[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / cafechan / fp / leftpol / lippe / v9k / vg / zenpol ]

/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future

Monarchy news and discussion

Catalog   Archive

Sorry, a server crashed and we went down for a few minutes. Server back online and good to go now.
Subject *
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 4 per post.

The King is dead! Long live the King!

File: 1425421801505.jpg (39.4 KB, 512x338, 256:169, bloodywhitebaron2.jpg)


Welcome to /monarchy/. I'm editing this top post in order to condense things. This is now the only sticky and a general meta thread. There has been no change in BO, I'm just trying to clean things up a bit more. I may delete out posts in this thread just because I would like keeping the >>1 post for tradition's sake.

Rules: https://8ch.net/monarchy/charter.html

About/Links: https://8ch.net/monarchy/about.html

More specifically, if there is a new BO or volunteer of /monarchy/, it's announced here. If there is a change to the rules, it is promulgated here. This is also a thread I'll use to be a little less aloof and talk about minor and meta stuff: general feedback, complaining about troll threads, accepting submissions for flags, banners, moderation, and rules, etc.. A court, if you will.

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



Start making them.

Also, I love the self-deprecating humor.

File: 1b11c02c7e7b6c5⋯.png (44.7 KB, 1600x1600, 1:1, rune.png)


Do you think a pagan monarchy could possibly arise in Europe's future (or any other part of the world)?

Me personally, I think that if people were to go back to their roots in terms of political ideology, they should also go back to the spiritual/religious traditions of their ancestors. Since christianity is a semitic religion with exclusively semitic prophets it has no connection to Europe whatsoever. It would not make sense for an non-Hebrew king to claim that he rules by divine right if the god he worships is one created by Hebrews.

The only modern monarchy I know of that could be considered a pagan monarchy is that of Japan whose ruling family claims to be descended from the Shintoist sun goddess Amaterasu (Shintoism being the native religion of Japan). Before the end of WWII the emperor was considered to be a god-like being himself and was actually worshipped by some.

A monarch that is actually an important aspect of his people's religion would be hard to be overthrown and indeed, the Japanese royal family has ruled for thousands of years.

62 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>controling the kingdom because the subjects voluntarily gave their sovereignty to the King toooooooootaly means he didn't earn it

Naturally choosing your leader from the best of the population is fine but as far as leadership is concerned it should be limited to the best man for the job not his son just by virtue of being born.

>true meritocracy comes from knowing a guy that knows a guy that has lots of money

Meritocracy as we see it today is shit because we live in a society concerned with materialism instead of the wellbeing of the people.

>kings aren't smart enough to appoint the right guy to the job

Even kings can be led astray and can have bias with who gets to control after they die, the temptation to ensure your bloodline stays in power is a strong one and shouldn't be decided by the king in this situation as far as the rest of the nation would be concerned.




At least in a monarchy you have a chance of not getting an egotistical power-hungry maniac. In a democracy, well, the only candidates are the ones who choose to be so, so it's guaranteed to be ruled by power-hungry maniacs.



>convince a modern population

It's not a change done overnight, unless it is a military coup. Fascism is the first stage of retrieval towards such a system. Fascism inherits the disgusting idea of a political party.

What does a political party do? It is a body that selects from itself (through which means? Democratic?) representatives for causes, public and quite likely, those that are not. These representatives then gather magical energy from the people, also known as votes. The priest class - journalists - are largely in control over the fluctuation of this magical energy, so the political bodies have to deal with this priest class.

This priest class has made it certain that no revolts can occur. It has lulled the populations to such a state that they can be raped, pillaged and murdered and they won't raise an arm in protest.



>Naturally choosing your leader from the best of the population is fine but as far as leadership is concerned it should be limited to the best man for the job not his son just by virtue of being born.

Why not? You want petty squabbling over the position of power, by those to whom power is all in all? Disgusting, you want a democratic hell.


