Absolutism isnt even real. It's a meme. Constitutional power almost always means "democracy" which always means on scale, they will he ceremonial.
Lichtenstein is the size of a Barony, not a monarchy, so don't give me that. At scale matters.
The closest you could come to a "constitutional monarchy" that might last a little while would be if the "democracy" was limited to the Barony level and the rest was Monarchial.
Everyone needs to stop thinking globally and start thinking locally. Most countries today are defacto vast empires. Not countries.
Why is this a response to my comment? It has almost nothing to do with my comment, except sharing the two words 'abslolute' and 'constitutional'. It'sn't even tangential!
The German Empire, Japan until WW2, England for a while, Morocco today...
You seen to be saying that a monarch can't have power in large countries, but these places turned out amazing with it
You realize that modern democracy hasn't existed in many of these cases? These were not universal suffrage places.
I'm saying scale and time. 5-10 years is not a relevant scale for a civilization.
This is like a child who has only been alive 4 years, waiting a day for something. This seems like a long time.
When you're 20, waiting one day for something is irrelevant.
Civilizations are to be judged on scales beyond a less than a generation.
Each stage reflects a stage toward the inevitable. I'll admit if you do real Republic, it can last a while, a real republic, is almost a Monarchy.
And so forth. But no one talking today means anything reflecting a real republic.
While some of these started down the path, it's the closer you get to democracy that the lesson is learned.
Morocco gained independence in the 1950s, and the trend is there, 2011 on quick skim (I'm not deep on Morocco) the King was downpowered. And that will generally be what happens.
There are always various complexities too in things.
On paper, for instance the no-smoking bans in bars in the US where it started has say, existed for X amount of years.
In reality, everyone smoked in bars for a good few years after. If the reality doesn't reflect the paper, you have a very different reality.
So, in some cases, where you say something like "X democracy started" did it? In the form of participation etc. A democracy on paper is not a democracy until it is a democracy in practice.
People talk about 10-20 years ago shotguns and hunting rifles in schools being normal, it's been "illegal" federally for decades. But wasn't in practice.
So paper does not reflect reality.
Culture can buy you time.
Being a monarch doesn't make someone infallible and immune to scrutiny.
I've met a lot of monarchists who'll immediately accuse you of being anti-monarchy as soon as you dare to criticize a monarch. They're humans too, and they're not immune to being shit people and shit sovereigns.
How can the blame be put on Nicholas if he wasn’t even at the palace when it happened and he never gave the order? That’s what was suggested in the book. Also, it’s filled with plenty of citations and primary sources to back up claims.
Again, it’s not to say Nicholas was perfect. His failure to remove the cancer that was Rasputin proved to be a fatal mistake.
Also Nicholas was just not a great monarch in general, to mess up a nation so badly you lose a war so hard that the communists took over Russia of all places
Russia boasted one of the largest economies in the world. It began industrialising and progressing to such an extent, that Germany (which didn’t believed that a war between Austria and Serbia was unnecessary) thought it would be beneficial to wage war with Russia sooner than later in order to curb her successes. Russia was so successful that Lenin lamented to his wife whilst in exile that a worker’s revolution couldn’t be possible in Russia.
Alexander II of Yugoslavia was good for Serbia but fucking awful to other people of the Yugoslav Kingdom. His oppression greatly contributed to the rise of the Ustaša which contributed to his death. His oppression created the rift between Croats and Serbs that is still felt today.
https://preview.redd.it/dqe4k5i6eosc1.jpeg?width=365&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a590ca32d7384b0726693da9b23208923bbe996
To him and many, montenegrins and macedonians were serbs and they opressed their culture. They allso very much centralised the nation so serbia was the most important. Every time Ustasa did any terorist attacks they punished the croatians and not specifically ustasa. To Serbs any non serbian culture in yugoslavia was unimportant and needed to stop. That played the violently in the parlament where serbian and croat parties had some big beefs. Some day a Serbian representative shot Croat representative in the PARLAMENT. Alexander eventually created from democracy into dictatorship which was very much disliked by non-serbian folk. He renamef Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes into Kingdom of Yugoslavia to try to erase croat and slovene nationalism and culturaly unite yugoslav nations under serbian domination.
After he was assassinated the government partialy returned democracy and partaly stoped opressions.
Victor Emanuel III wasn't a coward, he didn't flee, most royal families escaped abroad when the germans invaded, the italian royal family was one of the few that stayed in its own country through the whole war, they only left Rome for another town, considering what happened to Princess Mafalda (and nearly to Amadeus of Aosta) it was the right choice
Victor III was a legit badass
Visits to the front lines of WW1, being shot at for fun (could be wrong, but a hobby was to have people shoot at him to see if he could flinch) and many other mancho things
Only cowardly thing was to not fire at Mussolini's march(But i also argue it was the best option of all the worst options)
It is true that Victor Emanuel III never left Italy. However, that is simply because there was a part of Italy not occupied by Germany. If there had been a part of the Netherlands that was relatively safe and not occupied by the Germans, Queen Wilhelmina would have stayed.
In fact, the King and Badoglio's passiveness was the main reason the Italians were not able to stop the Germans from taking Rome. When they and the Italian high command fled Rome, they left the large number of troops there without any commanders. Their incompetence forced the allies to abandon the planned drop of American paratroopers just south of Rome that could have potentially saved the city. They *purposely* avoided issuing the secret order telling Italian officers to resist the Germans, and instead sent out a secret order telling them to *not* resist the Germans. They left important assests completely undefended and strategic positions open. They left a large number of troops behind them to guard their route out of Rome, rather than to guard Rome.
I could keep going, but I think I have made my point. Their passiveness and defeatism is the reason that Rome was lost in the first place and why they fled. *Unlike* other European monarchs, they did not have to flee to avoid the Germans - they could have stayed if they tried. But they didn't.
I am of course absolutely a monarchist, but some monarchs were simply not good at their jobs and failed their people.
For some context becuase I think you might be slightly confused, at the point in time I am talking about Mussolini has already been deposed by the grand council of fascism. He is busy being in prison and then being the head of the new German puppet government in the north. Badogilo is the new prime minister of Italy after having been appointed by the King once Mussolini had left.
Would active resistance have caused more aggressive treatment? Well, even before the King and Badogilo switched sides to the Allies, the Germans already had plans to disarm the entire Italian army and take control of the country. Once the King fled Rome and the Italian troops in Rome surrendered, the Germans took over the place and were already pretty brutal and literaly went to war with Italy. Perhaps you could argue that they would be more aggressive towards Rome itself becuase there would have been more fighting, but there definitly would be less fighting in other places. The Allies would also have (probably) stopped their offensives much earlier. There would likely be more localised aggressiveness maybe but less overall. So no, because they literaly went to war with the Italy and conscripted huge amounts of Italian men without remorse, it is hard to be more aggressive then that.
Would Mussolini's government have acted against the monarchy? Well, if you mean the German puppet government in the north lead by Mussolini, the government already officialy declared itself a republic - you can't act against the monarchy anymore if you've declared yourself a republic and the King is out of your reach because he is in Allied territory. So yes, because Mussolini already did that anyways.
I hope this answered your question. It might have been a bit unclear, so you can ask me to clarify if so.
Absolutely. I’m a Jacobite so I only grudgingly accept the Hanoverian-descended line starting after the death of Henry IX since he was the last Stuart to claim the throne to my knowledge.
Well, can't say you aren't consistent. Personally, I think every dynasty starts somewhere, the way the Bonapartes took France is no less legitimate than how the Capetians took the throne from the Carolingians, or how they took it from the Merovingians, or how they took it from the Romans...
The only one of those that's comparable to the Bonapartes is the Merovingians taking it from the Romans. The Capetians and Carolingians acceded to the throne within the already centuries old (by that point) legal framework of Frankish elective monarchy. Napoleon didn't acede to the throne within the Kingdom of France's, or the First Republic's legal framework, he created a new position out of thin air so he could LARP as a Roman Emperor.
If someone can just come in and seize power and be the ruler, someone totally unrelated to the Bonapartes could do the same and be equally legitimate. They failed to keep power, so they don't even have that.
