Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[Genivaria]

Benjamin Disraeli is a contemporary of the 1800's, serfdom in the UK was dead by the 1600's.

Yes, but the poster was asserting that industrial revolution workers were a continuation of serfdom.

That....no. If anything the industrial revolution was one of the biggest factors in the death of serfdom.

[The Parkus Empire]

Except the conservatives traditionalists of that period tended to oppose the conditions of labor in that period. Benjamin Disraeli, the ultra monarchist, is a fine example. The truth is that the poor condition of serfs being on the lowest rung had to do with resources, but relatively, industrial revolution workers had it worse. Each family of serfs was obligated to render around two days a week of work on their lord's land (the work would be done by an individual representing the family, not the entire family), and the rest of the time they had to cultivate their own allotment and spend otherwise as they pleased. Serfs had no money, but the economy is not based very much on money in a peasant economy.

Oh I agree that lower class urbanites of the Industrial Revolution had it much worse than their peasant forefathers, but the point still stands that highly hierarchical societies tend to result in the lower classes (which inevitably compose the bulk of the population) receiving an awfully shoddy lot in life, regardless of whether or not the upper classes have some notion of noblesse oblige or sense of duty to the common man. Such conditions are almost a universal by-product of these systems, whether or not they are intended as such.

The only real exceptions are scenarios wherein the monarchy/system of nobility is substantially eroded to the point of irrelevance, with little more than symbolic value.

I think the problem is that you see the life of serfs as "awfully shoddy". It really wasn't compared subsistence farming generally. Serfs didn't like it because they couldn't leave and they had to render labor, but it's not like being regular subsistence farmers would make their quality of life change from living in hovels and working your ass off.

[Genivaria]

Oh I agree that lower class urbanites of the Industrial Revolution had it much worse than their peasant forefathers, but the point still stands that highly hierarchical societies tend to result in the lower classes (which inevitably compose the bulk of the population) receiving an awfully shoddy lot in life, regardless of whether or not the upper classes have some notion of noblesse oblige or sense of duty to the common man. Such conditions are almost a universal by-product of these systems, whether or not they are intended as such.

The only real exceptions are scenarios wherein the monarchy/system of nobility is substantially eroded to the point of irrelevance, with little more than symbolic value.

I think the problem is that you see the life of serfs as "awfully shoddy". It really wasn't compared subsistence farming generally. Serfs didn't like it because they couldn't leave and they had to render labor, but it's not like being regular subsistence farmers would make their quality of life change from living in hovels and working your ass off.

The general lack of rights in most cases is what made their lives shoddy.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think the problem is that you see the life of serfs as "awfully shoddy". It really wasn't compared subsistence farming generally. Serfs didn't like it because they couldn't leave and they had to render labor, but it's not like being regular subsistence farmers would make their quality of life change from living in hovels and working your ass off.

The general lack of rights in most cases is what made their lives shoddy.

Rights to do what?

[Genivaria]

The general lack of rights in most cases is what made their lives shoddy.

Rights to do what?

The right to leave for one, the right to move and seek out a different life.

[Erdogan in cool sunglasses]

Oh I agree that lower class urbanites of the Industrial Revolution had it much worse than their peasant forefathers, but the point still stands that highly hierarchical societies tend to result in the lower classes (which inevitably compose the bulk of the population) receiving an awfully shoddy lot in life, regardless of whether or not the upper classes have some notion of noblesse oblige or sense of duty to the common man. Such conditions are almost a universal by-product of these systems, whether or not they are intended as such.

The only real exceptions are scenarios wherein the monarchy/system of nobility is substantially eroded to the point of irrelevance, with little more than symbolic value.

I think the problem is that you see the life of serfs as "awfully shoddy". It really wasn't compared subsistence farming generally. Serfs didn't like it because they couldn't leave and they had to render labor, but it's not like being regular subsistence farmers would make their quality of life change from living in hovels and working your ass off.

Being a serf doesn't exactly mean the serf is unable to move. For example in Ottoman Empire serfs were able to move everywhere they want if only they paid a tax for their owner. That's one of the reasons of small Albanian presence in Egypt or Tunisia and some minorities in other post-Ottoman countries.

But honestly serfs had better life conditions than early industrial workers. Everyone would like to live in the hut with the family instead of workers' barracks. And the air in the countryside was much cleaner while the diseases caused by dirty air were quite common in cities by the time. Industrial revolution was made by blood of workers, that's why communists gained popularity.

[The Parkus Empire]

Rights to do what?

The right to leave for one, the right to move and seek out a different life.
And

Yeah, there was no right to "freedom of movement". But it was also dangerous for nobles to stray too far as they would be juicy targets for other nobles to ransom. The class that had the most freedom of movement really was merchants, and that was because they paid lucrative tolls to every province and city they passed through.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think the problem is that you see the life of serfs as "awfully shoddy". It really wasn't compared subsistence farming generally. Serfs didn't like it because they couldn't leave and they had to render labor, but it's not like being regular subsistence farmers would make their quality of life change from living in hovels and working your ass off.

