/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future

The king isn't elected. He's chosen by God.

Google Königsheil. Being a righteous king gives you Catholic superpowers.

Fond this on /polpol/.

It's defiantly worth the watch, and very much related to the thread topic.

Youtube is screwing wit he. so I cant embed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=49&v=wA76wWm0IlY

Vive le Ancien Régime:

3-The Nobles

2-The King

But don't forget

1-The Church

>>334

I think you mean übermensch

In some countries is somewhat popular

>>302

>inb4 Monaco

I suppose a good place to start would be if the U.S. were willing to return to the Commonwealth.

I mean, it wouldn't mean anything, it would just be a figurehead movement so the U.S. would have Queen Elizabeth as a useless figurehead (at first), but it would at least get the ball rolling.

I have no idea how to pitch that, however. It would have to be sold as some sort of "Anglosphere PR/diplomacy" thing, and repeatedly mentioned that, "Of course, this doesn't really mean anything, Queen Elizabeth doesn't have any actual power, etc.." But it would be really difficult to do even that. However, assuming it could be done:

-It would start people thinking about the role of monarchs again. And that discussion that seemed to close itself around the ochlocracies that sprang up after the World War I that continue to exist today would finally begin to be questioned again.

-If the U.S. did it, it would be huge.

From there, I suppose some sort of worldwide movement to at least have a figurehead monarch for every country possible would need to happen. Then it's pretty much a waiting game. I mean, all one needs to do is have something like the February Coup or what happened in Belgium 2010-2011 in order for their existence to be vindicated. Keep them small, at first, as figureheads, and then just as these "constitutional referrees."

Then…when there's a real major political crisis, they will be there to fill the vacuum.

>>148

Well there's always Tolkien. I know it's back a few years, but his stuff is still popular, and with good reason.

>>321

that's good to hear.

>>186

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11997169/God-banished-from-Downton-Abbey-says-shows-historical-advisor.html

>>310

Besides everything, no.

>>311

So you agree his actions in wiping out the aristocracy was just?

>Principles of "Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood"

But which is the most important? Liberty, equality, or brotherhood? how much liberty would they sacrifice for equality?

A common response is that Liberty is the most important. If they are willing to sacrifice the other two principles for liberty, why then even include them? Individual freedom invariably creates inequality. A government would be forced to sacrifice liberty if they desired equality.

I believe that liberty is the most important. Generally, proponents of liberty seem to connect it with democracy. They forget that most of our liberties have to be protected from democracy. The presumption of innocence and the rule of law exist independently from democracy. Even their precious "human rights" are universal and autocratic. No democracy can overturn the right to life, that is the entire point of human rights. The United States Senate wasn't even directly elected until the 1900s. The founding fathers wanted to create a counterpart to the English House of Lords to protect against "the fury of democracy".

>>314

To me brotherhood is most important. I seek the unity of all mankind.

>>294

Two words

Philosopher

King

>>297

One name, CommodusJohn Cena.

but what of the tyranny and arbitrary rule?

>democucks actually project this hard

It's hilarious that the prospect of not being a powerless nano-king frightens you democucks this hard.

>>154

and if there is no prior monarch?

>>136

Countries without a royal bloodline shouldn't look to it's founders. Noble bloodlines are not established by some god, they are made by men great enough to found them.

In the case of Britain at least, the kind of Lichtenstein is a direct descendent of the Stuarts. Also, since the monarchs there actually do things, he's been trained.

>>74

Χαίρετε Plato

>>271

I'm not a "closet monarchist". There's no need to be. There's really no stigma around being a supporter of monarchy; people just think it's strange and "outdated". It's not like you'll lose your job or something for supporting monarchy. You just get scoffs and eyerolling.

>>272

Well, I guess that's true.

>>228

Yes

News is the lifeblood of political boards

>>271

I'm not even a monarchist but I go here because I'm tired of the usual bad portrayal of nobility in media

>>290

tfw communist with monarchist leanings

>>266

I don't get your point…

Fetuses are as alive as a tree

Should the king outlaw the cutting down of trees?

>>276

Trees are not the starting point of a human life.

>>285

If you consider human life begining pre birth, then neither is a fetus

That would be sperm

>>288

Human life absolutely begins pre birth, but it doesn't begin at sperm.

Sperm is only half of the ingredients for human life and all but a few of the sperm you produce are destined to fail. Once a sperm fertilizes an egg however, a human life begins to form.

The romanovs have returned to russia

That's great news for Serbia and Georgia - the majority polls are striking and I notice both seem to recognise and seek the political stability a constitutional monarch brings, as well as the restoration of a traditional rather than imposed form of government.

Who else?

Nepal is I think the strongest contender: the Indian government supported the abolition in 2006, but the (predictable) chaos afterwards and the rise of Modi and his strongly Hindu party in India could produce a reverse in policy.

Nepal still has no agreed constitution and the people are becoming increasingly restless and violent. There's an agreed king in waiting, the return to monarchy has a fair amount of popular support and it would be the obvious solution to avoid splitting down ethnic lines or sliding back into civil war.

I still have some hope for Fiji, though despite popular sentiment its chances still look remote. The prime minister may call himself a monarchist but he's wiped out several traces of the past, including now a change of national flag.

Ethiopia? Afghanistan? Eh… not likely.

>>233

STABBED IN THE BACK!!!!!

>lead by a woman

>financed by a jew

No wonder it fell.

>>241

>financed by a jew

And who was that, anon?

>>241

It is under the reign of queen victoria that the sun never set

>>235

Yes, that is called propaganda

It would be most effective if guided from here, /pol/ does propaganda all the time and it's everywhere

If i do a image search for communism i will find atleast a dozen infographics

>>140

>>160

Why do you think than the king would want to keep the nation white? He is not forced to have the same opinions than you and may want more people under his rule.

If he is some kind of free border freak, will you still support him or are you going to fight back?

You can be sure of something: if a king does not want his country to be economically and technologically weak against the jew corporatists countries like ours, he will have to keep most aspects of the modern economy, especially usury.

And you can also be sure that a king will have to deal with politics, unless some kind of stalinist purges are at work all the time. He simply won't have the opportunity to "kill all niggers", even if, and it is unlikely, he wanted to.

>>202

Rise and shine my girl.

>>215

The cool thing about free borders is that you can see the effects in a single lifetime. The monarch would also find his expenses growing ludicrously if he maintained open borders with all the appropriate attractors (welfare, legal representation, public infrastructure).

I'm also not seeing how usury is needed to generate economic wealth. Usury as it functions now provides literally zero economic benefit to anyone, unless they are a central banker. Money being merely a measure of value means that ceteris perebus, one nation printing and charging interest and another nation printing and charging no interest would see no difference overall economic value. In fact, the nation that does not charge interest will not see bubbles forming everywhere like some kind of sick economic abomination, meaning that overall they will see more correctly allocated resources.

In terms of raw cash, they will be poorer, but in terms of raw value, they would be better off.

>>160

you mean… fascism.

A great man indeed.

>>229

Might try /lang/, /christian/, or maybe /his/.

>>213

Ok.