democratic caretaker, have incentives to plunder, expropriate or otherwise aggress his subjects, on the fear of losing legitimacy at the eyes of the ruled. For this reason, the King's wars were usually funded by himself, and compulsory military service was rare and only reserved for extreme situations. The differences between combatants and non-combatants was also much more rigid than the all-out genocidal warfare that came after the spread of democracy. This happens because under a democratic regime, wars are funded by taxpayers, so the killing and destruction of taxpayers and taxpaying property is not only increased, but encouraged, under the false pretense of "collateral damage."

>>90740444
>CURRENT YEAR
Not an actual argument

>Or maybe we don't need every aspect of life micromanaged? The government should be a guiding hand, not a bureaucratic mess.

Did I say micromanaged? Ok fine, things is extremely vague. Most issues sound good? To be frank, one thing I dislike more then monarchs are bureaucracies, since the latter produces a quarter of the progress the former does, if you're lucky.

>>90740487
True, monarchs do have generals, administrators, lords, advisers, etc. But put a lot the power in one hand can end up with things turning to shit.

Under Henry VIII, everything went into a hell in a hand basket.

Under Louis XIV, he molded a damaged country into a strong power once more.

>>90741352
Well, he's doing God's work in trying to disassociate the word "democracy" with everything that's good in the world, but personally I still don't agree with Libertarianism as an ideal form of government.

File: 371.jpg (12KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x200px

>>90730302

>>90723164
>trashcan full of ideologies that replaced monarchies

>>90728855
says the guy with a nigger head of state

>>90741751
Some very good points, the part about private courts is funny because in Britain, most courts fall under the jurisdiction of the Crown. Infact, I think they all do besides unofficial Sharia Courts which - yes - Britain does have in some places.

>>90741985
And monarchies have almost always replaced republics, but let's ignore that?

>>90741798
>Not an actual argument
I concur.
>Most issues sound good?
You might have to better define, bro. No one is expecting the monarch to sit on his onesie calculating GDP for a nation. Their will be ministries. You're really only replacing the houses of parliament, and in some cases the supreme court with a single dude. Other stuff will still have governmental departments. Helluva lot cheaper and more efficient.

Action française here so yeah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5APVwhCab4A

the translation really sucks ass desu but the song is pretty based

File: image.jpg (94KB, 640x656px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x656px

>>90735572

The one institution I respect and would die for is the royal family. I want to abolish the parliament and have her majesty appoint the ministers. Whoever thought (((political parties))) should choose the ministers was retarded but not as retarded as the guy who thought the people should be able to choose the parties.

We don't have elected judges, police chiefs, or anything of that sort. All we litterally need to do is replace the cabinet ministers with appointed people. Perhaps her majesty could even appoint a governor general (shit maybe he could even be confirmed by the people via referendum every x years) and he could choose the cabinet. It wouldn't even be that hard to impliment in the commonwealth.

File: Democracy_Hoppe.jpg (45KB, 536x809px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 536x809px

>>90741819
His libertarianism is anarcho capitalism. He simply puts to rest the idea that anarcho capitalism is morally degenerate and excusable of "alternative" (read: non kin centered lifestyles). His libertarianism goes completely against the egalitarian multicultural facade that most modern libertarians believe in. He says those people are noting but frauds and says that people espousing anti private property ideologies (democracy, communism) ought to be banished from civilization. You should give it a readeven if you do not agree with his advocacy of anarcho capitalism. Much of the book is simply a deconstruction of democracy and excuse of most monarchical experiments, he only starts with anarcho capitalism as an alternative to both monarchy and democracy.

>>90742441
>litterally

File: images.jpg (6KB, 166x218px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 166x218px

This is the only monarch I recognize.

>>90742441
Obviously if we go this route it needs to be done democratically. Fair and without violence. I believe the case can be made and won with words and truth.

>>90740917
>>90741130
I may have been a bit heavy handed in my approach to monarchy. I was largely aiming my sights at absolute monarchs.

Constitutional monarchies, with check and balances, is a good base for a country. But same can be said for a constitutional republic.