Being a serf doesn't exactly mean the serf is unable to move. For example in Ottoman Empire serfs were able to move everywhere they want if only they paid a tax for their owner. That's one of the reasons of small Albanian presence in Egypt or Tunisia and some minorities in other post-Ottoman countries.

But honestly serfs had better life conditions than early industrial workers. Everyone would like to live in the hut with the family instead of workers' barracks. And the air in the countryside was much cleaner while the diseases caused by dirty air were quite common in cities by the time. Industrial revolution was made by blood of workers, that's why communists gained popularity.

Agreed.

[Genivaria]

The right to leave for one, the right to move and seek out a different life.
And

Yeah, there was no right to "freedom of movement". But it was also dangerous for nobles to stray too far as they would be juicy targets for other nobles to ransom. The class that had the most freedom of movement really was merchants, and that was because they paid lucrative tolls to every province and city they passed through.

Serfs were legally barred by their lords from leaving without paying a fine, nobles were not legally barred from leaving.
You're trying to equate legal right with 'oh I should bring some armed men with me'.

[Canadensia]

Oh I agree that lower class urbanites of the Industrial Revolution had it much worse than their peasant forefathers, but the point still stands that highly hierarchical societies tend to result in the lower classes (which inevitably compose the bulk of the population) receiving an awfully shoddy lot in life, regardless of whether or not the upper classes have some notion of noblesse oblige or sense of duty to the common man. Such conditions are almost a universal by-product of these systems, whether or not they are intended as such.

The only real exceptions are scenarios wherein the monarchy/system of nobility is substantially eroded to the point of irrelevance, with little more than symbolic value.

I think the problem is that you see the life of serfs as "awfully shoddy". It really wasn't compared subsistence farming generally. Serfs didn't like it because they couldn't leave and they had to render labor, but it's not like being regular subsistence farmers would make their quality of life change from living in hovels and working your ass off.

The general life of a serf (assuming they survived to adulthood, as there was generally about a 50% chance they'd die in childhood from disease or other causes) involved constant manual labour, lack of freedom of movement, practically non-existent rights aside from those provided by their vassalage and the looming prospect of having their entire village destroyed by bandits or roaming armies from which their feudal lord failed to protect them. The only down-time would come in winter, during which most serfs would be preoccupied with freezing their asses off or slowly starving from lack of stored food as a result of several bad harvests in a row.

It was a shit life.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yeah, there was no right to "freedom of movement". But it was also dangerous for nobles to stray too far as they would be juicy targets for other nobles to ransom. The class that had the most freedom of movement really was merchants, and that was because they paid lucrative tolls to every province and city they passed through.

Serfs were legally barred by their lords from leaving without paying a fine, nobles were not legally barred from leaving.
You're trying to equate legal right with 'oh I should bring some armed men with me'.

And if you bring armed men with you and enter a province that doesn't belong to you without invitation, it could be construed as an act of war.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think the problem is that you see the life of serfs as "awfully shoddy". It really wasn't compared subsistence farming generally. Serfs didn't like it because they couldn't leave and they had to render labor, but it's not like being regular subsistence farmers would make their quality of life change from living in hovels and working your ass off.

The general life of a serf (assuming they survived to adulthood, as there was generally about a 50% chance they'd die in childhood from disease or other causes) involved constant manual labour, lack of freedom of movement, practically non-existent rights aside from those provided by their vassalage and the looming prospect of having their entire village destroyed by bandits or roaming armies from which their feudal lord failed to protect them. The only down-time would come in winter, during which most serfs would be preoccupied with freezing their asses off or slowly starving from lack of stored food as a result of several bad harvests in a row.

It was a shit life.

It was a shit life because subsistence farming is a shit life. Subsistence farmers who weren't serfs then didn't have it much better.

[Genivaria]

Serfs were legally barred by their lords from leaving without paying a fine, nobles were not legally barred from leaving.
You're trying to equate legal right with 'oh I should bring some armed men with me'.

And if you bring armed men with you and enter a province that doesn't belong to you without invitation, it could be construed as an act of war.

How is this relevant at all?
Are you claiming that lords were barred from entering another lord's province now? I'm pretty sure that lords always had the right to keep their personal retainers around.

[Genivaria]

The general life of a serf (assuming they survived to adulthood, as there was generally about a 50% chance they'd die in childhood from disease or other causes) involved constant manual labour, lack of freedom of movement, practically non-existent rights aside from those provided by their vassalage and the looming prospect of having their entire village destroyed by bandits or roaming armies from which their feudal lord failed to protect them. The only down-time would come in winter, during which most serfs would be preoccupied with freezing their asses off or slowly starving from lack of stored food as a result of several bad harvests in a row.

It was a shit life.

It was a shit life because subsistence farming is a shit life. Subsistence farmers who weren't serfs then didn't have it much better.

Most don't have to give up an arbitrary portion of their crop for nothing.
Only what they had left were they allowed to sell at market.