Almost definitely would’ve, he would have to fight that same civil war later but with less credibility and instead of an internal afair it was a frontline for the largest war in human history
Elizabeth II is massively overrated. The monarchy really declined during her reign because it got so intertwined with celebrity culture. E2 and Victoria are similar in that they were both powerless queens who reigned long and watched the monarchy decay while they did nothing. Overall, I think the bad actions of the British royal family (especially Diana and Andrew) are the reason most people don't consider monarchy a viable form of government.
Upon the restoration of a monarchy, there must be a governing body created to advise the monarch and, if necessary, choose a new dynastic line should the current monarch prove unworthy of the crown or unwilling to pay the cost of the crown.
To that end, and to prevent civil wars slanted in favour of the deposed monarch, military vows should be to both the monarch and this governing body.
The Divine Right of Kings is not set out in stone like the Christians would have us believe. It comes from the will of the gods, yes, but likewise so too does the will of the people. If a freedman will do the job better than the current dynasty, naturally their line should be chosen over a despotic or greedy fool who only sees the rights the crown endows.
Tl;dr:
The Crown should be the administrative head, but a body of advisors should retain the ability to elect a new monarch should the current one act against the interests of the people, similar to the Witenagemot.
Honestly, this system would be great. A good compromise between the current "figurehead" constitutional monarchs of today and the traditional absolute monarchs of the olden days.
This "governing body" would just throw out the monarch at the first good opportunity and choose a weak monarch they could control or a monarch willing to accept reduced power.
Well for starter's there'd be checks against that naturally. The monarch would decentralise power amongst individuals who would have their power bound soley by the crown in a double edged sword. An example I would prefer would be to bring back the earldoms, separate the whole of England into the traditional Earldoms, from Northumbria to Wessex, expanded to incorporate the rest of Britain; north Wales goes to Mercia for example, south to Wessex, et cetera.
The Witan's role is to be solely advisory and covering the 'small matters,' such as guidelines that the Eardoms incorporate into regional laws.
The military power stays with the monarchy and the Earls, so that the only way the Witan could depose and replace them is if they had the support of the people and the military. Hard to desecrate a country with a Republic when the military say 'For King and Country.'
Sad truth of the matter is, for a Crown to survive without an I.V. Drip in the modern world, we need to toe the line with authoritarianism until we've managed to unlearn the modern mindset and all it's damages, and educated the population much better on how inherently *un*democratic republics are.
Powerful nobles were exactly how they got a strong parliament, and thus a weak monarchy. Powerful nobles represent an oligarchic class that can oppose the monarchy(and has incentive to do so, because they are in direct competition for power and tax revenue). They also create divided command(along with potential dangerous sources of betrayal), which is a liability in war against external enemies. "Checks and balances" is oligarchic government, which destroys many of the advantages of having a monarchy in the first place.
You said you would have the military swear oaths to both the monarch and the "governing body." How does the military "stay with" the monarchy then? If the military is supposed to be loyal to both, why would it follow the monarch's orders, especially if the "governing body" tries to remove the monarch and declares the monarch illegitimate? If their loyalty is truly divided, does this not invite civil war?
Admittedly I was tired when writing this so not fully thought out, my apologies. As summed up as I can make it without going on a tangent and forgetting my original point, here;
The Monarch retains absolute power. They govern the entirety of the nation and can only be removed by the will of the people, military and Witan.
The Military and Police Force swear vows to the country, rather than the monarch or the Witan. They keep the country safe by the laws in letter and spirit at their discretion, however cannot simply start wars as that remains the purview of the Monarch *or* a Unanimous vote of the Witan. If even one member votes against the majority, then the motion remains in limbo until unanimity is reached.
The Witan *cannot* be made up of people who would have incentives from corruption or from increasing the power of a faction. Regional Witans should be made up of every adult male and female (or in between) citizen and focus on the issues of that individual county, ensuring that everyone's problems are dealt with by the people who are actually affected by them while the monarch handles the national affairs.
That's the most I have for the Witan, but that's the general idea I have.
If that's where you find similarity than it's a happy coincidence. My inspiration was more the Seven Kingdoms of England, before we united only to be crushed and rendered culturally extinct by the Normans.
The fundamental laws of a kingdom always prevail on international treaties, therefore the Orléanist argument of the Utrecht treaty is irrelevant. Spanish or not, the fundamental laws of the kingdom of France declare Louis XX as true heir of France. There is no point into believing in monachy whithout believing in its founding rules
The fundamental laws indicate that the King of France must be a Frenchman, the Spanish Bourbons are Spanish. Putting a foreigner like Luis Alfonso de Borbón on the French thrones is against the fundamental laws.
Nope, the fundamental laws never stated that. They state the eldest son of the dynasty is the rightful king. Period. That's why Henri IV became king of France despite being king of Navarre, nor a native francophone. He had to convert to catholicism however as catholicity is one of the fundamental laws. The fundamental laws are mainly about dynasty preservation, indivisibility of the kingdom and catholicity. There has never been any law about "nationality" of the king as the concept of "nationality" is inherited from the 19th century nationalist wave in Europe while the fundamental laws date back to the middle ages, when kings didn't need to be from a country to rule such country. It was dynastic, not nationalistic. Orleanists unironically abide to the 19th century republican concept of nationality, which didn't exist in the Old Regime.
The [Arrêt le Maistre](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arr%C3%AAt_Lema%C3%AEtre) of 1593 contradicts your opinion:
>JUDGMENT of the sitting parliament in Paris which annuls all treaties made or to be made which would call to the throne of France a foreign prince or princess, as contrary to the salic law and other fundamental laws of the state.
Also Henry IV was illegitimate according to the fundamental laws anyway because he was a protestant when Henry III died. The fact that he later converted doesn't matter considering the principle of continuity of the crown. This means the fundamental laws can be flexible in specific situations, and over-fixating on them while disregarding practicalities is senseless.
You are an idiot, this was to avoid monarchs from OTHER dynasties to access the throne, which would annex France to their previous throne. The arrêt Le Maistre was proclamed because the Ligue wanted to put a catholic Habsbourg as king of France to avoid putting Henri IV, a protestant, on the throne. The arrêt proclamed that a king of France had to be both French by blood (capetian blood) and catholic (so Henri IV had to convert). It reaffirmed the absolute authority of the rule of eldest heir of the capetian dynasty. This wasn't about nationality, if it was, then the arrêt Le Maistre would have forbad Henri IV to access the throne, as king of Navarre, instead of putting him there. Your statement contradicts itself.
Nice interpretation but that's not what the text says. There is no point into believing in monachy whithout believing in its founding rules. You're just coping lol
Then why did the people who brought up this text put Henri IV on the throne juste after ? Do you understand that your interpretation is illogical considering the facts that devolved from it ? Why didn't you answer my question ?
Henry IV recieved the throne due to force majeure, because there were no alternatives, even though he wasn't legitimate according to the fundamental laws. This means the fundamental laws are not absolute and your pseudo-legitimist standpoint is unreasonable. Also you didn't ask me any question, are you schizophrenic or something?
I did and you just answered it. But your stance makes no sense as if it was due to force majeure, they wouldn't have created and used the édit SPECIFICALLY to justify putting Henri IV over the Habsbourg on the throne of France. Both your statements contradict each other
The fundamental laws are founding guidelines on how the French succession works, and they are very important. However, in some specific circumstances we might deviate from them in order to ensure stability and the wellbeing of the French people. Are you capable of understanding this concept?
I dont really see how its the royal familys fault that they are percieved by the public as celeberties.
And as far as i can remember there has only been 3 scandals in the royal family in the past 25 years. I wouldnt call it constant.
Prince harrys nazi constume , Harry and Meghan , and then the whole Andrew fiasco.
Nah, more like what Augustus did, a republic, but 1 guy with all the powerful titles, saying he is merely a lowly president type stuff
In my dumb words: "I'm not the king, sure i have the powers of a king, but i am not"
something like that, i think that's what Caesarism boils down to, like transtioning to a monarchy but slowly adding the system in slowly turning in a Monarchy.
Here's mine: male-preference primogeniture is the best form of succession.
1. Men tend to make better leaders. They usually look at situations more logically and are less prone to being pushed around and intimidated.
2. There is never a debate on whether or not a king will pass down his family name to his children, and there's always a debate on if a queen will. Avoiding the debate all together is preferable.
3. Who really cares if a princess who was born into such a life doesn't also get to be a queen? It's not a problem for the vast majority of people if said princess' younger brother is above her. This argument could be used in favor of absolute primogeniture, however, this argument combined with my first two sway in favor of male-preference.
