Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[Salus Maior]

Are Caliphates monarchy enough for this thread?

Probably. I don't really know much about the traditions behind the Caliphate though.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yeah, just like the Republic crushed Franco

Did Republican Spain have the majority?

Yep, they won the elections, hence why Franco and friends rebelled.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Are Caliphates monarchy enough for this thread?

Monarch af

Are Caliphates monarchy enough for this thread?

Probably. I don't really know much about the traditions behind the Caliphate though.

Fits the bill. Ruler, sovereign, representative of the nation (Ummah), keeper of the faith, etc.

[Felichita]

Thoughts on De Toqueville's thoughts about modern monarchism?

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch17.htm

If absolute power were re-established amongst the democratic nations of Europe, I am persuaded that it would assume a new form, and appear under features unknown to our forefathers. There was a time in Europe when the laws and the consent of the people had invested princes with almost unlimited authority; but they scarcely ever availed themselves of it. I do not speak of the prerogatives of the nobility, of the authority of supreme courts of justice, of corporations and their chartered rights, or of provincial privileges, which served to break the blows of the sovereign authority, and to maintain a spirit of resistance in the nation. Independently of these political institutions – which, however opposed they might be to personal liberty, served to keep alive the love of freedom in the mind of the public, and which may be esteemed to have been useful in this respect – the manners and opinions of the nation confined the royal authority within barriers which were not less powerful, although they were less conspicuous. Religion, the affections of the people, the benevolence of the prince, the sense of honor, family pride, provincial prejudices, custom, and public opinion limited the power of kings, and restrained their authority within an invisible circle. The constitution of nations was despotic at that time, but their manners were free. Princes had the right, but they had neither the means nor the desire, of doing whatever they pleased.

But what now remains of those barriers which formerly arrested tyranny? Since religion has lost its empire over the souls of men, the most prominent boundary that divided good from evil is overthrown; everything seems doubtful and indeterminate in the modern world; kings and nations are guided by chance, and none can say where are the natural limits of despotism and the bounds of licence. Long revolutions have forever destroyed the respect which surrounded the rulers of the state; and since they have been relieved from the burden of public esteem, princes may henceforward surrender themselves without fear to the intoxication of arbitrary power.

When once the spell of royalty is broken in the tumult of revolution, when successive monarchs have crossed the throne, so as alternately to display to the people the weakness of their right and the harshness of their power, the sovereign is no longer regarded vt any as the father of the state, and he is feared by all as its master. If he is weak, he is despised; if he is strong he is detested. He is himself full of animosity and alarm; he finds that he is a stranger in his own country, and he treats his subjects like conquered enemies.

...

The annals of France furnish nothing analogous to the condition in which that country might then be thrown. But it may more aptly be assimilated to the times of old, and to those hideous eras of Roman oppression, when the manners of the people were corrupted, their traditions obliterated, their habits destroyed, their opinions shaken, and freedom, expelled from the laws, could find no refuge in the land; when nothing protected the citizens, and the citizens no longer protected themselves; when human nature was the sport of man, and princes wearied out the clemency of Heaven before they exhausted the patience of their subjects. Those who hope to revive the monarchy of Henry IV or of Louis XIV, appear to me to be afflicted with mental blindness; and when I consider the present condition of several European nations – a condition to which all the others tend – I am led to believe that they will soon be left with no other alternative than democratic liberty, or the tyranny of the Caesars.

[The Parkus Empire]

Thoughts on De Toqueville's thoughts about modern monarchism?

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch17.htm

If absolute power were re-established amongst the democratic nations of Europe, I am persuaded that it would assume a new form, and appear under features unknown to our forefathers. There was a time in Europe when the laws and the consent of the people had invested princes with almost unlimited authority; but they scarcely ever availed themselves of it. I do not speak of the prerogatives of the nobility, of the authority of supreme courts of justice, of corporations and their chartered rights, or of provincial privileges, which served to break the blows of the sovereign authority, and to maintain a spirit of resistance in the nation. Independently of these political institutions – which, however opposed they might be to personal liberty, served to keep alive the love of freedom in the mind of the public, and which may be esteemed to have been useful in this respect – the manners and opinions of the nation confined the royal authority within barriers which were not less powerful, although they were less conspicuous. Religion, the affections of the people, the benevolence of the prince, the sense of honor, family pride, provincial prejudices, custom, and public opinion limited the power of kings, and restrained their authority within an invisible circle. The constitution of nations was despotic at that time, but their manners were free. Princes had the right, but they had neither the means nor the desire, of doing whatever they pleased.

