Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Thanatttynia]

That is an extremely bad understanding of history and I don't think you understand what a warlord actually is. Most of the prominent dynasties that we remember today - the Windsors, Hapsburg's, Hohenzollern's, etc. were not founded by warlords.

Even if the individual dynasty did not, the monarchy as an institution generally did.
William the Conqueror was a warlord.

It is still just rule based on either force or consent or at least acquiescence of the people.
Or a combination of the above.

What kind of rule isn't based on forcing/manipulating the consent or acquiescence of the people?

This must be that sterling Gen Z post-ironic irony we hear so much about

I... I beg your pardon, but if I’m to be completely honest, I’m not sure what you don’t understand; again, when I mentioned that I abstain from recreational drug use, I was being sincere.

I was being facetious lol, sorry, it seemed like you were ironically asserting sincerity

[Diopolis]

This must be that sterling Gen Z post-ironic irony we hear so much about

I... I beg your pardon, but if I’m to be completely honest, I’m not sure what you don’t understand; again, when I mentioned that I abstain from recreational drug use, I was being sincere.

The way you phrased it was... Sheldon Cooper doing his best Spock impersonation.

[Napkizemlja]

Even though he wasn't a prolific writer, I want to give a shout out to Walter M. Miller Jr who was a terrific writer. A Canticle for Leibowitz is one of the greatest science fiction novels I have ever read and it deserves more praise and attention.

[Novus America]

Even if the individual dynasty did not, the monarchy as an institution generally did.
William the Conqueror was a warlord.

It is still just rule based on either force or consent or at least acquiescence of the people.
Or a combination of the above.

What kind of rule isn't based on forcing/manipulating the consent or acquiescence of the people?

I... I beg your pardon, but if I’m to be completely honest, I’m not sure what you don’t understand; again, when I mentioned that I abstain from recreational drug use, I was being sincere.

I was being facetious lol, sorry, it seemed like you were ironically asserting sincerity

None.
The problems is when monarchists claim some sort of moral superiority because it passed down a few generations of inbreeding.

[Hanafuridake]

Even if the individual dynasty did not, the monarchy as an institution generally did.

The institution doesn't exist separately from the people who founded it.

There are various theories about how ancient monarchies arose, many of them agricultural and sacral rather than martial.

William the Conqueror was a warlord.

William the Conqueror was a duke who was pushing his claim to the succession of the English throne. He doesn't fulfill the criterion most sociologists consider warlords to be.

[Novus America]

Even if the individual dynasty did not, the monarchy as an institution generally did.

The institution doesn't exist separately from the people who founded it.

There are various theories about how ancient monarchies arose, many of them agricultural and sacral rather than martial.

William the Conqueror was a warlord.

William the Conqueror was a duke who was pushing his claim to the succession of the English throne. He doesn't fulfill the criterion most sociologists consider warlords to be.

Rollo of Normandy was 100% warlord. Literally a Viking raider.
William’s dubious claims the the thrown were just cover for him to seize what he wanted by violence. As per family tradition.

Sometimes superstition plays a role, but ultimately it is about who can take and hold power, or at least hold the title with enough military or popular support to avoid overthrow.
Just because you pass it on to your descendants does not make it morally better.
It is just politics.

And actually older monarchies often did not follow a strict familial line of succession either.

[Hanafuridake]

Rollo of Normandy was 100% warlord. Literally a Viking raider.

From what I understand, a warlord is a leader with a private army who arises in a territory where the state is weakened. Rollo was a foreign raider who invaded France. I don't believe he can accurately be considered a warlord.

William’s dubious claims the the thrown were just cover for him to seize what he wanted by violence. As per family tradition.

William had a valid claim to the throne because of familial relations with the childless King Edward, who seems to have made him his heir. Of course, he didn't need persuading to want to become King of England, but being opportunistic doesn't make you a warlord. There was no breakdown of the state, no private armies, the things we see with warlordism. It was a struggle between two feudal rulers.