File: 14fb37a72da0f0b⋯.jpg (118.2 KB, 595x518, 85:74, A quote.jpg)


Meritocracy is a SPOOK.

There is no such thing.

It doesn't EXIST.

It is literally a social construct.



Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on monarchy. However, monarchy and religion have an important relationship. Religion and this understanding of power is what disciplines monarchs. It keeps them from becoming despots, outside of the notion of honor.

Pagan monarchy is unlikely, unless this civilization crumbles to dust. But Christianity and Western monarchy have a deep influence for centuries of political theory and theology. That is why it almost seems inseparable in the Western world, European monarchies and Christianity. I don't think paganism is to be scorned. It plays an immense role for the heritage of the public and shouldn't be discarded. A good monarchy should preserve the heritage of the public.

File: 0d0079a284748b6⋯.jpg (151.2 KB, 831x519, 277:173, family.jpg)



All governments have an arbitrary motive to respect their subjects. By the grace of God, they don't exist for a singular purpose. Monarchy is different from other governments. A parliament can also claim to represent a shared interest in protecting private property rights. A totalitarian communist regime can claim to share the economic interests of the proletariat. These economic interests are all based on the ideals of a social contract. While social contract theory isn't inherently anti-monarchy, it has been the will of radicals to denounce the purpose of monarchy through social contract theory; in short, they are political animals who only care about their self-conceit and economic gain.

Monarchy is a shared heritage. A shared national identity. History defines a people. Monarchy is a government of authority, based on hereditary rights, the foundational model being the family. The monarchy is just a royal family. This is simple, yet it means everything: monarchy is the government of the people, because it uplifts the true bond of the people. Every proletariat works for his family. Every property right is meaningful under the prospect of future gain, often the prospect of having a marriage or future children. Every household stands for their honor, which corresponds to the AUTHORITY of the father.

Too many monarchists see monarchy through the lenses of a political animal. They don't understand the nature of monarchy. How does monarchy inevitably fix itself? Through hereditary succession, or the authority of the crown, known as sovereignty. This transgression represents not only the honorable succession of ordinary households, and the father's right, but also the world's destiny.

Think of it like the classical Troy and the tale of the Aeneid. It was their destiny that moved them. All governments, under a Divine Will, are taken through their destines, and monarchy is the only government that understands this concept. The Divine Right of Kings is a similar notion, often misunderstood: every government exists under heavenly grace, even the worst of governments, but monarchy recognizes their destiny.

Joseph de Maistre made the point that the state exists under God's Creation, but also the conPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

11 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



No, it is reactionary.

Anime is a reactionary artform.

Only high-ranking spergs will understand this.


File: ab93cae176085ad⋯.jpg (354.25 KB, 481x750, 481:750, King Charles I Rights.jpg)


*a note on Kaiser image*

This resembles a strong collusion between both political theories, Divine Right and social contract. If you glance at this image and recognize the hats, signalling social consent, and the divine thunder and bright aura (representing a divine willpower), it is understood both resemble a social consent and a grasp of power.

Most modern monarchies were colliding with the ideals of the modern state, nationalism, and the honorable ideals of a monarchy, patriarchalism. Since the English Civil War, the concept of rights progressed throughout history and the role a government must play within a society. It is self-evident that the English Civil War ended with a dead sovereign, whose mind and thoughts were all over his right to be king. Understandably, the notion of rights were lost. The King proved the notion as a defender of rights when King Charles I became a martyr. To this very day, as forces of the republic trample over the dignity of their subjects, the idea of rights conflicts with the notion of a constitution, back to the authoritarian government of a monarchy.

Will there be a resolution between the past and the present? If the world understands the injustice, and the bloodshed, perhaps the forces of secular parliament will understand liberty better. Despite abhorring rights on a fundamental level, these governments are trying to stand for the rights of the individual, yet won't sacrifice their power and deign their authority… for the design of a political construct – the constitution. When it is understood that a sovereign upholds justice, and rights are intrinsically connected with a higher willpower and relate to an authority that defends those rights, that will be an answer to the question of freedom and human rights.


