Modern Monarchy

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4 Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 2 per post.

File: 1425432703919.jpg (13.17 KB, 236x288, 59:72, hehasapoint.jpg)

Modern Monarchy Anonymous 03/04/15 (Wed) 01:31:43 No.2

I would like to start a thread about how monarchy would work in a modern age. For instance how would this shift take place? Where would it take place?
What if there was a rich motherfucker who bought a lot of land (A good size maybe two or three towns)and built shops and homes and contracted people to fill them and work under his command?

Anonymous 03/04/15 (Wed) 02:23:25 No.3

>What if there was a rich motherfucker who bought a lot of land (A good size maybe two or three towns)and built shops and homes and contracted people to fill them and work under his command?

Well, this wouldn't be "monarchy", per se. That's just a rich landowner. Monarchy, when viewed from a, medieval Christian perspective, was based on divine right. What is called "throne and alter" conservatism. de Maistre argued that state and political power must come from religion. The scenario you give is more like a plutocracy. Land property before the rise of the Bourgeois was based on privilege granted by someone of a higher caste than you. Alternatively land may be granted to you because you are a heir; ie the son of a land Baron or something similar.

Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 18:43:58 No.11

So, what's the difference between feudalism and monarchy?
This sounds a lot like feudalism.

>get or have land
>build some small dwellings
>round up homeless people
>give them shelter, etc, in exchange for labour

Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 19:01:21 No.12

File: 1427482880856.png (558.44 KB, 1514x1105, 1514:1105, url.png)

>>11
>So, what's the difference between feudalism and monarchy?
The two don't necessarily have to go together, but historically often have. Feudalism is based on land privilege given to nobles (typically given my a monarch) in exchange for military service and the like. There's plenty of information on this subject out there.

Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 12:51:51 No.32

File: 1428324711762.jpg (113.26 KB, 400x576, 25:36, 1305749973001.jpg)

If we'd have to return to monarchy, something like Liechtenstein please.

I don't want second Saudi Arabia around…

In Liechtenstein monarch has more power than any other European monarchy, he can overthrow the whole parliament at a will if he wishes.
What's the point of monarchy when leader is a figurehead.

Eventually a symbiosis like some social-monarchies, with strong leader and king, or even diarchy.

I'd much rather be under rule of aristocracy than the ruthless and exploiting bourgeoisie.

Anonymous 04/15/15 (Wed) 03:59:24 No.44

>>2
> For instance how would this shift take place?
As it always has. There is a crisis, and a dynamic personality solves it. After this crisis the way to keep stability is for him to remain in power, ensuring continued stability requires a robust system for transferring power, which at first comes through necessity and then becomes tradition.

The Romans could not have dreamed that they would be ruled by an Augustus, until they needed one

Anonymous 04/16/15 (Thu) 18:00:42 No.45

how would succession work? would it be hereditary like through male succession, would the heir be chosen by the king, what is the best way to chose the heir

Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 23:01:40 No.55

>>45
If it's hereditary, you need a method to remove a mad, retarded, or plain incompetent successor without massive civil war.

If it's by selection, you hopefully have a better starting point but the incumbent may need protection from his own offspring if they become jealous.

What about freedom of free speech and the press? Are they inherently incompatible with monarchy where the head of state has power instead of being a figurehead?

Anonymous 05/01/15 (Fri) 11:46:08 No.73

>>55

>What about freedom of free speech and the press? Are they inherently incompatible with monarchy where the head of state has power instead of being a figurehead?

Good question. I would say that if a monarchy came about in America, those would be values held by the leadership. If monarchy came about in, say, China no way 1st amendment principles would be a thing. So it really depends on the region.

Anonymous 05/11/15 (Mon) 14:54:17 No.89

>>3

>Monarchy, when viewed from a, medieval Christian perspective, was based on divine right

No, it wasn't. That's a modern Protestant idea.

Anonymous 05/11/15 (Mon) 15:06:59 No.91

>>89

Explain please. Perhaps my definition of divine right is wacky.

Anonymous 05/11/15 (Mon) 19:44:04 No.95

>>91

http://walkinginthedesert.com/2015/03/23/did-the-catholic-church-really-support-the-divine-right-of-kings/

Medieval Catholic political theory is closer to aristocratic liberalism minus the modernist elements.

Anonymous 05/13/15 (Wed) 03:36:21 No.96

>>95

This article makes a number of errors and has quite a few self-contradictory statements. It's also just plain wrong.

I recommend you have a read of the comments on it, though, as they're quite good.