Sometimes superstition plays a role, but ultimately it is about who can take and hold power, or at least hold the title with enough military or popular support to avoid overthrow.

Rituals and taboos dominate primitive societies, there's no reason to believe that the religious figures who assumed political roles in them didn't live in fear of spirits and magic just as intensely as everyone else. Not everything is defined by hard power.

Just because you pass it on to your descendants does not make it morally better.
It is just politics.

Congratulations, you read The Prince.

[Kowani]

So, what I’m getting from this is fuck monarchism.

[Fahran]

RWDT regulars as films:

Me: Elizabeth (1998)

Swaglord: Brazil (1985)

UMN: Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)

Hanafuridake: Lady Snowblood (1973)

Fahran: Fidder on the Roof (1971)

Salus Maior: The Leopard (1963)

OEP: The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Nea Byzantia: 300 (2006)

Conserative Morality: Casablanca (1942)

Bienenhalde: Labyrinth (1986)

Bear Stearns: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Diopolis: Day of Wrath (1943)

Xenopolis: Transformers (2007)

Novus America: Team America: World Police (2004)

I'm open to suggestions for further listings.

Accurate. Also, why am I awake now? I should be sleeping so I can have a pool day tomorrow. Or can spend my morning decadently drinking mimosas at a cafe with friends I haven't seen in months and who may have married that guy who never left his hometown because of course she did... c'mon, Lauren. You deserve better.

On another note, I've been re-watching "Outlander", which I would not recommend due to its copious sexual violence, and it has renewed my interest in the history and politics surrounding the Jacobite Rising of 1745. I thought it might be interesting to discuss the significance and romanticism surrounding Bonnie Prince Charlie and his "Highland" army in a thread where you can't throw a shoe without hitting eight monarchists who would clap if the Queen dissolved Parliament tomorrow. Or if the House of Iturbide staged coup in Texas by some miraculous plague of humanity.

I'm struck, at times, by how near such a small rebellion came to toppling the Hanoverian monarchy. According to at least one article I've read, George II was on the cusp of fleeing the country soon after the Young Pretender moved into Northern England, following victories at Prestonpans. Some Cabinet officials and members of the nobility were allegedly contemplating defection to the Jacobites as well. It seems peculiar that a force of no more than 10,000 could have brought one of the world's great powers to its knees, especially when Culloden would occur several months later and would disperse any lingering doubts about the order that had arisen in the aftermath of the Act of Settlement 1701.

The Jacobites were often characterized as Catholics, though this was not necessarily the case, especially among the rank-and-file Scottish supporters, many of whom opposed the Acts of Union 1707. The participants in the Jacobite Rising of 1745 were a motley group with disparate political and social interests. Some have likewise attempted to re-brand them as the predecessors of Scottish nationalism, which I feel is similarly erroneous. Charles himself certainly wanted to seat his father on the throne of a united England and Scotland. Moving on though...

Who do you think had the right of it? The Hanoverians or the Jacobites? How do you think history would have changed had the Jacobites won as some would argue they nearly did? What do you think of the historical personalities wrapped up in these events? Was Charles as foolish as he's often portrayed in the modern age or was there some worthwhile appeal in this so-called "bonnie" young man who couldn't even speak English?

[Novus America]

Rollo of Normandy was 100% warlord. Literally a Viking raider.

From what I understand, a warlord is a leader with a private army who arises in a territory where the state is weakened. Rollo was a foreign raider who invaded France. I don't believe he can accurately be considered a warlord.

William’s dubious claims the the thrown were just cover for him to seize what he wanted by violence. As per family tradition.

William had a valid claim to the throne because of familial relations with the childless King Edward, who seems to have made him his heir. Of course, he didn't need persuading to want to become King of England, but being opportunistic doesn't make you a warlord. There was no breakdown of the state, no private armies, the things we see with warlordism. It was a struggle between two feudal rulers.

Sometimes superstition plays a role, but ultimately it is about who can take and hold power, or at least hold the title with enough military or popular support to avoid overthrow.