File: eeb3b277eee4fe6⋯.jpg (115.97 KB, 702x440, 351:220, Loyalty.jpg)


File: 8d8779f053744f6⋯.gif (286.26 KB, 480x360, 4:3, 77e9400619279434198b880289….gif)









This isn't an appeal to constitutionalism.

It is the hypocrisy of parliament.

File: e4aaae26d40dd7c⋯.jpg (32.78 KB, 450x398, 225:199, come-at-me-bro-queen.jpg)


Post ITT every time you visit /monarchy/, so that we can generate more activity on this board.

138 posts and 33 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



(((historians))) like to claim that Tesla and Newton were faggots because they were virgins.





Have you guys ever met with any of your country's royalty, be it from a dethroned or currently reigning family?



i hear that fags value virginity pretty high after all ufufufu


I have done my duty.


I have been lurking on here for a few days, it is interesting to read all of the posts you have been making. I haven't read it all yet, and I am enjoying reading through your threads. Maybe I don't agree with everyone but the level of discussion here is higher than I have seen it on any other board on the site, so I can feel confident that every post is worth reading and considering.

File: ffcc9db2dba919a⋯.jpg (26.11 KB, 300x300, 1:1, img-thing.jpg)


So explain to me why should I support any form of monarchy. What benefit is there for me?

28 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>I get to choose who will lead

>being this naive

You don't choose shit. Your leaders are chosen for you by lobby and interest groups who manipulate the masses through the media to vote for one candidate or another. More often than not, they don't even need to do that, as they make sure all of the candidates offered are their puppets – they might have some differing things in their program, such as whether to have a bajillion genders or just two and similar shit, but all that is just acting for the masses to think their "choice" has some manner of meaning. The actually important things, such as the size of the military budget, big tenders, etc. are pre-determined and will occur regardless of which party is in power. At most, you might achieve getting the candidate of one interest group over another's, if there happens to be a conflict between them, but in the end, your "elected leaders" are not working for your benefit and couldn't give less of a shit about the country. They care about pleasing their masters who got them into office in the first place, and their masters usually only care about sucking out as much taxpayer money from state coffers as possible. All the while none of them have any accountability for any of this whatsoever. Democracy is a government system with a near infinite amount of potential scapegoats to push the blame on. If your king used all the nation's funds to build himself a massive palace, you could be angry at him, but while the exact same thing happens in democracy, who will you be angry at? The politician? His masters will laugh and place another puppet in his stead, and your ire will be placated, since you are too dim to realise any of this.



>What benefit is there for me?

You damn jew.



cuck detected



>what if the king is a tyrant?

Saying "what if" is speculation. The worst tyrants cannot compare with the bloodshed wrought from the hands of revolutionary republicans. There is tyranny and there is the most arbitrary forms of government from the republican camp.

>what if the king is a psychopath

Regents exist in the monarchy to take the place of monarchs who cannot take the responsibility. If a monarch is crazy, so be it. There is only so much damage a monarch can bring. It doesn't compare to the crazy behavior of a mob, or an all-controlling totalitarian regime that must seep into the everyday facet of ordinary life.

>how am I supposed to rely on the power of an individual

There is only so much you can hope for with power. Meritocracy is typically a falsehood, perpetrated with those who think the best governments come from a democracy. Democracy is farthest from meritocracy because it is more about popularity than skill. There is no such thing as a government based on skill anyways.

Power only means so much in this world. A monarch doesn't run a command economy, and it always comes down to an executive seat of government.



To quote a brilliant champion for democracy:

>In democracy, it's important to arrange options for the populace so that every time democracy is the winner.

Joseph Stalin

For any believer in a democracy, here's a hypothetical

Countries A and B both have nuclear weapons capable of completely annihilating of one another.

50% of the population + 1 (one) man from Country A believe that launching a nuclear first strike against against neutral at the time Country B which is 100% capable of retaliation is the correct path to take;

Should the launch commence?