But what now remains of those barriers which formerly arrested tyranny? Since religion has lost its empire over the souls of men, the most prominent boundary that divided good from evil is overthrown; everything seems doubtful and indeterminate in the modern world; kings and nations are guided by chance, and none can say where are the natural limits of despotism and the bounds of licence. Long revolutions have forever destroyed the respect which surrounded the rulers of the state; and since they have been relieved from the burden of public esteem, princes may henceforward surrender themselves without fear to the intoxication of arbitrary power.

When once the spell of royalty is broken in the tumult of revolution, when successive monarchs have crossed the throne, so as alternately to display to the people the weakness of their right and the harshness of their power, the sovereign is no longer regarded vt any as the father of the state, and he is feared by all as its master. If he is weak, he is despised; if he is strong he is detested. He is himself full of animosity and alarm; he finds that he is a stranger in his own country, and he treats his subjects like conquered enemies.

...

The annals of France furnish nothing analogous to the condition in which that country might then be thrown. But it may more aptly be assimilated to the times of old, and to those hideous eras of Roman oppression, when the manners of the people were corrupted, their traditions obliterated, their habits destroyed, their opinions shaken, and freedom, expelled from the laws, could find no refuge in the land; when nothing protected the citizens, and the citizens no longer protected themselves; when human nature was the sport of man, and princes wearied out the clemency of Heaven before they exhausted the patience of their subjects. Those who hope to revive the monarchy of Henry IV or of Louis XIV, appear to me to be afflicted with mental blindness; and when I consider the present condition of several European nations – a condition to which all the others tend – I am led to believe that they will soon be left with no other alternative than democratic liberty, or the tyranny of the Caesars.

He is quite correct. Monarchy will come back, but in new lines, possibly with different terms. Just like "king" came from the name Charlamagne, and kaiser and czar came from the name Caesar, so will the new term come from someone's name. And our chance for democratic liberty is passed already, which Tocqueville warned was jeopardized by the nanny state.

[Salus Maior]

He is quite correct. Monarchy will come back, but in new lines, possibly with different terms. Just like "king" came from the name Charlamagne, and kaiser and czar came from the name Caesar, so will the new term come from someone's name. And our chance for democratic liberty is passed already, which Tocqueville warned was jeopardized by the nanny state.

Probably end up being CEO's of some kind.

[Reikoku]

He is quite correct. Monarchy will come back, but in new lines, possibly with different terms. Just like "king" came from the name Charlamagne, and kaiser and czar came from the name Caesar, so will the new term come from someone's name.

Modern people seem way too lazy and lethargic for something like that to happen, to be honest.

[Salus Maior]

He is quite correct. Monarchy will come back, but in new lines, possibly with different terms. Just like "king" came from the name Charlamagne, and kaiser and czar came from the name Caesar, so will the new term come from someone's name.

Modern people seem way too lazy and lethargic for something like that to happen, to be honest.

The masses are, sure (at least with Westerners). But it seems like the wealthy corporate owners are eager and quite willing to extend their power an control as far as they can.

[The Parkus Empire]

He is quite correct. Monarchy will come back, but in new lines, possibly with different terms. Just like "king" came from the name Charlamagne, and kaiser and czar came from the name Caesar, so will the new term come from someone's name. And our chance for democratic liberty is passed already, which Tocqueville warned was jeopardized by the nanny state.

Probably end up being CEO's of some kind.

Nope. Just the opposite, they (like Julius Caesar) will be populists or backed by the military. CEO's aren't shit when things get really bad, they rely on consent for their power. Their paper money won't mean shit if serious men with guns seize grain and oil.

[Felichita]

Thoughts on De Toqueville's thoughts about modern monarchism?

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch17.htm

If absolute power were re-established amongst the democratic nations of Europe, I am persuaded that it would assume a new form, and appear under features unknown to our forefathers. There was a time in Europe when the laws and the consent of the people had invested princes with almost unlimited authority; but they scarcely ever availed themselves of it. I do not speak of the prerogatives of the nobility, of the authority of supreme courts of justice, of corporations and their chartered rights, or of provincial privileges, which served to break the blows of the sovereign authority, and to maintain a spirit of resistance in the nation. Independently of these political institutions – which, however opposed they might be to personal liberty, served to keep alive the love of freedom in the mind of the public, and which may be esteemed to have been useful in this respect – the manners and opinions of the nation confined the royal authority within barriers which were not less powerful, although they were less conspicuous. Religion, the affections of the people, the benevolence of the prince, the sense of honor, family pride, provincial prejudices, custom, and public opinion limited the power of kings, and restrained their authority within an invisible circle. The constitution of nations was despotic at that time, but their manners were free. Princes had the right, but they had neither the means nor the desire, of doing whatever they pleased.