Rituals and taboos dominate primitive societies, there's no reason to believe that the religious figures who assumed political roles in them didn't live in fear of spirits and magic just as intensely as everyone else. Not everything is defined by hard power.

Just because you pass it on to your descendants does not make it morally better.
It is just politics.

Congratulations, you read The Prince.

Well the modern state and modern armies did not exist at the time, there was not a clear line between private and government militaries.
But Rollo had not state sanction (even by the standards of the time) when he started his campaign of raiding, rape and pillage.

He had a private army, the state was weakened, and he seized his title by rote extortion.

William also took power by force in a weakened state and did not follow the established norms of succession, being a bastard.

Sure primitive superstitions can be a useful tool to remain in power. But falls under using it to scare people and/or gain popular support.
Not just for monarchs.

Because nearly every monarchical line is repeatedly broken by people seizing power contrary to the rules of succession, at what point does a usurper/raider or their dynasty become a “legitimate” monarch?

[Diopolis]

RWDT regulars as films:

Me: Elizabeth (1998)

Swaglord: Brazil (1985)

UMN: Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)

Hanafuridake: Lady Snowblood (1973)

Fahran: Fidder on the Roof (1971)

Salus Maior: The Leopard (1963)

OEP: The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Nea Byzantia: 300 (2006)

Conserative Morality: Casablanca (1942)

Bienenhalde: Labyrinth (1986)

Bear Stearns: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Diopolis: Day of Wrath (1943)

Xenopolis: Transformers (2007)

Novus America: Team America: World Police (2004)

I'm open to suggestions for further listings.

Accurate. Also, why am I awake now? I should be sleeping so I can have a pool day tomorrow. Or can spend my morning decadently drinking mimosas at a cafe with friends I haven't seen in months and who may have married that guy who never left his hometown because of course she did... c'mon, Lauren. You deserve better.

On another note, I've been re-watching "Outlander", which I would not recommend due to its copious sexual violence, and it has renewed my interest in the history and politics surrounding the Jacobite Rising of 1745. I thought it might be interesting to discuss the significance and romanticism surrounding Bonnie Prince Charlie and his "Highland" army in a thread where you can't throw a shoe without hitting eight monarchists who would clap if the Queen dissolved Parliament tomorrow. Or if the House of Iturbide staged coup in Texas by some miraculous plague of humanity.

The closest I could see happening would be if Augustin had refused to give up power to Santa Ana, it turned into a civil war, and the royalists retrenched to the northern half of the country, resulting in two Mexicos.

I'm struck, at times, by how near such a small rebellion came to toppling the Hanoverian monarchy. According to at least one article I've read, George II was on the cusp of fleeing the country soon after the Young Pretender moved into Northern England, following victories at Prestonpans. Some Cabinet officials and members of the nobility were allegedly contemplating defection to the Jacobites as well. It seems peculiar that a force of no more than 10,000 could have brought one of the world's great powers to its knees, especially when Culloden would occur several months later and would disperse any lingering doubts about the order that had arisen in the aftermath of the Act of Settlement 1701.

The Jacobites were often characterized as Catholics, though this was not necessarily the case, especially among the rank-and-file Scottish supporters, many of whom opposed the Acts of Union 1707. The participants in the Jacobite Rising of 1745 were a motley group with disparate political and social interests. Some have likewise attempted to re-brand them as the predecessors of Scottish nationalism, which I feel is similarly erroneous. Charles himself certainly wanted to seat his father on the throne of a united England and Scotland. Moving on though...

Who do you think had the right of it? The Hanoverians or the Jacobites? How do you think history would have changed had the Jacobites won as some would argue they nearly did? What do you think of the historical personalities wrapped up in these events? Was Charles as foolish as he's often portrayed in the modern age or was there some worthwhile appeal in this so-called "bonnie" young man who couldn't even speak English?