If not, why is the will of the majority not being respected, why are there aspects the majority isn't allowed to decide?

if yes >>>/suicide/


people who believe in meritocracy meme forget, or aren't aware that someone who's highly successful might not be morally good.

File: 8f4e79c2a39f6a7⋯.gif (405.56 KB, 450x379, 450:379, 1519663719113.gif)


Should the rich pay lower rates of tax than the poor?

8 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.






No one should have to pay tax. Make it a moral, not a legal imperative to support king and Church, or establish contractual relations between them and their flock.

If you insist on a tax, make it a low, flat tax. Five to ten percent is enough, and will even increase total revenue in the long term. A good father is proud if his children do well, and if you see yourself as the father of your nation, then you will want them to live prosperous and industrious lifes, not give all their money to you so you can build an even bigger monument or palace in the midst of rubble.

If you want to differentiate by wealth, make the wealthy pay more, or only enforce the tax code against them. To do the opposite would be like stealing bread from the poor but not the rich. What justification could there possibly be for that?


Above all, the country should strive to be filled by small bussinesses rather than large megacorps

>develops the countryside rather than necessiating urbanisation (getting a job in the countryside is difficult nowadays, as all the companies are in or around the big cities)

>prevents the emergence of the super-rich and super-influential class that would try to control the official government (this can be seen especially in the USA)

>prevents the formation of monopolies

>lessens the amount of marketing (you don't need to have an ad on TV to make people have people come to you about their plumbing. They come to you because you're the local plumber. If you're a shit plumber, they will ask the one in the next town, but will obviously come to you by default)

>fosters relationships between people, makes producers accountable for the quality of their craft

and more. At that point, you can easily implement universal tax. You do not need to pander to the big corps and the super rich, as your economy doesn't depend on them. The wealthy class in your country will be one that has enough money to live in luxury, but not so much as to become an international power that influences governments, nor one that could afford to throw billions about. Better yet, it will be tied to the land, as it possessed no international branches where it could just move away to the moment it decided it dislikes your taxes.



Taxation should not leave people bitter nor starving.


Tax actual luxury items and fastfood.

>Poll tax

>"Failure tax" for unmarried and childless men over 30 and women over 25 (unless they get sterilized then they get a one-time eugenics reward)

>No income tax and any attempt at introduction of such should be met with same penalty as treason or larceny

>Tax businesses that reach certain size that'd give them too much power to prevent shit going on in america.

File: 8f72bf8d57687f6⋯.jpeg (36.02 KB, 400x400, 1:1, queenie.jpeg)


Reminder that Absolutists are CathoLARPer retards who should be beaten in their autistic little heads until cured.

Constitutional monarchy forever, long live the Glorious Revolution.

May she protect our laws, but not make them

God save the Queen

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


be gone supporter of a crown republic

God save the Tsar!


File: 531b263cae50b3a⋯.jpg (28.45 KB, 338x447, 338:447, 12ec1c964a3a77a73a5625529a….jpg)


Feudalism forever, kill yourself whig.



I forgot about OrthoLARPers.

My mistake


File: 087d0a1270f4bbf⋯.jpg (39.53 KB, 480x300, 8:5, 80688796guyfakwes-news_tra….jpg)


Guy Fawkes did nothing wrong!



>literally ruled my nation just over a hundred years ago


I can be flawed and support things I myself am incapable of doing.

File: 89633111da3313d⋯.jpg (36.34 KB, 300x367, 300:367, 6176549172_b47fcfac7f.jpg)

File: 7e57b74d7f8e625⋯.jpg (20.07 KB, 220x293, 220:293, 220px-His-Imperial-Majesty….jpg)

File: cdfe55559b28581⋯.gif (29.39 KB, 328x558, 164:279, empnort2.gif)


Greetings courtiers and commoners of /monarchy/ from Burgerland. Hail to the King for he is good.