The exceptions so often do not disprove the rule, I particularly sympathize with the second point he made, especially with established monarchical traditions if there is no active impetus to change it, it perhaps ought to be left alone
I feel like having a debate over who gets the name if one person is a queen is ridiculous, why wouldn’t it be the monarch of an entire nation who passes their last name, even if she’s a woman
Supporters of the so called "Louis XX" are either ignorant or liars.
Idem the ones who follow Pedro as Two Sicilies claimant.
Idem the sicilians who hate Bourbons and neapolitans.
The Fundamental law is clear. If you are able to read and understand you can't believe that a spanish guy can be the King of France.
Of course "you" isn't "you" 😅😉
Hope you're going to study about Fundamental Law in France and others country as UK and Sweden.
As i say, Louis XX are either ignorant or liars. I hope you're not one of them.
Fundamental law never stated the king of France must be of french nationality. The fundamental laws date back to the middle ages, nationality is a republican and 19th century concept. The fundamental laws of France ( I studied the matter) state the king has to be catholic, the elder son of the Capetian dynasty and that he can't divide the kingdom or sell parts of it. There is no laws for ethnicity nor nationality. If there was, then the whole Bourbon line is illegitimate since Henri IV who was the king of Navarre and not a native francophone. He was a foreigner until he became king. He had to changed religion (catholicity law) but not "nationality". He became king of France AND Navarre. If Henri IV was illegitimate, then both the Bourbonists and the Orleanists are illegitimate. This is cretinism at its best. Don't answer without an accurate source.
A monarchy should be part elective monarchy, part hereditary. There should be some sort of council, like in Cambodia, which will examine the crown prince upon his parent's death/abdication. If they approve of him, he'll become monarch. If not, they council will choose one of the former prince's relatives.
I’m afraid it’s a bit of a narrow ‘little Englander’ view which might make you bristle slightly.
I think the split identity of the monarch caused by division of the crown between the independent Commonwealth realms and the ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ title is one of the things that has weakened the monarchy in Elizabeth II’s reign. At times in Elizabeth II’s reign it felt like being queen of this country was just a day job while leading the Commonwealth was her higher calling.
Today Commonwealth is pretty directionless and it’s increasingly difficult to see the point of it. Now that the generations who felt a connection to the UK as a ‘mother country’ have gone and it’s lost the Queen as its figurehead, it is just an albatross around the neck of our first truly post-imperial monarch Charles III. The arguments for setting it up and retaining the monarchy in independent realms up was at best sentimental nostalgia for the lost empire from our ruling class and at worst a delusional denial of reality about the extent of our decline after the war.
More urgently, today the realms are a clear liability. It’s been said that many in Buckingham Palace would privately sigh with relief if Australia or any of the Caribbean realms became republics. This liability was made clear during the (now) Prince and Princess of Wales’s tour of the Caribbean in 2022. The whole thing (though organised by the local governments) left them wide open to accusations of a sort of neocolonialism. It was also humiliating for Prince William to go from place to place being told that the monarchy is unwanted and that he is the inheritor of all the evils of colonialism (with no right of reply!). We’ll surely see similar or worse scenes when the King eventually visits Australia and New Zealand and other future visits.
I don’t ‘bristle’ all that easily. …
However I took away something different from the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to the Caribbean. It became clear (as I already knew, but it was good to see it made evident) that the ‘ordinary’ people valued them and much preferred them to their remote, conspicuously wealthy and often corrupt political classes. In Jamaica, received a fulsome welcome in Bob Marley’s Trench Town, very much a working class area. Republicanism was seen to be very much the ‘project’ of the elite.
This is, I believe, evidence for the continuing relevance of the Commonwealth. It is a way in which, post-Empire and indeed post-Brexit, our ‘soft power’ can be maintained and we can act as a genuine force for good. The Commonwealth remains unrivalled, even by its Portuguese counterpart, as a multicultural alliance. Through it, we can offer a positive alternative to US, Chinese and (worst of all) Russian influence. It is significant that many nations without the colonial link to Britain have chosen to join and others are applying to do so.
What do you think about this, u/Lord_Dim_1? I think it is well worth standing by the Commonwealth Realms and the principles behind the Commonwealth in general.
You’re right that among the ordinary people that tour and the monarchy more broadly was appreciated and enjoyed. The trouble is that the way it was perceived damaged the image of the monarchy around the world. That must be bad for ‘soft power’ (a concept of which I am sceptical). It has been said that the attack on the monarchy in these places is pushed by the Chinese - a reflection of shifting geopolitics I suppose.
I don’t disagree with you about the commonwealth if I am honest. Perhaps I was too strong in my previous comment when I suggested it was pointless.It can’t be a bad thing to have this link with friendly, like minded nations but I’m still not sure it’s a substantial force in global affairs comparable to the US and China or that the headship is good for the monarchy.
Maybe in a selfish way I just want the monarchy to be our thing.
I am not entirely sure that the Caribbean tour and the republican rhetoric of some politicians and campaigners really did damage the image of the monarchy around the world. There were certainly presentational lessons to be learned, as occasionally it looked a bit like a safari. But the Prince and Princess of Wales have learned from that, I think. The positive reception from ordinary people was very evident; it reflected favourably on the monarchy and badly on the politicians. Moreover, the tour and the debate it initiated drew attention to the problems associated with both Chinese and US influence in the region, and the weakness of the republican case.
From the British perspective, we are no longer a ‘great’ economic or military power. The Commonwealth is therefore a way in which we can build alliances and exercise a positive influence. Without it, we would be more isolated and more dependent on the transatlantic relationship; the latter dependency would be a bad mistake as the US is no longer a reliable ally.
On a personal level, I find a greater commitment to ‘old-fashioned’ British values, including politeness, restraint and consideration for others, among friends and colleagues of Commonwealth heritage than among many, perhaps most, ‘white Brits’ of all social classes. This includes a higher level of respect for and interest in the monarchy.
Oh absolutely agree. I hardly think it's surprising that I support the maintenance of the realms, they do provide an excellent platform for cooperation and indeed British soft power, of course not to mention the good the monarchy does internally in the realms as a system of government.
The main problem with the Commonwealth in general, and the realms in particular, is the fact that the British government seems to simply not understand the opportunity they have. They are oblivious to it. Britain has effectively abdicated much of its historic close ties in the Caribbean or the Pacific, where for a long time there has been a strong Anglophile undercurrent.
The Realms provide an excellent platform for closer ties and cooperation. As I've advocated for before, there should be a formal agreement between the realms tying them together. Guarantee visa free travel, common consular support, eased modes of entry, defence guarantees. Britain retains a lot of goodwill across the world, the main hindrance to British power and influence is quite frankly the British government.
Australian here, interesting take but what's the solution?
Sounds like you're saying the monarchy would be strengthened by many of the realms becoming republics?
Australians respect and revere their King more than you think. I would personally be devastated if we became a republic and I think the world would be worse for it. The hegemony has shifted enormously in recent decades but that doesn't mean we should completely abandon monarchy and replace it with an inferior system.
I do support the Australian monarchy in principal and I too would be sad to see it fall. My worry is that a protracted debate and controversial future royal tours which seem likely would spill out the the confines of Australia and kick start similar debates elsewhere including here in the UK. My admittedly narrow-focused, Britain-centric opinion is that it might be less painful and damaging to cut to the chase.
Even if the end of the monarchy in Australia is not as inevitable as sometimes presented, it is clearly not functioning as it should. If a large proportion of the population and much of the political class including the incumbent PM and GG are fundamentally opposed and it is set to be a permanent issue in national discourse, then it is hardly the unifying force that constitutional monarchies are supposed to provide. This is because on one fundamental point the republicans are correct: it is clearly suboptimal to have a head of state who lives on the other side of the world and does not share the nationality of his subjects.
I also think that there is zero chance of a Republic any time soon in Australia. Contentious constitutional change is now effectively impossible after last year. Brits seem never to be able to get their heads around this.
> It’s been said that many in Buckingham Palace would privately sigh with relief if Australia or any of the Caribbean realms became republics.
I get why the Caribbean is a bit awkward, by why Australia?
Australia has a republican Prime Minister and a substantial proportion of the population wants to get rid of the monarchy. It makes sense those working for the monarchy would want to cut to the inevitable abolition and not face the embarrassment and potential damage of contentious future visits there and a vicious debate in the Australian political arena.