[Canadensia]

The general life of a serf (assuming they survived to adulthood, as there was generally about a 50% chance they'd die in childhood from disease or other causes) involved constant manual labour, lack of freedom of movement, practically non-existent rights aside from those provided by their vassalage and the looming prospect of having their entire village destroyed by bandits or roaming armies from which their feudal lord failed to protect them. The only down-time would come in winter, during which most serfs would be preoccupied with freezing their asses off or slowly starving from lack of stored food as a result of several bad harvests in a row.

It was a shit life.

It was a shit life because subsistence farming is a shit life. Subsistence farmers who weren't serfs then didn't have it much better.

They at least had the freedom of movement and opportunity, however small, to make something of their lives.

And need I remind you that it was the constant squabbling and petty feuding of the nobility that caused Western civilization to degrade to that point in the first place.

[Hatterleigh]

Monarchism in the 21st century is an inconsequential matter. Spirited advocacy for it is nought but an exercise in rose-tinted romanticism.

Why is your text so small also just because something is never gonna be a real political ideology in the near future it doesn't mean people can't believe it

[Genivaria]

It was a shit life because subsistence farming is a shit life. Subsistence farmers who weren't serfs then didn't have it much better.

They at least had the freedom of movement and opportunity, however small, to make something of their lives.

And need I remind you that it was the constant squabbling and petty feuding of the nobility that caused Western civilization to degrade to that point in the first place.

The lower class meanwhile merely wish to be left the hell alone.

[The Parkus Empire]

Are you claiming that lords were barred from entering another lord's province now?

They were expected to state their business. Coming in unannounced with armed men wouldn't be taken as, "Oh, we're just taking a vacation." It would be taken as a raiding party come to hassle the peasants and steal shit.

[The Parkus Empire]

It was a shit life because subsistence farming is a shit life. Subsistence farmers who weren't serfs then didn't have it much better.

They at least had the freedom of movement and opportunity, however small, to make something of their lives.

And need I remind you that it was the constant squabbling and petty feuding of the nobility that caused Western civilization to degrade to that point in the first place.

They certainly didn't have freedom of movement. While they didn't have to pay a toll to leave, they had to pay a toll to wherever they went or passed through.

[Genivaria]

Monarchism in the 21st century is an inconsequential matter. Spirited advocacy for it is nought but an exercise in rose-tinted romanticism.

Why is your text so small also just because something is never gonna be a real political ideology in the near future it doesn't mean people can't believe it

Obviously people can believe it, just like there are people who think Islamism is a sensible political ideology.
Both people are wrong.

[Canadensia]

They at least had the freedom of movement and opportunity, however small, to make something of their lives.

And need I remind you that it was the constant squabbling and petty feuding of the nobility that caused Western civilization to degrade to that point in the first place.

The lower class meanwhile merely wish to be left the hell alone.

Pretty much, yeah.

'Course, it's worth noting that whenever peasant families managed to somehow elevate themselves to the ranks of nobility, they tended to be just as bad, eschewing their past lives in favour of the excesses of the nobles.

[Genivaria]

They at least had the freedom of movement and opportunity, however small, to make something of their lives.

And need I remind you that it was the constant squabbling and petty feuding of the nobility that caused Western civilization to degrade to that point in the first place.

They certainly didn't have freedom of movement. While they didn't have to pay a toll to leave, they had to pay a toll to wherever they went or passed through.

Um yes non-serf farmers had the ability to uproot themselves and move somewhere else.
All the evidence we need for that is that the industrial revolution happened, people were moving to the cities where all the new jobs were.

[Genivaria]

The lower class meanwhile merely wish to be left the hell alone.

Pretty much, yeah.

'Course, it's worth noting that whenever peasant families managed to somehow elevate themselves to the ranks of nobility, they tended to be just as bad, eschewing their past lives in favour of the excesses of the nobles.

Oh that's not surprising, as I've said before having power over people invites cruelty and excess.
Newly made nobles may be paragons of virtue, but their grandchildren likely will be raised with the noble sense of entitlement their grandparents lacked.

[The Parkus Empire]

They certainly didn't have freedom of movement. While they didn't have to pay a toll to leave, they had to pay a toll to wherever they went or passed through.

Um yes non-serf farmers had the ability to uproot themselves and move somewhere else.
All the evidence we need for that is that the industrial revolution happened, people were moving to the cities where all the new jobs were.

Yes, of course, they could abandon their land and travel elsewhere, but not without paying a tax to the places they traveled to. Each region under noble charged travelers (particularly merchants), and the noble collected that cash.

The industrial revolution started after most serfdom ended.

[Canadensia]

They at least had the freedom of movement and opportunity, however small, to make something of their lives.

And need I remind you that it was the constant squabbling and petty feuding of the nobility that caused Western civilization to degrade to that point in the first place.

They certainly didn't have freedom of movement. While they didn't have to pay a toll to leave, they had to pay a toll to wherever they went or passed through.

Which was still a substantial improvement on being legally denied this prospect almost in its entirety.

And having to provide a substantial portion of their crop and labour to their liege, as Geni already pointed out.