I come to you all today because i've been brainstorming an idea to get monarchy in the United States, or at least a more pragmatic way than trying to push a Bill through the greedy, selfish, slothful, "do nothing" Congress.

Following the tradition of Emperor Joshua Norton (pic related), someone with good moral character (and some money) ought to go around their county and proclaim themselves as the "Count of [your county here]". Doing good deeds and spreading the good word of Monarchy. Eventually convincing enough people to want a referendum (or special election) to disband the County Board (or however your county is organized) and install the Count as the Monarch of that county. Making that position inheritable.

All it would take is one county in the US to do this to inspire more Counts to rise up from the ashes of our (((Democratic - Republic))), or the success of that Count should attract other counties to vote him in as their count (until he owns enough land to be considered a Duke)

A great way to legitimize the Count's claim would be to have a Bishop (Catholic or Orthodox) bless him as the appointed monarch of the county. This formality should be enough to put the Bishop's congregation in the Count's pocket.

In the long run, I envision America becoming a new HRE (because Americans are, unfortunately, culturally Republican). Where the landed Nobles vote on legislation and who gets to become the new Kaiser.

The reasons why I think it can work

1. More and more people are becoming disillusioned with our current Democratic process.

2. The youth are becoming more Conservative and religious everyday.

3. The people loved Emperor Norton.

4. Crypto curPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Explain Korwin to me. Is he just a guy in the EU parliament? Or does he have a party? Did he or his guys (if there are any) also gain support in the national election? I tried looking it up but I do not speak western Russian.



i think he has recently left EU parliament (he calls it an EU brothel)

he has had many parties, his current party is called wolność - freedom in english

there were some libertarians who got ellected as memers of KUKIZ15 party. he was once in polish parliament in the nineties and he was doing a lot of good things in there - he led to dissolution of government - lustration

currently according to poll done by tvn24 his party has 5% of votes what makes them barely entering the parliament

>i do not speak western russian

top kek


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Puppet Korwin is the best explanation of Korwin.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.



Making the USA into a monarchy is impossible.

I don't think there ever was a chance to do it.

America was created as the ideal modernist country and is used to spread modernity across the world.

You're suggesting to take down the enemy from the inside of it's capital. A mission impossible.

File: e98f9571832de0d⋯.jpg (797.09 KB, 1566x2226, 261:371, juice.jpg)



9 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.




historical parasites that made their fortunes through usury and today stand behind many of the world's ills. Who pushes globalism? The jews. Who supports EU? The jews. Who owns the media that demonise any opposition to the corrupt US regime and it's international policy? The jews. Who led the USSR and stood behind the propagation of communism? The jews. Who subverted the US enough to have it send billions annualy to an otherwise completely unrelated country (which, however, is deeply important to said subvertors)? The jews. This is all freely accessible, public information. Look up who owns all the major news networks in the US, who formed USSR leadership, etc. if you don't believe me.

It's no coincidence that so many rulers chased them out of their country and that even the commoners throughout history despised them. You are likely to argue that, for example, Israel is very based and what not, and of course it is – jews aren't stupid, they want their country to do well. The issue is that they want all the other countries to do badly, and actively subvert them, so that their stands on top. Israel runs a tight ship and murders palestinians happily, while jews happily encourage rapefugee invasion of europe and have their news agencies demonise anyone who as much as dares to diasgree, immediately labeling him a populist, a fascist, or a bigot. Israel illegaly bombs and attacks its surrounding nations, especially Syria and Lebanon, yet it will be the first to cry foul when Iran sets up a base 200km from their border, in Syrian territory, with express agreement of the Syrian government. Jews are snakes that try to deceive, try to make you believe they're on your side, only to poison your wine when you aren't looking and then blame your health troubles on your neighbour.



What is my opinion on

>hostile foreigners

>foreign agents

>radical cultural shifts

>revolutionary fetishism

>fringe religious fanaticism




>You actually think this is proving your point instead of the opposite. Huh.