But what now remains of those barriers which formerly arrested tyranny? Since religion has lost its empire over the souls of men, the most prominent boundary that divided good from evil is overthrown; everything seems doubtful and indeterminate in the modern world; kings and nations are guided by chance, and none can say where are the natural limits of despotism and the bounds of licence. Long revolutions have forever destroyed the respect which surrounded the rulers of the state; and since they have been relieved from the burden of public esteem, princes may henceforward surrender themselves without fear to the intoxication of arbitrary power.

When once the spell of royalty is broken in the tumult of revolution, when successive monarchs have crossed the throne, so as alternately to display to the people the weakness of their right and the harshness of their power, the sovereign is no longer regarded vt any as the father of the state, and he is feared by all as its master. If he is weak, he is despised; if he is strong he is detested. He is himself full of animosity and alarm; he finds that he is a stranger in his own country, and he treats his subjects like conquered enemies.

...

The annals of France furnish nothing analogous to the condition in which that country might then be thrown. But it may more aptly be assimilated to the times of old, and to those hideous eras of Roman oppression, when the manners of the people were corrupted, their traditions obliterated, their habits destroyed, their opinions shaken, and freedom, expelled from the laws, could find no refuge in the land; when nothing protected the citizens, and the citizens no longer protected themselves; when human nature was the sport of man, and princes wearied out the clemency of Heaven before they exhausted the patience of their subjects. Those who hope to revive the monarchy of Henry IV or of Louis XIV, appear to me to be afflicted with mental blindness; and when I consider the present condition of several European nations – a condition to which all the others tend – I am led to believe that they will soon be left with no other alternative than democratic liberty, or the tyranny of the Caesars.

He is quite correct. Monarchy will come back, but in new lines, possibly with different terms. Just like "king" came from the name Charlamagne, and kaiser and czar came from the name Caesar, so will the new term come from someone's name. And our chance for democratic liberty is passed already, which Tocqueville warned was jeopardized by the nanny state.

But do you think they would be arbitrary and corrupt like how he claims?

[Reikoku]

Probably end up being CEO's of some kind.

Nope. Just the opposite, they (like Julius Caesar) will be populists or backed by the military. CEO's aren't shit when things get really bad, they rely on consent for their power. Their paper money won't mean shit if serious men with guns seize grain and oil.

That's an excellent point. We've seen it historically countless times.

[The Parkus Empire]

He is quite correct. Monarchy will come back, but in new lines, possibly with different terms. Just like "king" came from the name Charlamagne, and kaiser and czar came from the name Caesar, so will the new term come from someone's name. And our chance for democratic liberty is passed already, which Tocqueville warned was jeopardized by the nanny state.

But do you think they would be arbitrary and corrupt like how he claims?

The pure majority is just as arbitrary and corrupt. Tocqueville would shriek in dispair if he saw that people on state assistance could vote. Even the government of Revolutionary France apprortioned representation of districts according to to how much they paid in taxes, and J.S. Mill, the radical, said the idea of people on welfare voting would be crazy. Tocqueville would say we are ruled by a corrupt and arbitrary mob

[The Parkus Empire]

Nope. Just the opposite, they (like Julius Caesar) will be populists or backed by the military. CEO's aren't shit when things get really bad, they rely on consent for their power. Their paper money won't mean shit if serious men with guns seize grain and oil.

That's an excellent point. We've seen it historically countless times.

And it will happen again because liberalism, capitalism included, is completely blind to the extensive coercion holding things together. It's like the Michael Crichton stories where scientists become victims of the forces of nature because they refused to see what they're dealing with. Same here, except the force is human nature.

[Bienenhalde]

Probably end up being CEO's of some kind.

Nope. Just the opposite, they (like Julius Caesar) will be populists or backed by the military. CEO's aren't shit when things get really bad, they rely on consent for their power. Their paper money won't mean shit if serious men with guns seize grain and oil.

Neither CEOs nor corrupt populist demogogues have the necessary sense of honor and nobility of spirit to attain true kingship.

[Torrocca]

Nope. Just the opposite, they (like Julius Caesar) will be populists or backed by the military. CEO's aren't shit when things get really bad, they rely on consent for their power. Their paper money won't mean shit if serious men with guns seize grain and oil.

Neither CEOs nor corrupt populist demogogues have the necessary sense of honor and nobility of spirit to attain true kingship.

*Glances at Charles II of Spain*

Hmm, yep, those CEOs are totally worse than centuries of inbreeding producing the Spanish Banana, AKA the Hispania Acuminata. They're really just the same in terms of sheer fuckery btw

[Bienenhalde]

Neither CEOs nor corrupt populist demogogues have the necessary sense of honor and nobility of spirit to attain true kingship.