As for places like Iraq, I was referring to the destabilization of the entire region after US planted its ass there. As brutal of a leader as he was, Saddam Hussein brought stability to the region.

Of course dictators and absolute monarchs differ, but their function is similar.

>>90742441
You know the UK, CA, NZ and AU could basically keep all the checks that are in place, perhaps add a few more, and we'd already have the beginnings of a very stable monarchy because there are so many checks on the Queen anyway that her powers are to remove tyranny from the system, not impose it.

File: 2016-09-28 17.34.47.png (92KB, 532x433px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 532x433px

Precisely the opposite. Under democracy, where the head of State is a mere temporary caretaker and therefore not far-sighted, wasteful spending and taxation will only increase.

Moreover, since class rigidity and a clear separation between the ruler(s) and the ruled is blurred (free entry into government), the degeneration of society given to a lack of trust, selfishness, individual hedonism and aspirations to become a member of the ruling class is profoundly increased.

Going back to our democratic caretaker: he merely owns (or rather, "borrows") the current revenue from taxation. He does not own the country's capital stock, and is therefore less interested in maintaining or increasing its value. Unlike a king, who would most likely be the "owner" of the country for life until he passed it on to his heir (which is yet another reason as to why he would not want to plunder or excessively tax his subjects), a democratic caretaker has little to no reason in not expropriating his subjects. For what he does not consume now he cannot consume later. As such, his time preference rate will be substantially higher, his reasoning short-sighted, and therefore expropriation will be increased.

Lastly, a democratic caretaker may very well be interested in aggressing his subjects through erosion of private property rights (non-discrimination policies, open borders, welfarism). Increasing the number of poor, bums, vagrants and supporting the existence of outright rotten characters by not allowing private property owners to freely discriminate creates more "social problems" and more excuses for the continual increases in taxation.

File: 1474467705639.jpg (29KB, 386x512px)

29KB, 386x512px

>>90723164
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.ca/

File: barack-obama-pedo.jpg (80KB, 460x440px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 460x440px

>>90742757
Amerika, PHOQUE YEAH

>>90742833
Yeah I don't know about the UK because you don't have one but if her majesty was to appoint our governor general and he picked the cabinet I would be happy. Allowing a new (((party))) to choose the cabinet every four years or less is a retarded short term idea that will only lead to ruin.

File: FrenchFeels.jpg (221KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1000x1000px

>>90738927
You did hardly anything in WW1 fuck off mate.

WW2 you can argue your point but even then Russia did most of the hard work

>>90742790
It's not the constitutional part I have a problem with, whether coded or uncoded. Britain has a Christian Constitution to begin with. It's a Republic its self.

A true patriot as head of the Crown, as king/queen, with all the neccersary checks on power, would be ideal in the west today. It goes without saying that they and their heirs would have much more experience than a president or PM incharge of a (((political party))) in the case of parliamentary democracies, or voted in by the people, as is the case in constitutional Republics.

This, again, doesn't mean that every single bit of power everywhere is invested in this figure. Though they would approve most of it.

File: aac8c4670ca814afdaa158f3a7b34645fa1b4ca1fec71176bbc16616306b64cf.jpg (89KB, 677x907px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 677x907px

Can anyone explain to me how exactly Monarchism is better than National Socialism in any sense? All I can see here is a bunch of neckbears jacking off to something they don't even understand simply because muh heritage.

>>90742833
It's not like 99.999% of our civil service isn't appointed anyways. I want the minister of justice to be selected in the same fashion as all of our judges, not via the current system which only looks at what he's donated, how much the kikes like him and/or how much he can promise to braindead welfare muds.

File: Princesas Espanholas.jpg (118KB, 800x666px)

118KB, 800x666px

>>90723736
>Spain has loli princesses
>we don't
IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!

File: 800px-State_flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_France_svg.png (320KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 800x533px

>>90723164
Check in

>>90739780
Actually, I'm somewhat on the side of tribalism, but the reason I say I'm a feudalist is because of the structure of feudalism. it predates democracy, monarchy, etc; and in every civilized continent, feudalism has lasted for centuries.