If the jewish IQ is sooo high then the only jewish state in the world shouldn't have an Arab tier IQ. Jewish IQ is incredibly high is a meme.

>I don't even need to do anything. You just out yourself.

That's your argument? 'I can claim the things that are true for jews about other groups of people so it is not true'. This is kindergarten tier. The white man has been a blessing upon Africa, unlike the jew who keeps to destroy.

Why is it so important that EVERY nation on earth becomes a multicultural shithole with a small jewish elite enjoying special privileges? Do you kikes even understand that the goyim are not nearly as stupid as you make them out to be? I say the jews stole palestine, so let's deport all our kikes to Israel, throw an embargo on it and watch the Arabs tearing it apart. The age of the jew is closing its end.


File: 2435daa9654a418⋯.jpg (59.17 KB, 578x726, 289:363, juicese3.jpg)




Read this, it is the best monarchistic answer for this issue.

File: c4b3832ace38bbc⋯.jpg (71.71 KB, 560x538, 280:269, lutherNailingItHome.jpg)


Was the Protestant Reformation a mistake?

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: b8dfe97f6287231⋯.gif (649.99 KB, 300x194, 150:97, tenor (1).gif)


Care to enlighten us than? You know…for the imaginary internet points. Oh humble and smart one



>simony and absentee bishops were just fine


File: 4bb929a53c744d1⋯.png (126.19 KB, 500x357, 500:357, spot-a-prot-24737819.png)




File: 788ccc8df2ea63d⋯.jpg (68.59 KB, 460x550, 46:55, 1461471645971-3.jpg)



pic related



>legitimate spiritual government


File: 168421de6b0fddb⋯.jpg (15.61 KB, 269x372, 269:372, salicLawInTheHouse.jpg)


/monarchy/, what is the ideal system of succession?

(Absolute?) Primogeniture?

Salic law?

Agnatic seniority?


Partible inheritance?

The Rota system?



Should children under morganitic marriages be recognized for purposes of inheritance or succession?

Should children under cousin-marriages be recognized for purposes of inheritance or succession?

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.



>minimizes the chance of needing a regency council

I too have played EUIV and CK and hate that shit.

Jokes aside, I agree with your assessment. Agnatic seniority leads to a fragile and senile gerontocracy, while ultimogeniture leads to regency councils and situations like what Peter the Great of Russia had to deal with in his early years. I'm rather partial to Salic law just because there's a large body of common law behind it to settle any possible dispute over the inheritance, and can be made as an agnatic primogeniture anyways. Tanistry and Rota can lead to a lot of disputes and in-fighting.

The only thing I'm split on is partible inheritance. I think there's something to be said about having something that naturally decentralizes and localizes governments over time, but as you said, it's likely to cause territorial disputes as well, and keeping a balance of power under such an inheritance system is a bit tricky.

As for morganitic marriages, I don't see any issue with marrying down into the aristocracy if at least for eugenic reasons. However, when you open it up to commoners in general, then you run into the possibility of some shrewd merchant/lobbyist of a Court sidling up to a Princess solely for manipulative purposes. I won't disagree that the same can't happen in other morganitic relationships, but at least it's to a much lesser degree because they already have their fief.

As for cousin marriages, I don't see the issue with disallowing them for purposes of inheritance of the crown. If it should already be socially stigmatized as you say, it's already generally a dumb thing to do anyways, then you might as well encode it into the succession law and avoid the Hapsburg scenario. If you want to play the advantages of marrying into your own lands, then I think allowing some degree of morganitic relationships covers for that.


Things that are important in succession law:

1 - Learning our lesson after Charles V.

2 - Avoiding plutocratic influences.

3 - Keep things simple or at least as indisputable as possible. We don't need pretender rebellions, state coups, and civil wars.

4 - Avoiding regency councils.

5 - Avoiding ridiculously geriatric leaders.

6 - Avoiding succession crises is preferable as well.

Per 1, children born from incest are not part of the inheritance.

Per 2, no marriages with those not of the aristocracy. Morganitic marriages, O.K., but not with commoners.