Well obviously I support the Jacobite cause. But a major reason for its early successes was that the cream of the British army was in the middle of Germany fighting over succession of some monarchy that doesn't like tea quite as much, leaving the highlanders facing out of shape reservists.

[Nea Byzantia]

It is still just rule based on either force or consent or at least acquiescence of the people.
Or a combination of the above.

That's every Government ever - even your cherished Republic.

[Camelone]

So, what I’m getting from this is fuck monarchism.

Wow such good input. Bravo, bravo.

[Salus Maior]

Salus Maior: The Leopard (1963)

Huh, I've never seen that but from what I just looked up it looks interesting. Might give it a watch.

[Salus Maior]

The closest I could see happening would be if Augustin had refused to give up power to Santa Ana, it turned into a civil war, and the royalists retrenched to the northern half of the country, resulting in two Mexicos.

You could, by a stretch, support a Habsburg monarch of Texas.

Maximilian did nothing wrong.

[Nea Byzantia]

So, what I’m getting from this is fuck monarchism.

Filthy Republican...

[Diopolis]

The closest I could see happening would be if Augustin had refused to give up power to Santa Ana, it turned into a civil war, and the royalists retrenched to the northern half of the country, resulting in two Mexicos.

You could, by a stretch, support a Habsburg monarch of Texas.

Maximilian did nothing wrong.

Technically.
I much prefer to advocate for independence first, and try to get a monarch later.

[Nea Byzantia]

You could, by a stretch, support a Habsburg monarch of Texas.

Maximilian did nothing wrong.

Technically.
I much prefer to advocate for independence first, and try to get a monarch later.

So Maximilian could've been Emperor of Mexico and Texas...

[Diopolis]

Technically.
I much prefer to advocate for independence first, and try to get a monarch later.

So Maximilian could've been Emperor of Mexico and Texas...

It's a staggeringly unlikely possibility. Weirder than anything in Harry Turtledove(yes, this includes the ones with time travel and aliens), at a minimum.

[Salus Maior]

Technically.
I much prefer to advocate for independence first, and try to get a monarch later.

So Maximilian could've been Emperor of Mexico and Texas...

Well, at one point it was all Mexico.

[Diopolis]

So Maximilian could've been Emperor of Mexico and Texas...

Well, at one point it was all Mexico.

Like I said, the most likely scenario would be Augustin choosing to fight a civil war rather than abdicate, and eventually retrenching into a north(Texas, Southwest, Norteno parts of Mexico) and south Mexico.

[North German Realm]

So Maximilian could've been Emperor of Mexico and Texas...

Well, at one point it was all Mexico.

Not during the second Empire though.

[Novus America]

It is still just rule based on either force or consent or at least acquiescence of the people.
Or a combination of the above.

That's every Government ever - even your cherished Republic.

Indeed.
But it definitely demonstrates monarchy is not somehow morally superior.

Government by consent of the governed is legitimate.
In a way the queen of the UK is indirectly elected. The British people choose the line of succession through their parliament and if they wished could remove and replace her.

The fact that they do no not choose to do so gives her popular legitimacy.

Not some often changed, often broken hereditary system alone.

[Nea Byzantia]

That's every Government ever - even your cherished Republic.

Indeed.
But it definitely demonstrates monarchy is not somehow morally superior.

Government by consent of the governed is legitimate.
In a way the queen of the UK is indirectly elected. The British people choose the line of succession through their parliament and if they wished could remove and replace her.

The fact that they do no not choose to do so gives her popular legitimacy.

Not some often changed, often broken hereditary system alone.

If we're going to argue from a secularist, humanist political perspective, then you're right, Monarchy is not morally superior to Republicanism - but Monarchy has as much a Religious basis and function, as it does a secular, political one.

[Nea Byzantia]

Even though he wasn't a prolific writer, I want to give a shout out to Walter M. Miller Jr who was a terrific writer. A Canticle for Leibowitz is one of the greatest science fiction novels I have ever read and it deserves more praise and attention.

This sounds like a very interesting book...I will see if I can get my hands on it. Thanks.