/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future

We should talk politics on a daily basis, /monarchy/. We need to focus on somewhere in the world and commit to it, and discuss it here on our board from a monarchist perspective.

Like /pol/, just find news to discuss and scream at. We can always voice our opinions on the European Union, that abomination, or maybe the Refugee Crisis.

We tend to have a gripe with the EU, so there's that to consider.

We also need our own memes.

>>365

It's hard to revive slow boards.

No one wants to post in them, because they won't get many responses.

If you reload the catalog a few times a day, and don't find any new posts, there's less of an incentive to reload.

The best thing you could hope to do would be to bring in posters from other communities. I know the nrx tried to have a couple of boards here, but they all got overrun with trolling. Maybe some of them would be up for another go?

BO here. I'm glad there are people who want to see the board revived.

The way I see it, cross-board advertising won't do much good unless we have an existing core of users. If someone sees a link on /pol/, and comes to the board but finds only weeks-old posts, they won't contribute. The other things which we need are OC and some good topics/generals/news to talk about.

>>366

This all of the this

>>366

This all of the this

>>371

Also this

severe shortage of arms around here

just trace your ancestry and find your ol lands

I'm interested in how the heraldry system works. Are those your arms? Do you get to keep the cardinal hat because an ancestor was a cardinal?

>>355

>How would you separate the good eggs from the bad ones?

Don't have primogeniture be an iron clad rule. With modern tech, its possible for parents to have lots and lots of children, most of whom will live well into adulthood.

So let the king choose which of his sons will succeed him.

The other members of the royal family, the court, the nobles, etc, can always restrain the foolish actions of a single king. A ruler only has power if people go along with his orders.

It's also possible for a bad king to "die of food poisoning" or "a sudden aneurism", or "trip and fall from a rooftop".

>>356

I like the idea of the head of a household (not just a royal house) picking his successor from among his sons, and also Roman-style adult adoption. The problem that primogeniture solves is having lots of sons/family members who all feel entitled to the inheritance. When you have an ironclad succession rule with only one legitimate successor, chosen without any subjectivity, rebellion becomes much harder.

>>367

>When you have an ironclad succession rule with only one legitimate successor, chosen without any subjectivity, rebellion becomes much harder.

I think this depends on the culture. If a father's choice of successor is held in as high esteem in one society as primogeniture is in another, they'd seem about equal in discouraging rebellion.

It depends on the culture. Some kingdoms have been more prone to rebellion than others.

Not that rebellion is necessarily a bad thing. In the modern west we tend to view our relative absence of war for the past 70+ years as a positive thing. I think that a long absence of war is a sign that evil has won.

The right keeps folding as the left advances. We haven't had rebellion, or war, in the west, because no one fights back. Our long peace has just been a long series of surrenders.

Personally, I find the greatest reason to support just the smallest form of monarchy, e.g. a figurehead, is that it reinforces the truth that there is no such thing as equality. I believe that equality is a notion that will devolve into such demagoguery that even to have it attacked at a symbolic level is a worthwhile thing to have.

>>216

>This is like, your opinion man. You cannot tell what is better unless you state what goals you want to reach.

Agreed. Please state yours.

>And for your information, Chinese communism in the 5°-60's unfucked the Chinese society, removed the traditionalist thinking, gave it a fast forward industrial revolution and get the country ready for capitalism. Today China is big, powerful and may become the next superpower.

To clarify. Are you defending the cultural revolution?

>This is an excellent reason to be against monarchy. Read it again.

We're not seeing what you are. Explain.

>What about 12 year old kings? What about weak kings? What about powerful kings that does not care about the country?

At this point I believe it is necessary to distinguish between the absolute monarchists and the constitutional monarchists and the aristocrats (fwiw, the degeneration of the ancien regime from an aristocracy to "L'etat, c'est moi" is it's downfall, IMO, but I believe others here will disagree with me) and the mere figurehead monarchists.

>A good democracy can exist, but it require actual informations, not a media cast, actual concerned citizens, not consumerist zombies and political debates, not closed echoes chambers on the internet.

I believe I will depart ways from others here, but democracies will necessarily devolve into ochlocracies just like monarchies can devolve into tyrannies.

I think others here might argue about one being more stable over the long run or less likely to happen than the other, but for my part, I do not mind Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>185

I think thats worse actually. Democracy, by the nature of political parties, is a natural environment for the corrupt. Any politician who is good at backstabbing, lying and bribing is going to be much more successful than a principled one, thus the party structure incentivizes terrible leader. A multi-party democracy is a tougher environment for politicians and that leads to better adapted ones. IE. even worse people.

>>359

to play democrat's advocate, there are some serious flaws in the America and European democratic systems which could be remedied, possibly resulting in a more effective democracy. The voting system in America, for example, forces all the things which we hate about democracy to manifest and grow. Other voting systems have been proposed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

>>216

>What about 12 year old kings?

Exception rather than rule. A modern monarchy would never have something like this happen though.

>What about weak kings?

Bad, but not a problem unique to a Monarchy. There are weak democratic leaders as well.

>What about powerful kings that does not care about the country?

A King is the figurehead of his people, chosen by God to lead them. There is a bigger bond between a King and his people than in other systems. Also not a problem unique to a Monarchy.