Per 3, no rota system, tanistries, or partible inheritances.

Per 4, no ultimogeniture.

Per 5, no seniority.

Per 6, having some third party body in cases of dispute. I think this is the best argument for Britain's parliament or Papal decree.



What do you think of Bastard Children to avoid a War of Sucession?



Designated by ruler from among the royal dynasty (even if it's a distant relative), basing his choice on the heir's aptitude in rulership. If he dies before naming a successor, it shall default to primogeniture. Furthermore, all children of the ruler (whether daughters too or only sons is up to debate, depending on the country's gender policy) should be given a fief to govern when they come of age, so that they gain practical skills in governance and their performace can be clearly and accurately observed and weighed by the monarch – if the child led his fief to bankrupcy, he is likely not a fitting person to sit on the throne, but in the end, the monarch has the final word.



If you do that, you're going to end up like Charlemagne's partible inheritance system.

Which inherently devolves political power into smaller powers.

…which fits in very well with Hans Adams II's political theory.


File: 3a2ee0dbdbd40dc⋯.jpg (237.11 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, domp.jpg)


The Empire will return…


File: 06c681059ad1775⋯.png (212.89 KB, 512x384, 4:3, 2018_03_20_094906.png)



This is now a banner. Con-ga-rats.


File: e613c899602b325⋯.png (35.66 KB, 300x100, 3:1, 2018_03_24_064433.png)

>>2277 (dub dubs)

Thank you, humble king!!

Maybe this one would be better?

File: 65d483fdc53a423⋯.jpg (152.76 KB, 790x1010, 79:101, the lonely king.jpg)


Ok you /liberty/-flavored LARPers, explain to me how is monarchy different to other types of goverment. Tell me how in your autistic minds it is better than fascism. Tell me how will it all work in practice.

41 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Justify your continued breathing.



stfu fucking goyim



Fallacy fallacy you jew.



czyść mi kibel polaku



What is with the growth of people that don't understand what "fallacy fallacy" is?

File: 61146ceb3a93201⋯.jpg (34.7 KB, 600x239, 600:239, ak47-1.jpg)


What are /monarchy/'s thoughts on the citizens (and nobility) of the crown bearing arms? Is the right to bear arms to be limited to those of noble birth? Do you take a more "free cossack" liberal approach or would your ideal monarchy routinely go on sword-hunts like feudal Japan?

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



If you're mentally and physically healthy enough to handle a gun, of legal age, and have passed some manner of examination proving you can handle a gun, you can own one.


Subjects are not sovereign individuals, and have no right to assert themselves violently in any capacity.



This is actually a complicated issue. I probably wouldn't change much here.



>Subjects are not sovereign individuals

I am not sure if muslims are welcome here



This anachronistic crap again. I would tell you that not every monarchy is absolutist, but actually, not even absolutism ever went that far. You're projecting totalitarian ideas borne out of democracy on the ancien regimé.

File: e2e7f6bb1e0650c⋯.png (115.68 KB, 500x582, 250:291, authoritarian-memri-tv-mem….png)


has any of you been in brunei? or any other monarchy? (western european monarchies are not monarchies except lichtenstein, san marino, monaco and otherm microstates)

so far i have been in quatar but i have not left airport

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>I have been to Liechtenstein.

> The Vatican is a pretty neat monarchy.

Do tell.


Please tell about your experiences later.


>western european monarchies are not monarchies

At least explain why, phonefag.



tell us about liechtenstein


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.



Liechtenstein is very small.You could easily manage to go from one and to the other and be back for lunch. There's not much to say about it though, it just looks as majestic as any region in the alps. Above all there is the castle at the summit of a hill, waking over the lands. That's it. As far as policies go it is incredibly rich and the prince is based. Like opposed to parliamentarism if this means abortion based.



Not him but obviously because they don't have a ruling monarch

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / cafechan / fp / leftpol / lippe / v9k / vg / zenpol ]