Monarchist Discussion Thread

[Distruzio]

A choice of liars is no perk compared to being saddled with someone always in fear of his life.

Hardly. I mean, unless your Monarch is as incompetent as Nicholas II or Louis XVI (or is it the XIV? I can't remember), they usually garner (or try to, at least) the support of the political and military elite, as do politicians today.

Rebellion is hardly an easy task in the face of a competent and willing monarch.

Not so. Remember, the stewardship (which is usually a family of common stock) and the ministers (whose purse strings are significantly effected by public satisfaction with the regime) wields great influence in the governing court. The Monarch never rules as a dictator does. The Monarch delegates so that they might be unburdened by such tedious activities.

Remember, you're counting on the elitism of the elite to markedly undermine their value in a nation. It's that very elitism that allows for such deference to public sentiment.

[Distruzio]

So what's the point of the argument from your perspective?

Simply that her ability to govern shouldn't be judged based on her time as monarch and the number of world leaders she's met.

And as I pointed out, that argument is absurd.

[Geilinor]

Hardly. I mean, unless your Monarch is as incompetent as Nicholas II or Louis XVI (or is it the XIV? I can't remember), they usually garner (or try to, at least) the support of the political and military elite, as do politicians today.

Rebellion is hardly an easy task in the face of a competent and willing monarch.

Not so. Remember, the stewardship (which is usually a family of common stock) and the ministers (whose purse strings are significantly effected by public satisfaction with the regime) wields great influence in the governing court. The Monarch never rules as a dictator does. The Monarch delegates so that they might be unburdened by such tedious activities.

Dictators must also attempt to keep favor among their supporters and make concessions to public sentiment, or else they will be deposed.

[Distruzio]

Not so. Remember, the stewardship (which is usually a family of common stock) and the ministers (whose purse strings are significantly effected by public satisfaction with the regime) wields great influence in the governing court. The Monarch never rules as a dictator does. The Monarch delegates so that they might be unburdened by such tedious activities.

Dictators must also attempt to keep favor among their supporters and make concessions to public sentiment, or else they will be deposed.

Indeed.

[Dangelia]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

[Menassa]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

A monarch serves it's people, even the kings of Judah were subject to judgement by the Sanhedrin, which they were not apart of... so that's my answer.

[Vazdania]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

What about the Divine Right of Kings?

[Lykens]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

Stupid. Caused the fall of several prominent monarchies that could have done the world much good.

[Maurepas]

I have been considering more monarchist thought lately(or at the very least doubting democracy as the best bastion of freedom as far as governance is concerned) and I do think that I could get behind the idea of a more US Style System, but with a Hereditary Monarch instead of an elected President.

If you could separate the position from the political squabbles that are inherent in trying to stand for reelection and being part of political parties I feel it could be more effective. Much more in line with what George Washington had in mind, tbqh, with his dislike of Political Parties and the like.

[Bleckonia]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

What about the Divine Right of Kings?

Kings do not get power from any sort of god, they get their power through the monarchical institution. The fact that someone happened to come out of "royalty's" uterus doesn't mean that they are a good ruler or that they automatically get divine right. Even a dictatorship is better than absolute monarchy because both are repressive, but at least dictators are chosen by ability to lead, not because of their genes.

[Maurepas]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

I prefer the more Platonic model of the "Philosopher King", I would think a King should have the interests and will of the people in mind, rather than simply ruling by "divine right".

[Imperial Avantia]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

I believe that a divine right can only be acquired by force, back in the ancient times, whenever rome would win a war, that would show others that they had the divine right of the "gods' too rule over the known world.

[Dangelia]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

I prefer the more Platonic model of the "Philosopher King", I would think a King should have the interests and will of the people in mind, rather than simply ruling by "divine right".

I agree.

[Dangelia]

I have been considering more monarchist thought lately(or at the very least doubting democracy as the best bastion of freedom as far as governance is concerned) and I do think that I could get behind the idea of a more US Style System, but with a Hereditary Monarch instead of an elected President.

If you could separate the position from the political squabbles that are inherent in trying to stand for reelection and being part of political parties I feel it could be more effective. Much more in line with what George Washington had in mind, tbqh, with his dislike of Political Parties and the like.

I would like to point out that in a hereditary monarchy, the heir apparent is taught from birth on how to lead a nation. So they can be more prepared than other politicians when it comes leading a nation. Because most politicians really started learning about politics in high school or college, but a monarch learns as soon as possible.

[Old Tyrannia]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

I believe in the Mandate of Heaven. Monarchs do not have an inalienable right to rule, however; they rule in the name of a higher power, be that God, Heaven, Allah, Amun-Ra or what have you, and they lose their legitimacy if they fail in the fulfillment of their duties.

[Agritum]

Just a curious question from a firmy republican Italian: If monarchy were to return in the Italian peninsula, who should rightfully be placed on the throne of the realm? The house of Savoy? Or the Bourbon in the south? Or maybe the Bonapartes?

[Old Tyrannia]

Just a curious question from a firmy republican Italian: If monarchy were to return in the Italian peninsula, who should rightfully be placed on the throne of the realm? The house of Savoy? Or the Bourbon in the south? Or maybe the Bonapartes?

In my fairytale dream world where rivers of chocolate ooze across the landscape beneath a sky filled with prancing winged unicorns, I'd like to see the south secede and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies reform under a Bourbon King, but more realistically you'd be looking at a restored Kingdom of Italy under the Savoys. Unfortunately, the House of Savoy has done little to forward its reputation since the May King's death.

[The USOT]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

I believe in the Mandate of Heaven. Monarchs do not have an inalienable right to rule, however; they rule in the name of a higher power, be that God, Heaven, Allah, Amun-Ra or what have you, and they lose their legitimacy if they fail in the fulfillment of their duties.

So a monarch should not be an atheist in your view?

[The USOT]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

Outdated.

In a world were irreligion is on the rise, being ordaned by an entity a significant amount of the population believe does not exist simply is not going to cut it. That does not mean a monarch could not/should not be a specific religion by any means, but more that good arguments for anything are not faith based.

[Benuty]

So, what do our fellow NSG Monarchist's think about the Divine Right of Kings.

Outdated.

In a world were irreligion is on the rise, being ordaned by an entity a significant amount of the population believe does not exist simply is not going to cut it. That does not mean a monarch could not/should not be a specific religion by any means, but more that good arguments for anything are not faith based.

Define "significant amount" ( I suppose it depends on the location of the country).

[Old Tyrannia]

I believe in the Mandate of Heaven. Monarchs do not have an inalienable right to rule, however; they rule in the name of a higher power, be that God, Heaven, Allah, Amun-Ra or what have you, and they lose their legitimacy if they fail in the fulfillment of their duties.

So a monarch should not be an atheist in your view?

That's an interesting question. No, not necessarily. I just believe that a higher power appoints monarchs and grants them more authority that is withdrawn if the monarch fails to fulfill their side of the covenant; hence it is moral to remove an incompetent or immoral monarch, but not a good one. I suppose it helps if the monarch themself believes this as well, but it's not really necessary for the monarch to be a good monarch.