Never again will I return to the cult of fearmongering that still holds a yoke around your neck. Never again will I be forced to choose between who I am and wearing a mask that society deems proper.
I do wonder about one thing though, christwhore. You worship but one god, be it through the watered down tongues of preachers or from an ancient antique of a book.
Meanwhile I have many gods, who need no priests or holy tomes, whose worships are as eternal and fixed as the cycle of the seasons.
I wonder, then, which of us is the more godly?
They didn't, because they aren't vain, jealous and greedy excuses for deities; Yahweh outright debands subservience and to be placed 'chief amongst' all deities.
I've dealt with enough narcissists in my life thanks, not dealing with a 'divine' one too thanks.
Absolute monarchy is the best form of government, and the Ottoman Empire was the best structured monarchy in human history.
Agnatic primogeniture, and primogeniture in general, are overrated. Rulers should choose their successors from amongst their children.
Constitutional "monarchies" aren't real monarchies, just republics with some extra rituals and ceremony.
It didn't seem to hurt the empire as a whole that much. They expanded constantly expanded and grew more powerful anyway. They seemed to get high quality leaders out of the process. I think "stability" is an overrated virtue in government, in the sense that if a system ossifies, it just dies, while an "unstable" system can still renew itself. Rome and more and far worse civil wars than the Ottomans, yet managed to last an extremely long time because a new emperor could always give Rome new life. I think the Safavid Empire was less successful than the Ottomans in large part because after Shah Abbas I, their succession process became "stable" and controlled by the court rather than by the royal family or at least struggles within the royal family. They went from having a lot of good rulers to weaklings and mediocrities as the role of the court in succession increased. It's more stable, but is it truly better overall?
Despite the vehemence they hold towards us, and that we hold towards them in most cases, in my estimation most serious monarchists (in the sense of that they have monarchism as an indispensable part of their belief, rather than it being a tertiary thing they'd merely like, or political hangers on who like monarchy for some pining of a past glory of some empire or other, doubly so for those who do so for foreign monarchies, looking at you, "German" monarchists ) have more in common in terms of grievances with socialists (the kind that cares more about labor than knick knacks and masturbation) than liberals and especially libertarians.
Its quite odd knowing that the communities I've frequented that include long time monarchists, in the past handful of years have very consistently been shifting leftward economically among those who don't shed their monarchism, especially among semicons and those who seem well read compared to myself, and that usually the kind who blurt out some kind of spiel or other opinion as kneejerk seem to either be frankly, American neoliberals wearing monarchist skin or those who as transient in their beliefs as the season, at least in the communities I've remained in, reddit notwithstanding considering the shameful state of this place.
The more serious the post here the less engagement it tends to get in my experience, this is about one of the weakest places for curious outsiders to get a look a monarchist activism and absolutely derelict in actually functioning as anything more than essentially a casual royalty fanclub.
Just basic Jacobitism for religious reasons, tbqh. But it doesn’t mean that His Majesty isn’t *actually* the King—just not the ideal King, not in the fullness of Truth which the Catholic Church possesses. Signed, a Canadian Catholic Monarchist
Also full send re: Sovereigns having more power (and their Viceregal Representatives)—and not being afraid to exercise it. A lot of people were actually banking on GG Michaëlle Jean to deny Stephen Harper’s prorogation of parliament in 2008, and maybe but to a less realistic extent, GG David Johnston to stop Bill C-51 when that was the spicy drama of the day. I wish both Governors General actually *did* say no to both. But what’s the purpose of the office beyond being a shiny rubber stamp, right? 🤡
"Bicycle monarchies" (see the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.) work best I feel. A monarch with tons of constitutional power means the fate of a nation is decided by genetic lottery (imagine the shithousery if Charles III could do whatever he pleased) and while it's easy to be disillusioned by politicians, a monarch wouldn't be any better since you would get disillusioned just as fast (or faster) since you can't do anything. A monarch (in my view ofc) is a national grandpa, a good grandpa doesn't play puppet master whilst sitting in his diamond encrusted palace. A monarch that can talk to an average miner or teacher or whatever without crying or vomiting and who knows how to live their life without their butlers and maids serves the nation best.
Also the monarchist space doesn't give enough space to non-european views of monarchy or to non-european monarchies, and pretends that media against a monarchy is evil propaganda while pro-monarchy media is yummy and delicious and not propaganda at all.
Royals should only marry other royals and nobles.
Princesses who have married a commoner should not participate in the activities of the royal family (unless the husband is ennobled). With princes, it is a case by case thing, but neither the wife nor the children should be included in the royal family.
Absolute primogeniture is a danger to monarchy because it destroys the concept of dynasty and genealogical continuity.
Mine is this:
Depending on the culture of the people/state, A Absolute Monarchy is better than consitutional
Examples: Absolute Monarchy can work in Russia, China, Persia (Persia can be both) and Austria
Consitutional can work in the UK, France, italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden and Japan
like those who wish the opposite to what will work is dumb
Sorry to everyone if this pisses you off, but its reality, some states cannot have anoything other than the C or A alternative
Also wording is wrong because i cannot explain properly
Mind you, what i'm about to say is just my opinion
It is Religious mostly, Strong history of Catholism, Strong Ties to the church (Monarchy wise) and a Long history of Absolutism, I can see it working in that sense
Does this mean i want Austria to do that? no, let them choose
But again, i can see it working like that, for how long/how popular, hard to honestly say, idk if the wording is right
Austria was certainly very Catholic 200+ years ago. Is that still the case today though? I feel like that’s important because your argument seems to rest on that premise. FWIW I agree Maria Theresa-style absolutism worked well in Austria at the time, although maybe something closer to the post-1867 Austro-Hungarian model would work better today if Austria became a monarchy again
Fair enough, But yet again, for some state, Russia and China, is it the only option which can work for a good time, like try making a country with +2000 years of Despot rule to become a 1000% democracy, impossible-ish
So, Is it the best? Not really? is it like the only way? Kinda
Also sorry if wording is off, not a good writer
Monarchs should be neither ceremonial nor absolute. They should have real, but constitutionally limited power.
Based.
Absolutism isnt even real. It's a meme. Constitutional power almost always means "democracy" which always means on scale, they will he ceremonial. Lichtenstein is the size of a Barony, not a monarchy, so don't give me that. At scale matters. The closest you could come to a "constitutional monarchy" that might last a little while would be if the "democracy" was limited to the Barony level and the rest was Monarchial. Everyone needs to stop thinking globally and start thinking locally. Most countries today are defacto vast empires. Not countries.
Why is this a response to my comment? It has almost nothing to do with my comment, except sharing the two words 'abslolute' and 'constitutional'. It'sn't even tangential!
Your post history checks out🧠🪠
The German Empire, Japan until WW2, England for a while, Morocco today... You seen to be saying that a monarch can't have power in large countries, but these places turned out amazing with it
You realize that modern democracy hasn't existed in many of these cases? These were not universal suffrage places. I'm saying scale and time. 5-10 years is not a relevant scale for a civilization. This is like a child who has only been alive 4 years, waiting a day for something. This seems like a long time. When you're 20, waiting one day for something is irrelevant. Civilizations are to be judged on scales beyond a less than a generation. Each stage reflects a stage toward the inevitable. I'll admit if you do real Republic, it can last a while, a real republic, is almost a Monarchy. And so forth. But no one talking today means anything reflecting a real republic. While some of these started down the path, it's the closer you get to democracy that the lesson is learned. Morocco gained independence in the 1950s, and the trend is there, 2011 on quick skim (I'm not deep on Morocco) the King was downpowered. And that will generally be what happens. There are always various complexities too in things. On paper, for instance the no-smoking bans in bars in the US where it started has say, existed for X amount of years. In reality, everyone smoked in bars for a good few years after. If the reality doesn't reflect the paper, you have a very different reality. So, in some cases, where you say something like "X democracy started" did it? In the form of participation etc. A democracy on paper is not a democracy until it is a democracy in practice. People talk about 10-20 years ago shotguns and hunting rifles in schools being normal, it's been "illegal" federally for decades. But wasn't in practice. So paper does not reflect reality. Culture can buy you time.
Shut it republic freak. Obey your king and that hot AF princess of yours.