I believe in these tenets:

Morality is a form of communication, like language, and is based on relationships between people. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_ethics

No state or legal system should exist outside of the context of morality; thus no state or legal system should exist at all.

Any entity that protects itself is its own feudal agent (thus, it's a sovereign agent, no matter how small).

A feudal agent ceases to be, if it's sustained by inter-class force; thus inter-class relationships are based on loyalty, not on contracts.

>>90739696
That's not what has happened historically. There are several classes within feudalism. And they never dissolve until things like "Democracy" come about or people get the retarded idea that God wants them to have rights (which is blasphemous to the church).

>>90743282
Both are potentially very good systems which promote national pride, but I lean more towards a monarchy because it has more potential to be manipulated in to creating an ideal system in which tyranny is not possible and there are actually real life examples to work around.

How many times was National Socialism tested?

>All I can see here is a bunch of neckbears jacking off to something they don't even understand simply because muh heritage.

Yeah... no... if you actually read the posts, many people have made some very good pro-monarchy points, and I'd like to flatter myself by including myself in that too.

File: 1447496691475.png (129KB, 220x267px)

129KB, 220x267px

>>90743498
Take the napoleonnic pill and become a Bonapartist, the best of two worlds. Meritocracy and aristocratic elitism.

>>90743261
not in the east, good job being defeated by nip wooden ships btw

File: QEII-1.jpg (71KB, 607x389px)

71KB, 607x389px

>>90743798
Napoleon called himself an advocate of Caesarism, and there was no greater monarchist than Julius Caesar than perhaps his successor.

On another note, military service should be mandatory for a monarch before they take the title. Most in Britain already follow this, though it's an unwritten rule.

File: dsad.png (86KB, 314x715px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 314x715px

>>90743917
You're in no position to mock military failures kiddo

sup

>>90744484
>a few hundred dead due to poor weather and lack of information

vs

>loosing Singapore, several naval vessels from 'muh best fleet in the world the Royal Navy', abandoning positions across southeast asia, getting BTFO in burma, having to rely on nigger nepalis to fight battles

File: JE1.jpg (651KB, 1338x1600px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1338x1600px

POL BOOK COLLECTION 1
https://mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg

POL BOOK COLLECTION 2
https://mega.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw

"STATE OF KNOWLEDGE" COLLECTION
https://mega.nz/#F!0F5GXTjS!oGdz8UP5JbcleNMy6YKLvg!gVZhSQhI

>>90743798
He used his power and influence to spread the decadent, degenerate views of the Judeo-Masons of France.
There was nothing transcendental behind his existence.
He may have been a Freemason himself.

File: JEK1.png (44KB, 744x395px)

44KB, 744x395px

If anyone would like the following Julius Evola books (see my image attached), I can upload them for you.

>>90723900
"Windsor"

>>90743798
>Servitor of the kikes and free masons enabler

Napoleon pill not even once !

>>90744842
No shit. We played a more prominent role in the war. What would you expect?

File: 142874047.jpg (258KB, 800x1250px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 800x1250px

>>90732360
>many of the successful monarchs in history

>>90723164
Implying America doesn't have its own experience with neo-Monarchism.

You're watching it right now with Hillary vying for a 4-8 year term when she already had her husband in for 8 years. They are the exact same person, politically - and of the same family/bloodline. It's circumventing term limits and the integrity of the republic.

See also: Bush & Kennedy dynasties etc.

Monarchism is shit-tier.

>>90745457
I honestly can't see what point you're trying to make based on what I said. Care to explain?

>>90730088
Caesar is coming.

>>90745893
It's Trump.

>>90737003
Caesar is coming.

>>90723164
Ave Império!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OM20Kd0N2o

>>90737311
>While the overwhelming majority of the Queen's prerogative powers are devolved to her ministers, there is one exception that allows her to wield power herself. Only "in grave constitutional crisis," the Sovereign can "act contrary to or without Ministerial advice." With no precedent in modern times, it's not clear what would actually constitute this, but the possibility remains.
Pls King George, save us

>>90745955
>It's Trump.
Fuck off, that's just insulting

>>90732479
Depends on the authority of the monarch.