*Glances at Charles II of Spain*

Hmm, yep, those CEOs are totally worse than centuries of inbreeding producing the Spanish Banana, AKA the Hispania Acuminata. They're really just the same in terms of sheer fuckery btw

Charles II was not the founder of a dynasty. And I question the wisdom of allowing him to even accede to the throne by inheritance.

[Torrocca]

*Glances at Charles II of Spain*

Hmm, yep, those CEOs are totally worse than centuries of inbreeding producing the Spanish Banana, AKA the Hispania Acuminata. They're really just the same in terms of sheer fuckery btw

Charles II was not the founder of a dynasty. And I question the wisdom of allowing him to even accede to the throne by inheritance.

Nope, just the byproduct of centuries of incest practiced by said dynasty, starting with its founders.

[Bienenhalde]

Charles II was not the founder of a dynasty. And I question the wisdom of allowing him to even accede to the throne by inheritance.

Nope, just the byproduct of centuries of incest practiced by said dynasty, starting with its founders.

Also, I do not approve of any man, king or commoner, marrying his own niece or vice versa, but fortunately such a thing is not common among modern royalty.

[Frievolk]

Nope, just the byproduct of centuries of incest practiced by said dynasty, starting with its founders.

Also, I do not approve of any man, king or commoner, marrying his own niece or vice versa, but fortunately such a thing is not common among modern royalty.

That's because modern royalty just sits on their throne looking pretty, without much power. IF the revolution of 1789, and then the revolutions of 1848 hadn't happened, the modern monarchs would still be doing that

[The Parkus Empire]

Nope. Just the opposite, they (like Julius Caesar) will be populists or backed by the military. CEO's aren't shit when things get really bad, they rely on consent for their power. Their paper money won't mean shit if serious men with guns seize grain and oil.

Neither CEOs nor corrupt populist demogogues have the necessary sense of honor and nobility of spirit to attain true kingship.

Lol, unlike William the Bastard?

[Frievolk]

Neither CEOs nor corrupt populist demogogues have the necessary sense of honor and nobility of spirit to attain true kingship.

Lol, unlike William the Bastard?

'sense of honor and nobility of spirit' are just feudal words for "has money and people fear him" lol.
The Entire point of monarchy was that they had 'heavenly mandate' for their kingship. We're talking about People who unironically believe they're chosen by god (and they're so staunch in their belief they refuse the office of an Emperor because people tried to give it to them)

[The Parkus Empire]

Lol, unlike William the Bastard?

'sense of honor and nobility of spirit' are just feudal words for "has money and people fear him" lol.
The Entire point of monarchy was that they had 'heavenly mandate' for their kingship. We're talking about People who unironically believe they're chosen by god (and they're so staunch in their belief they refuse the office of an Emperor because people tried to give it to them)

Negative. The "divine right of kings" as a meme started as a way for monarchs to assert their power over the aristocracy (and it became a preached doctrine during the European Renaissance, not during the Middle Ages), it really had nothing to do with subjugating serfs, which of course was done by all feudal lords, not just kings.

[Frievolk]

'sense of honor and nobility of spirit' are just feudal words for "has money and people fear him" lol.
The Entire point of monarchy was that they had 'heavenly mandate' for their kingship. We're talking about People who unironically believe they're chosen by god (and they're so staunch in their belief they refuse the office of an Emperor because people tried to give it to them)

Negative. The "divine right of kings" as a meme started as a way for monarchs to assert their power over the aristocracy (and it became a preached doctrine during the European Renaissance, not during the Middle Ages), it really had nothing to do with subjugating serfs, which of course was done by all feudal lords, not just kings.

I didn't say the Divine Right of Kings was a feudal concept, I said "sense of honor and nobility of spirit" were.

[The Parkus Empire]

Negative. The "divine right of kings" as a meme started as a way for monarchs to assert their power over the aristocracy (and it became a preached doctrine during the European Renaissance, not during the Middle Ages), it really had nothing to do with subjugating serfs, which of course was done by all feudal lords, not just kings.

I didn't say the Divine Right of Kings was a feudal concept, I said "sense of honor and nobility of spirit" were.

You said "heavenly mandate" which I took for "divine right of kings".

[Frievolk]

I didn't say the Divine Right of Kings was a feudal concept, I said "sense of honor and nobility of spirit" were.

You said "heavenly mandate" which I took for "divine right of kings".

I did say "heavenly mandate" and I did mean divine right of kings.
I just didn't say it was a feudal concept. The thing I did say was a feudal concept (Which, I am probably wrong about) was the "sense of honor and nobility of spirit"