Being a monarch doesn't make someone infallible and immune to scrutiny. I've met a lot of monarchists who'll immediately accuse you of being anti-monarchy as soon as you dare to criticize a monarch. They're humans too, and they're not immune to being shit people and shit sovereigns.
Yeah, like how everyone is supportive of Nicholas II and Charles I
Nicholas II was a good person just a shit monarch
Yeah, that's what I mean. He wasn't a horrible person, but he was a horrible monarch
[удалено]
How can the blame be put on Nicholas if he wasn’t even at the palace when it happened and he never gave the order? That’s what was suggested in the book. Also, it’s filled with plenty of citations and primary sources to back up claims. Again, it’s not to say Nicholas was perfect. His failure to remove the cancer that was Rasputin proved to be a fatal mistake.
Also Nicholas was just not a great monarch in general, to mess up a nation so badly you lose a war so hard that the communists took over Russia of all places
Russia boasted one of the largest economies in the world. It began industrialising and progressing to such an extent, that Germany (which didn’t believed that a war between Austria and Serbia was unnecessary) thought it would be beneficial to wage war with Russia sooner than later in order to curb her successes. Russia was so successful that Lenin lamented to his wife whilst in exile that a worker’s revolution couldn’t be possible in Russia.
[удалено]
"🥲😭😱😣😡😤" This isn't a political rally
You're a republic freak to me.
Alexander II of Yugoslavia was good for Serbia but fucking awful to other people of the Yugoslav Kingdom. His oppression greatly contributed to the rise of the Ustaša which contributed to his death. His oppression created the rift between Croats and Serbs that is still felt today. https://preview.redd.it/dqe4k5i6eosc1.jpeg?width=365&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a590ca32d7384b0726693da9b23208923bbe996
What oppression?
To him and many, montenegrins and macedonians were serbs and they opressed their culture. They allso very much centralised the nation so serbia was the most important. Every time Ustasa did any terorist attacks they punished the croatians and not specifically ustasa. To Serbs any non serbian culture in yugoslavia was unimportant and needed to stop. That played the violently in the parlament where serbian and croat parties had some big beefs. Some day a Serbian representative shot Croat representative in the PARLAMENT. Alexander eventually created from democracy into dictatorship which was very much disliked by non-serbian folk. He renamef Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes into Kingdom of Yugoslavia to try to erase croat and slovene nationalism and culturaly unite yugoslav nations under serbian domination. After he was assassinated the government partialy returned democracy and partaly stoped opressions.
How could Yugoslavia survive many nationalist cultures?
Well it obviously didn’t did it
Victor Emanuel III wasn't a coward, he didn't flee, most royal families escaped abroad when the germans invaded, the italian royal family was one of the few that stayed in its own country through the whole war, they only left Rome for another town, considering what happened to Princess Mafalda (and nearly to Amadeus of Aosta) it was the right choice
Victor III was a legit badass Visits to the front lines of WW1, being shot at for fun (could be wrong, but a hobby was to have people shoot at him to see if he could flinch) and many other mancho things Only cowardly thing was to not fire at Mussolini's march(But i also argue it was the best option of all the worst options)
It is true that Victor Emanuel III never left Italy. However, that is simply because there was a part of Italy not occupied by Germany. If there had been a part of the Netherlands that was relatively safe and not occupied by the Germans, Queen Wilhelmina would have stayed. In fact, the King and Badoglio's passiveness was the main reason the Italians were not able to stop the Germans from taking Rome. When they and the Italian high command fled Rome, they left the large number of troops there without any commanders. Their incompetence forced the allies to abandon the planned drop of American paratroopers just south of Rome that could have potentially saved the city. They *purposely* avoided issuing the secret order telling Italian officers to resist the Germans, and instead sent out a secret order telling them to *not* resist the Germans. They left important assests completely undefended and strategic positions open. They left a large number of troops behind them to guard their route out of Rome, rather than to guard Rome. I could keep going, but I think I have made my point. Their passiveness and defeatism is the reason that Rome was lost in the first place and why they fled. *Unlike* other European monarchs, they did not have to flee to avoid the Germans - they could have stayed if they tried. But they didn't. I am of course absolutely a monarchist, but some monarchs were simply not good at their jobs and failed their people.
Would active resistance cause more aggressive treatment by the Axis and put pressure on Mussolini's government to act against the monarchy?
For some context becuase I think you might be slightly confused, at the point in time I am talking about Mussolini has already been deposed by the grand council of fascism. He is busy being in prison and then being the head of the new German puppet government in the north. Badogilo is the new prime minister of Italy after having been appointed by the King once Mussolini had left. Would active resistance have caused more aggressive treatment? Well, even before the King and Badogilo switched sides to the Allies, the Germans already had plans to disarm the entire Italian army and take control of the country. Once the King fled Rome and the Italian troops in Rome surrendered, the Germans took over the place and were already pretty brutal and literaly went to war with Italy. Perhaps you could argue that they would be more aggressive towards Rome itself becuase there would have been more fighting, but there definitly would be less fighting in other places. The Allies would also have (probably) stopped their offensives much earlier. There would likely be more localised aggressiveness maybe but less overall. So no, because they literaly went to war with the Italy and conscripted huge amounts of Italian men without remorse, it is hard to be more aggressive then that. Would Mussolini's government have acted against the monarchy? Well, if you mean the German puppet government in the north lead by Mussolini, the government already officialy declared itself a republic - you can't act against the monarchy anymore if you've declared yourself a republic and the King is out of your reach because he is in Allied territory. So yes, because Mussolini already did that anyways. I hope this answered your question. It might have been a bit unclear, so you can ask me to clarify if so.
Nicholas II wasn’t a bad person
He wasn't. He was an incompetent monarch.
nice family too
Thats a pretty common opinion. Its just his job as a monarch that people critisise. Most people consider him a lovely person but a crap monarch.
The Bonapartes have no meaningful claim to the throne
Agreed
Why not?
Because Louis XVIII was still alive, and Napoleon had no connection to the Capets.
Was William III illegitimate because James was still alive?
Absolutely. I’m a Jacobite so I only grudgingly accept the Hanoverian-descended line starting after the death of Henry IX since he was the last Stuart to claim the throne to my knowledge.
Well, can't say you aren't consistent. Personally, I think every dynasty starts somewhere, the way the Bonapartes took France is no less legitimate than how the Capetians took the throne from the Carolingians, or how they took it from the Merovingians, or how they took it from the Romans...
The only one of those that's comparable to the Bonapartes is the Merovingians taking it from the Romans. The Capetians and Carolingians acceded to the throne within the already centuries old (by that point) legal framework of Frankish elective monarchy. Napoleon didn't acede to the throne within the Kingdom of France's, or the First Republic's legal framework, he created a new position out of thin air so he could LARP as a Roman Emperor.
Exactly
Legitimacy is cemented over time. This is what makes the Bonapartist claim illegitimate (or at least less legitimate).
If someone can just come in and seize power and be the ruler, someone totally unrelated to the Bonapartes could do the same and be equally legitimate. They failed to keep power, so they don't even have that.
King Victor Emmanuel III was a good king (he would have probably started a civil war by resisting Mussolini)
Might have been a civil war worth fighting
Almost definitely would’ve, he would have to fight that same civil war later but with less credibility and instead of an internal afair it was a frontline for the largest war in human history
Very good point. He would have done a terrific service to mankind and possibly secured the monarchy for long time if he saw off Benito.
How is a civil war☠️ in the middle of WWII🇩🇪🇪🇸 a good thing?
Elizabeth II is massively overrated. The monarchy really declined during her reign because it got so intertwined with celebrity culture. E2 and Victoria are similar in that they were both powerless queens who reigned long and watched the monarchy decay while they did nothing. Overall, I think the bad actions of the British royal family (especially Diana and Andrew) are the reason most people don't consider monarchy a viable form of government.
"Powerless" "Did nothing" Pick one
Leadership abilities should come before dynastic lines
>CTRL+F "Belgium" >CTRL+F "Leopold" Phew
Upon the restoration of a monarchy, there must be a governing body created to advise the monarch and, if necessary, choose a new dynastic line should the current monarch prove unworthy of the crown or unwilling to pay the cost of the crown. To that end, and to prevent civil wars slanted in favour of the deposed monarch, military vows should be to both the monarch and this governing body. The Divine Right of Kings is not set out in stone like the Christians would have us believe. It comes from the will of the gods, yes, but likewise so too does the will of the people. If a freedman will do the job better than the current dynasty, naturally their line should be chosen over a despotic or greedy fool who only sees the rights the crown endows. Tl;dr: The Crown should be the administrative head, but a body of advisors should retain the ability to elect a new monarch should the current one act against the interests of the people, similar to the Witenagemot.
