Is it Possible to Limit the Number of Bad Kings in a Hereditary 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: 1456720227804.jpg (439.96 KB, 578x877, 578:877, voight-kampff.jpg)

Is it Possible to Limit the Number of Bad Kings in a Hereditary Monarchy? Anonymous 02/29/16 (Mon) 04:30:27 37a1d3 No.355

Hello /monarchy/, nationalist without a specific ideal government here. Personally, I am not a hereditary monarchist, however I realize that saying "hereditary monarchy is bad, don't do it" just makes me sound like a shill. So I'd like to discuss with the hereditary monarchists here about what you would do, or how would you set up a hereditary monarchy as such to try and make sure you ended up with the best ruler the system could provide.

When it comes to what makes a bad monarch, one aspect I suggest you look into is high functioning sociopaths. Many modern politicians and CEOs are suspected of being sociopaths, as sociopathy aids in the process of scrambling to the top of the success ladder while having no regard for the people they step on to get to the top. I personally suspect this is the cause for much of the selfish and outright abusive behavior that nobles and aristocrats subjected to their people, as well as the willingness to borrow money from Jews to advance their interests.

pic is related, it's the Voight-Kampff test from Blade Runner, a tool used to differentiate between synthetic humans (who lacked the genuine capacity for empathy) versus real humans.

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

Anonymous 02/29/16 (Mon) 15:28:32 80ffaa No.356

>>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".

Anonymous 03/03/16 (Thu) 07:48:11 d5db3b No.367

>>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.

Anonymous 03/03/16 (Thu) 16:25:41 80ffaa No.369

>>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.