>>362

exactly. People freak out when they hear the word "king" and think "oh no what if he doesn't care about his people" but they fail to realize that our democratically elected officials give zero shits about their subjects, and most people don't even notice. A king can be raised as a good Christian ruler with all the skills and character traits necessary. If his father was a good king, and his father trains him, the child is likely to also be a good king.

>>259

Kill yourself autist

>>264

Do you honestly think that I was going to talk to people who would kill me the first chance they got? I understand the leftist mentality because I was one of them, and there is no discussion that will ever change them.

>>265

>>there is no discussion that will ever change them.

>> I understand the leftist mentality because I was one of them

Choose one. This isn't a personal attack or nothing, just remember that knowledge is a lifelong journey. There is always more to know and understand.

>>344

Something like the ancient Incans?

Absolute goddam monarchy, "L'etat, c'est moi." This doesn't have to be hard you faggot OP.

>>328

Monarch with a House of Lords, who have sort of "shares" in the country, joint-stock company style. The more successful and profitable the country, the better they do. Laffer curve and a universal constitutional right of free exit makes sure that things are nice for the commoners.

>>328

How about the emperor has many, many heirs and they compete in a meritocratic way to see who becomes the lord and his assistentes and stuff

>>328

>>Really something more of an aristocracy. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is on to something.

This.

Though the iron law of oligarchy always holds. There isn't any such thing as an absolute monarchy.

Even if societies which supposedly had an absolute monarchy, like premodern China, it was only ever an ideal centered around the conception of the emperor as divinely chosen, which was the justification for the power of the state.

Because a monarch requires the cooperation of other powerful people to rule. If he gives an order, and other members of the ruling faction don't obey, it has no force.

A monarch has to compromise with others in power. That's part of the political process. Or else he risks rebellion, and destabilizing his realm.

Particularly great for fucking over pesky greeks

I think it's a terrible policy, and any monarch of a thassalocracy like Great Britain and the Netherlands were realized this. Free trade is absolutely necessary not only for modern economic growth, but in maintaining public and governmental interest in the direction of a ever more non-interventionist foreign policy.

>>332

Your paleoconservatism is showing.

>>338

So?

>>236

Can you elaborate?

>>60

Unfortunately, you don't need to be a Freemason to be a republicuck.

President Washington only ever went to two meetings and, later in life, disavowed the organisation.

>>255

Filth, T.B.H.

>>113

I agree.

It's also worth mentioning that the United States wasn't even a "democracy" for a long time after the revolution. They based their country on the English system, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and the House of Lords. In this way it was distinctly different from the French Revolution.

Rather than being allies, they chose to be enemies. They still are Britain's enemy to this day.

>>49

English Civil War part two. Whigs were butthurt that Cromwell sucked, and they wanted a republic back. That's why you hear the Loyalists called Tories but never the rebels called Whigs (because it would have been really bad for the Whigs in London). Interesting to note that a lot of the Brit generals were Whigs, and maybe that's why they fought like shit. As far as the taxes and such, The 13 colonies had some of the most lax colonial laws in the entire empire. If I remember right, there were even a couple colonies who didn't have to send their laws to Britain to be approved. They were basically sovereign. The whole revolution was a huge mistake, essentially.

>>203

Remove revolutionary.

not sure if board is serious. lol

Because in choosing liberty or equality, I choose liberty. Even the modern-day figurehead monarchy is the mere act of upholding someone who is born into something, which takes one of the greatest arguments for equality (Rawl's Veil of Ignorance argument) and reverses the burden of proof. This mere symbolism is something I find respectful in a monarchy.

>>335

>veil of ignorance

What if I argued for slavery because I think it makes the most productive society?

If I wasn't some selfish jackwagon, I wouldn't mind being a slave. I'd do it for the good of society.

Damn commies.

>>203

Man is most free when he has the least voice in government. When the government only cares that you pay your taxes and don't try to kill the king, you are much less likely to end up with a bunch of SJW's and thought police running the show. Most people don't know shit about politics and shouldn't be voting anyway.

Yes.

Also, The Battle of Bileća was fought on 27 August 1388 between Bosnian forces led by Duke Vlatko Vuković and the Ottomans under the leadership of Lala Shahin Pasha. Vlatkos army numbered 7,000 fighters from Bosnia, and Shahin Pashas army numbered 18,000 fighters. It was the first facing of Turks at Rudine, the Bosnians, although fewer, finally fought near the town of Bileća and gave them a defeat, which delayed the Ottomans' advances into Bosnia. Shahin Pasha escaped by fleeing, while the losses in the victorious ranks were insignificant.

The Battle has left a great impression on the people of that era who engraved at the tomb of Duke Vlatko in Boljuni near Stolac the following inscription:

Ase leži dobri čoek Vlatko Vuković. Vojvoda Vlatko je prvi pobijedio Turke kod Bileće 27. avgusta 1388.

(Here lies the good man Vlatko Vuković. Duke Vlatko was the first who defeated the Turks at Bileće August 27th 1388.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bile%C4%87a

Thanks for sharing?

Are you nostalgic over Ban Kulin?