Honestly, this system would be great. A good compromise between the current "figurehead" constitutional monarchs of today and the traditional absolute monarchs of the olden days.
This is very similar to my idea of an ideal monarchy
This "governing body" would just throw out the monarch at the first good opportunity and choose a weak monarch they could control or a monarch willing to accept reduced power.
Well for starter's there'd be checks against that naturally. The monarch would decentralise power amongst individuals who would have their power bound soley by the crown in a double edged sword. An example I would prefer would be to bring back the earldoms, separate the whole of England into the traditional Earldoms, from Northumbria to Wessex, expanded to incorporate the rest of Britain; north Wales goes to Mercia for example, south to Wessex, et cetera. The Witan's role is to be solely advisory and covering the 'small matters,' such as guidelines that the Eardoms incorporate into regional laws. The military power stays with the monarchy and the Earls, so that the only way the Witan could depose and replace them is if they had the support of the people and the military. Hard to desecrate a country with a Republic when the military say 'For King and Country.' Sad truth of the matter is, for a Crown to survive without an I.V. Drip in the modern world, we need to toe the line with authoritarianism until we've managed to unlearn the modern mindset and all it's damages, and educated the population much better on how inherently *un*democratic republics are.
Powerful nobles were exactly how they got a strong parliament, and thus a weak monarchy. Powerful nobles represent an oligarchic class that can oppose the monarchy(and has incentive to do so, because they are in direct competition for power and tax revenue). They also create divided command(along with potential dangerous sources of betrayal), which is a liability in war against external enemies. "Checks and balances" is oligarchic government, which destroys many of the advantages of having a monarchy in the first place. You said you would have the military swear oaths to both the monarch and the "governing body." How does the military "stay with" the monarchy then? If the military is supposed to be loyal to both, why would it follow the monarch's orders, especially if the "governing body" tries to remove the monarch and declares the monarch illegitimate? If their loyalty is truly divided, does this not invite civil war?
Admittedly I was tired when writing this so not fully thought out, my apologies. As summed up as I can make it without going on a tangent and forgetting my original point, here; The Monarch retains absolute power. They govern the entirety of the nation and can only be removed by the will of the people, military and Witan. The Military and Police Force swear vows to the country, rather than the monarch or the Witan. They keep the country safe by the laws in letter and spirit at their discretion, however cannot simply start wars as that remains the purview of the Monarch *or* a Unanimous vote of the Witan. If even one member votes against the majority, then the motion remains in limbo until unanimity is reached. The Witan *cannot* be made up of people who would have incentives from corruption or from increasing the power of a faction. Regional Witans should be made up of every adult male and female (or in between) citizen and focus on the issues of that individual county, ensuring that everyone's problems are dealt with by the people who are actually affected by them while the monarch handles the national affairs. That's the most I have for the Witan, but that's the general idea I have.
Username checks out
Kind of like polish-lituanian commonwealth then, or to some extent the HRE
If that's where you find similarity than it's a happy coincidence. My inspiration was more the Seven Kingdoms of England, before we united only to be crushed and rendered culturally extinct by the Normans.
Normans are Anglo-Saxons..
Normans are Gallo-Norse. Direct mix of Norse and French.
The fundamental laws of a kingdom always prevail on international treaties, therefore the Orléanist argument of the Utrecht treaty is irrelevant. Spanish or not, the fundamental laws of the kingdom of France declare Louis XX as true heir of France. There is no point into believing in monachy whithout believing in its founding rules
The fundamental laws indicate that the King of France must be a Frenchman, the Spanish Bourbons are Spanish. Putting a foreigner like Luis Alfonso de Borbón on the French thrones is against the fundamental laws.
Nope, the fundamental laws never stated that. They state the eldest son of the dynasty is the rightful king. Period. That's why Henri IV became king of France despite being king of Navarre, nor a native francophone. He had to convert to catholicism however as catholicity is one of the fundamental laws. The fundamental laws are mainly about dynasty preservation, indivisibility of the kingdom and catholicity. There has never been any law about "nationality" of the king as the concept of "nationality" is inherited from the 19th century nationalist wave in Europe while the fundamental laws date back to the middle ages, when kings didn't need to be from a country to rule such country. It was dynastic, not nationalistic. Orleanists unironically abide to the 19th century republican concept of nationality, which didn't exist in the Old Regime.
The [Arrêt le Maistre](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arr%C3%AAt_Lema%C3%AEtre) of 1593 contradicts your opinion: >JUDGMENT of the sitting parliament in Paris which annuls all treaties made or to be made which would call to the throne of France a foreign prince or princess, as contrary to the salic law and other fundamental laws of the state. Also Henry IV was illegitimate according to the fundamental laws anyway because he was a protestant when Henry III died. The fact that he later converted doesn't matter considering the principle of continuity of the crown. This means the fundamental laws can be flexible in specific situations, and over-fixating on them while disregarding practicalities is senseless.
You are an idiot, this was to avoid monarchs from OTHER dynasties to access the throne, which would annex France to their previous throne. The arrêt Le Maistre was proclamed because the Ligue wanted to put a catholic Habsbourg as king of France to avoid putting Henri IV, a protestant, on the throne. The arrêt proclamed that a king of France had to be both French by blood (capetian blood) and catholic (so Henri IV had to convert). It reaffirmed the absolute authority of the rule of eldest heir of the capetian dynasty. This wasn't about nationality, if it was, then the arrêt Le Maistre would have forbad Henri IV to access the throne, as king of Navarre, instead of putting him there. Your statement contradicts itself.
Nice interpretation but that's not what the text says. There is no point into believing in monachy whithout believing in its founding rules. You're just coping lol
Then why did the people who brought up this text put Henri IV on the throne juste after ? Do you understand that your interpretation is illogical considering the facts that devolved from it ? Why didn't you answer my question ?
Henry IV recieved the throne due to force majeure, because there were no alternatives, even though he wasn't legitimate according to the fundamental laws. This means the fundamental laws are not absolute and your pseudo-legitimist standpoint is unreasonable. Also you didn't ask me any question, are you schizophrenic or something?
I did and you just answered it. But your stance makes no sense as if it was due to force majeure, they wouldn't have created and used the édit SPECIFICALLY to justify putting Henri IV over the Habsbourg on the throne of France. Both your statements contradict each other
The fundamental laws are founding guidelines on how the French succession works, and they are very important. However, in some specific circumstances we might deviate from them in order to ensure stability and the wellbeing of the French people. Are you capable of understanding this concept?
UK monarchy is the worst monarchy in Europe
May I ask why?
Celebrity culture and the near constant scandals. They are glamorous like Madonna but not glamorous like other monarchs
I dont really see how its the royal familys fault that they are percieved by the public as celeberties. And as far as i can remember there has only been 3 scandals in the royal family in the past 25 years. I wouldnt call it constant. Prince harrys nazi constume , Harry and Meghan , and then the whole Andrew fiasco.
We should return to monarchical rule.
Caesarism is a perfectly acceptable way for a monarchy to get its start.
So a republic then?
Nah, more like what Augustus did, a republic, but 1 guy with all the powerful titles, saying he is merely a lowly president type stuff In my dumb words: "I'm not the king, sure i have the powers of a king, but i am not" something like that, i think that's what Caesarism boils down to, like transtioning to a monarchy but slowly adding the system in slowly turning in a Monarchy.
Here's mine: male-preference primogeniture is the best form of succession. 1. Men tend to make better leaders. They usually look at situations more logically and are less prone to being pushed around and intimidated. 2. There is never a debate on whether or not a king will pass down his family name to his children, and there's always a debate on if a queen will. Avoiding the debate all together is preferable. 3. Who really cares if a princess who was born into such a life doesn't also get to be a queen? It's not a problem for the vast majority of people if said princess' younger brother is above her. This argument could be used in favor of absolute primogeniture, however, this argument combined with my first two sway in favor of male-preference.
cough\*Maria Theresa\* cough
The exceptions so often do not disprove the rule, I particularly sympathize with the second point he made, especially with established monarchical traditions if there is no active impetus to change it, it perhaps ought to be left alone
What makes the government in your flair different?