>>90723164
I was one. Then I found out how retarded our monarchy is.
Monarchy is the best form of government, but utterly fails when your monarch is a liberal faggot.
Not Liz, she's fine. But William will destroy ivory artifacts because of muh elephants, as if it will bring them back.
Charles wants the NHS to fund homeopathy.

Now God emperor Philip, I can get behind.
The only royal who's death I will genuinely regret. He gives no fucks and it's glorious.

>>90724153
Depends on your monarchy.

>>90728500
>he reason our monarchy is successful is because it's so old,
The reason our entire political system works so well because it has functioned under the same system for over 300 years, there is respect for the authority of parliament.

File: 1452037005402.jpg (469KB, 1056x674px)

469KB, 1056x674px

post your fave monarchs (that actually ruled your respective shithole)

>>90748887
And the monarchy has existed for much longer than parliament, but my point wasn't respect. It was about an ever evolving system that has made the Queen's powers about opposing tyranny, not imposing.

File: QE.jpg (344KB, 2197x1464px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 2197x1464px

>>90750131

>>90723164

>that image

>"useless"

subjective

>>90750320
Are you implying a monarchy is useless?

>>90744842

t. heroically did everything so the Japanese wouldn't capture the Philippines

File: Louis le lion.jpg (128KB, 920x1137px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 920x1137px

>>90750131

>Unquestionable rule by a line of inbred retards
No thanks.

>>90723164
BEST GOVERNMENT FORM HERE
1889 WORST YEAR OF MY LIFE

>>90754259
Only that's not what a monarchy truly is, as discussed over and over in this thread, you fat fuck.

File: USA vs democracies.jpg (531KB, 884x2068px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 884x2068px

Yes, Loyal to the crown because I'm white

HAHAHA

No.

>>90723164

Monarchists = the ultimate cucks.

File: queen.jpg (149KB, 1024x691px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1024x691px

>>90754514
You could've prevented this but people fell for the lie of democracy.

>>90754635
4 U

File: 1445859300060.png (658KB, 720x823px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 720x823px

>>90723164

You all are ... you just don't know it.

File: franz joseph.jpg (17KB, 280x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 280x320px

>>90723164
Long live the House of Habsburg!

File: 8D3PcWsRu[1].png (132KB, 863x443px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 863x443px

>>90754635
lliterally most countries on earth are republics, the majority of which are shitholes, while most monarchies are doing OK

>>90755786
Unfortunately all the Western countires from that map are cucked as hell.

>>90756254
Under a proper monarchy, not constitutional, that would not be the case since traditionally, monarchies are the ultimate source of national pride, and religious pride. Hence why the UK's constitution is Christian.

>>90723900
You see the fellow Tsar Boris down there? That is our google!

>>90757549
Well, of course they are! The PM answers to the Queen.

The only major criticism of monarchism in a neutral form is "muh unelected leader"

File: austria-hungaria-coat-of-arms.jpg (58KB, 500x308px)

58KB, 500x308px

Thread theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06643umEJZg

>>90750131
Plakaat van Verlatinghe was a mistake

>>90732045
of course he can't

File: 635761169906431287-QueenElizabeth-cover-05.jpg (63KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 680x510px

>>90723164
Having a monarchy is the best way to run a country!
Wish are Liz has more power desu.

File: Greater Germany.png (39KB, 333x363px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 333x363px

Do Neoreactionaries count? Then yes, hello.

File: image.jpg (26KB, 293x220px)

26KB, 293x220px

Hohenzollern homecoming? Romanov restoration? Habsburg hitback?

THEY HAVE TO BE RESTORED

File: heirs_of_the_roman_empire___fictional_flag_by_captainvoda-d477qio.png (169KB, 800x533px)

169KB, 800x533px

>>90723164
just make it happen already

>>90723164
heil hitler

>>90764906
You mean heil the rightful King of the Commonwealth, electey by the Sejm?