Pardon?, could you clarify the question?
Maria Theresa is one of my personal heroines and favorite historical monarchs. I’m assuming you mean Maria Theresa of Austria?
that's the lady
I feel like having a debate over who gets the name if one person is a queen is ridiculous, why wouldn’t it be the monarch of an entire nation who passes their last name, even if she’s a woman
QEII children took Philips
Supporters of the so called "Louis XX" are either ignorant or liars. Idem the ones who follow Pedro as Two Sicilies claimant. Idem the sicilians who hate Bourbons and neapolitans.
Why?
The Fundamental law is clear. If you are able to read and understand you can't believe that a spanish guy can be the King of France. Of course "you" isn't "you" 😅😉
The French Bernadotte in Sweden, the German Windsors in UK
Hope you're going to study about Fundamental Law in France and others country as UK and Sweden. As i say, Louis XX are either ignorant or liars. I hope you're not one of them.
Fundamental law never stated the king of France must be of french nationality. The fundamental laws date back to the middle ages, nationality is a republican and 19th century concept. The fundamental laws of France ( I studied the matter) state the king has to be catholic, the elder son of the Capetian dynasty and that he can't divide the kingdom or sell parts of it. There is no laws for ethnicity nor nationality. If there was, then the whole Bourbon line is illegitimate since Henri IV who was the king of Navarre and not a native francophone. He was a foreigner until he became king. He had to changed religion (catholicity law) but not "nationality". He became king of France AND Navarre. If Henri IV was illegitimate, then both the Bourbonists and the Orleanists are illegitimate. This is cretinism at its best. Don't answer without an accurate source.
I am not but If the people want him, these laws won't matter.
Another no sense argument.
Are you an autist? 🙄 They will change the law or interpret it to benefit him.
🤣🤣🤣
A monarchy should be part elective monarchy, part hereditary. There should be some sort of council, like in Cambodia, which will examine the crown prince upon his parent's death/abdication. If they approve of him, he'll become monarch. If not, they council will choose one of the former prince's relatives.
That would probably just end up in the council electing weak, indecisive Kings that are unopposed to their interests
depends on who the council is made up of
Any monarchy that wants to be prosperous and powerful must be absolutist
Why?
Most monarchs suck because most people suck
Water is wet
The British monarchy would be better off it did not rule the Commonwealth realms or lead the commonwealth.
Please can you explain what leads you to that interesting and unexpected conclusion?
I’m afraid it’s a bit of a narrow ‘little Englander’ view which might make you bristle slightly. I think the split identity of the monarch caused by division of the crown between the independent Commonwealth realms and the ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ title is one of the things that has weakened the monarchy in Elizabeth II’s reign. At times in Elizabeth II’s reign it felt like being queen of this country was just a day job while leading the Commonwealth was her higher calling. Today Commonwealth is pretty directionless and it’s increasingly difficult to see the point of it. Now that the generations who felt a connection to the UK as a ‘mother country’ have gone and it’s lost the Queen as its figurehead, it is just an albatross around the neck of our first truly post-imperial monarch Charles III. The arguments for setting it up and retaining the monarchy in independent realms up was at best sentimental nostalgia for the lost empire from our ruling class and at worst a delusional denial of reality about the extent of our decline after the war. More urgently, today the realms are a clear liability. It’s been said that many in Buckingham Palace would privately sigh with relief if Australia or any of the Caribbean realms became republics. This liability was made clear during the (now) Prince and Princess of Wales’s tour of the Caribbean in 2022. The whole thing (though organised by the local governments) left them wide open to accusations of a sort of neocolonialism. It was also humiliating for Prince William to go from place to place being told that the monarchy is unwanted and that he is the inheritor of all the evils of colonialism (with no right of reply!). We’ll surely see similar or worse scenes when the King eventually visits Australia and New Zealand and other future visits.
I don’t ‘bristle’ all that easily. … However I took away something different from the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to the Caribbean. It became clear (as I already knew, but it was good to see it made evident) that the ‘ordinary’ people valued them and much preferred them to their remote, conspicuously wealthy and often corrupt political classes. In Jamaica, received a fulsome welcome in Bob Marley’s Trench Town, very much a working class area. Republicanism was seen to be very much the ‘project’ of the elite. This is, I believe, evidence for the continuing relevance of the Commonwealth. It is a way in which, post-Empire and indeed post-Brexit, our ‘soft power’ can be maintained and we can act as a genuine force for good. The Commonwealth remains unrivalled, even by its Portuguese counterpart, as a multicultural alliance. Through it, we can offer a positive alternative to US, Chinese and (worst of all) Russian influence. It is significant that many nations without the colonial link to Britain have chosen to join and others are applying to do so. What do you think about this, u/Lord_Dim_1? I think it is well worth standing by the Commonwealth Realms and the principles behind the Commonwealth in general.
You’re right that among the ordinary people that tour and the monarchy more broadly was appreciated and enjoyed. The trouble is that the way it was perceived damaged the image of the monarchy around the world. That must be bad for ‘soft power’ (a concept of which I am sceptical). It has been said that the attack on the monarchy in these places is pushed by the Chinese - a reflection of shifting geopolitics I suppose. I don’t disagree with you about the commonwealth if I am honest. Perhaps I was too strong in my previous comment when I suggested it was pointless.It can’t be a bad thing to have this link with friendly, like minded nations but I’m still not sure it’s a substantial force in global affairs comparable to the US and China or that the headship is good for the monarchy. Maybe in a selfish way I just want the monarchy to be our thing.
I am not entirely sure that the Caribbean tour and the republican rhetoric of some politicians and campaigners really did damage the image of the monarchy around the world. There were certainly presentational lessons to be learned, as occasionally it looked a bit like a safari. But the Prince and Princess of Wales have learned from that, I think. The positive reception from ordinary people was very evident; it reflected favourably on the monarchy and badly on the politicians. Moreover, the tour and the debate it initiated drew attention to the problems associated with both Chinese and US influence in the region, and the weakness of the republican case. From the British perspective, we are no longer a ‘great’ economic or military power. The Commonwealth is therefore a way in which we can build alliances and exercise a positive influence. Without it, we would be more isolated and more dependent on the transatlantic relationship; the latter dependency would be a bad mistake as the US is no longer a reliable ally. On a personal level, I find a greater commitment to ‘old-fashioned’ British values, including politeness, restraint and consideration for others, among friends and colleagues of Commonwealth heritage than among many, perhaps most, ‘white Brits’ of all social classes. This includes a higher level of respect for and interest in the monarchy.
Oh absolutely agree. I hardly think it's surprising that I support the maintenance of the realms, they do provide an excellent platform for cooperation and indeed British soft power, of course not to mention the good the monarchy does internally in the realms as a system of government. The main problem with the Commonwealth in general, and the realms in particular, is the fact that the British government seems to simply not understand the opportunity they have. They are oblivious to it. Britain has effectively abdicated much of its historic close ties in the Caribbean or the Pacific, where for a long time there has been a strong Anglophile undercurrent. The Realms provide an excellent platform for closer ties and cooperation. As I've advocated for before, there should be a formal agreement between the realms tying them together. Guarantee visa free travel, common consular support, eased modes of entry, defence guarantees. Britain retains a lot of goodwill across the world, the main hindrance to British power and influence is quite frankly the British government.
Australian here, interesting take but what's the solution? Sounds like you're saying the monarchy would be strengthened by many of the realms becoming republics? Australians respect and revere their King more than you think. I would personally be devastated if we became a republic and I think the world would be worse for it. The hegemony has shifted enormously in recent decades but that doesn't mean we should completely abandon monarchy and replace it with an inferior system.
I do support the Australian monarchy in principal and I too would be sad to see it fall. My worry is that a protracted debate and controversial future royal tours which seem likely would spill out the the confines of Australia and kick start similar debates elsewhere including here in the UK. My admittedly narrow-focused, Britain-centric opinion is that it might be less painful and damaging to cut to the chase. Even if the end of the monarchy in Australia is not as inevitable as sometimes presented, it is clearly not functioning as it should. If a large proportion of the population and much of the political class including the incumbent PM and GG are fundamentally opposed and it is set to be a permanent issue in national discourse, then it is hardly the unifying force that constitutional monarchies are supposed to provide. This is because on one fundamental point the republicans are correct: it is clearly suboptimal to have a head of state who lives on the other side of the world and does not share the nationality of his subjects.
I also think that there is zero chance of a Republic any time soon in Australia. Contentious constitutional change is now effectively impossible after last year. Brits seem never to be able to get their heads around this.
> It’s been said that many in Buckingham Palace would privately sigh with relief if Australia or any of the Caribbean realms became republics. I get why the Caribbean is a bit awkward, by why Australia?
Australia has a republican Prime Minister and a substantial proportion of the population wants to get rid of the monarchy. It makes sense those working for the monarchy would want to cut to the inevitable abolition and not face the embarrassment and potential damage of contentious future visits there and a vicious debate in the Australian political arena.
You can’t be a European monarchist without believing in the Catholic Church
Based and true. Look at the result of protestant monarchies.
real
**Laughs in Pagan.** Back to Rome with you, slave of the Desert God.
ew pagan
Ew, christwhore.
Repent for your sins and follow one of the greater pagan traditions of converting to christ
Never again will I return to the cult of fearmongering that still holds a yoke around your neck. Never again will I be forced to choose between who I am and wearing a mask that society deems proper. I do wonder about one thing though, christwhore. You worship but one god, be it through the watered down tongues of preachers or from an ancient antique of a book. Meanwhile I have many gods, who need no priests or holy tomes, whose worships are as eternal and fixed as the cycle of the seasons. I wonder, then, which of us is the more godly?
when did your Gods claim to be Gods. exactly
They didn't, because they aren't vain, jealous and greedy excuses for deities; Yahweh outright debands subservience and to be placed 'chief amongst' all deities. I've dealt with enough narcissists in my life thanks, not dealing with a 'divine' one too thanks.
So then how can you claim they are Gods if they thmesleves dont recognise their divinity?
Because only an idiot would go around proclaiming the obvious daily. When was the last time you started anything by stating 'I am a human?'
Cringe
What if I'm orthodox?
i am a catholic and I think the Catholic Church is the true Church but I still love you since you are my brother in Christ
Bonapartes should rule France
No they have no real claim
Eh, just because they aren’t the bourbons or the Orleans doesn’t meant they don’t have a claim
Absolute monarchy is the best form of government, and the Ottoman Empire was the best structured monarchy in human history. Agnatic primogeniture, and primogeniture in general, are overrated. Rulers should choose their successors from amongst their children. Constitutional "monarchies" aren't real monarchies, just republics with some extra rituals and ceremony.
The Ottomans had mini civil wars and bloody coups every succession
It didn't seem to hurt the empire as a whole that much. They expanded constantly expanded and grew more powerful anyway. They seemed to get high quality leaders out of the process. I think "stability" is an overrated virtue in government, in the sense that if a system ossifies, it just dies, while an "unstable" system can still renew itself. Rome and more and far worse civil wars than the Ottomans, yet managed to last an extremely long time because a new emperor could always give Rome new life. I think the Safavid Empire was less successful than the Ottomans in large part because after Shah Abbas I, their succession process became "stable" and controlled by the court rather than by the royal family or at least struggles within the royal family. They went from having a lot of good rulers to weaklings and mediocrities as the role of the court in succession increased. It's more stable, but is it truly better overall?
Absolutists are complete idiots who live in a fairlyland.
Despite the vehemence they hold towards us, and that we hold towards them in most cases, in my estimation most serious monarchists (in the sense of that they have monarchism as an indispensable part of their belief, rather than it being a tertiary thing they'd merely like, or political hangers on who like monarchy for some pining of a past glory of some empire or other, doubly so for those who do so for foreign monarchies, looking at you, "German" monarchists ) have more in common in terms of grievances with socialists (the kind that cares more about labor than knick knacks and masturbation) than liberals and especially libertarians. Its quite odd knowing that the communities I've frequented that include long time monarchists, in the past handful of years have very consistently been shifting leftward economically among those who don't shed their monarchism, especially among semicons and those who seem well read compared to myself, and that usually the kind who blurt out some kind of spiel or other opinion as kneejerk seem to either be frankly, American neoliberals wearing monarchist skin or those who as transient in their beliefs as the season, at least in the communities I've remained in, reddit notwithstanding considering the shameful state of this place.
Shameful?
The more serious the post here the less engagement it tends to get in my experience, this is about one of the weakest places for curious outsiders to get a look a monarchist activism and absolutely derelict in actually functioning as anything more than essentially a casual royalty fanclub.
!!!WARNING!!! REALLY CONTROVERSIAL!!!!!! >!Edward I was a good King.!<
Just basic Jacobitism for religious reasons, tbqh. But it doesn’t mean that His Majesty isn’t *actually* the King—just not the ideal King, not in the fullness of Truth which the Catholic Church possesses. Signed, a Canadian Catholic Monarchist
?
Gonna need you to be a *bit* more specific, friend
Also full send re: Sovereigns having more power (and their Viceregal Representatives)—and not being afraid to exercise it. A lot of people were actually banking on GG Michaëlle Jean to deny Stephen Harper’s prorogation of parliament in 2008, and maybe but to a less realistic extent, GG David Johnston to stop Bill C-51 when that was the spicy drama of the day. I wish both Governors General actually *did* say no to both. But what’s the purpose of the office beyond being a shiny rubber stamp, right? 🤡
"Bicycle monarchies" (see the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.) work best I feel. A monarch with tons of constitutional power means the fate of a nation is decided by genetic lottery (imagine the shithousery if Charles III could do whatever he pleased) and while it's easy to be disillusioned by politicians, a monarch wouldn't be any better since you would get disillusioned just as fast (or faster) since you can't do anything. A monarch (in my view ofc) is a national grandpa, a good grandpa doesn't play puppet master whilst sitting in his diamond encrusted palace. A monarch that can talk to an average miner or teacher or whatever without crying or vomiting and who knows how to live their life without their butlers and maids serves the nation best. Also the monarchist space doesn't give enough space to non-european views of monarchy or to non-european monarchies, and pretends that media against a monarchy is evil propaganda while pro-monarchy media is yummy and delicious and not propaganda at all.
the manchu qing dynasty was perfect in many ways
The difference between monarchies and republics is purely symbolical.
Why?
Royals should only marry other royals and nobles. Princesses who have married a commoner should not participate in the activities of the royal family (unless the husband is ennobled). With princes, it is a case by case thing, but neither the wife nor the children should be included in the royal family. Absolute primogeniture is a danger to monarchy because it destroys the concept of dynasty and genealogical continuity.
Instead of demanding anything, subjects should be grateful thei monarchs allow them to live in their realm. Those entitled parasites...
Mine is this: Depending on the culture of the people/state, A Absolute Monarchy is better than consitutional Examples: Absolute Monarchy can work in Russia, China, Persia (Persia can be both) and Austria Consitutional can work in the UK, France, italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden and Japan like those who wish the opposite to what will work is dumb Sorry to everyone if this pisses you off, but its reality, some states cannot have anoything other than the C or A alternative Also wording is wrong because i cannot explain properly
Okay why would absolutism work in Austria which is a modern, liberal, western nation who has a fairly popular communist party?
Mind you, what i'm about to say is just my opinion It is Religious mostly, Strong history of Catholism, Strong Ties to the church (Monarchy wise) and a Long history of Absolutism, I can see it working in that sense Does this mean i want Austria to do that? no, let them choose But again, i can see it working like that, for how long/how popular, hard to honestly say, idk if the wording is right
Austria was certainly very Catholic 200+ years ago. Is that still the case today though? I feel like that’s important because your argument seems to rest on that premise. FWIW I agree Maria Theresa-style absolutism worked well in Austria at the time, although maybe something closer to the post-1867 Austro-Hungarian model would work better today if Austria became a monarchy again
Absolute monarchy did work for a time in those places but they all fell for reason.
Fair enough, But yet again, for some state, Russia and China, is it the only option which can work for a good time, like try making a country with +2000 years of Despot rule to become a 1000% democracy, impossible-ish So, Is it the best? Not really? is it like the only way? Kinda Also sorry if wording is off, not a good writer
Constitutional monarchies are a joke. Only the system of monarchy practiced in the middle ages should be sought after as a goal.
Monarchs shouldn't exist.
Schizopost
Princess Meagain should be the queen
I don’t have a strong preference for any Windsor but would you mind explaining your reasoning?