Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[Salus Maior]

It would be lovely if God actually removed said monarch then instead of leaving the nation to have to have a bloody revolution/civil war first.

Anyone religious would say that the failure of the monarchy to prevent revolution would mean that divine protection/providence for the monarchy has been lifted.

Which is true outside of Christian circles as well, if you've ever learned about the Mandate of Heaven.

[Ardoki]

What is a semi-constitutional monarchy? What are the various forms it could entail?

I'm not a monarchist, I'm just intrigued by that poll option.

[Salus Maior]

What is a semi-constitutional monarchy? What are the various forms it could entail?

I'm not a monarchist, I'm just intrigued by that poll option.

Probably a monarchy where the monarch can override the constitution but generally abides by it.

As for historical examples, nothing comes to mind.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What is a semi-constitutional monarchy? What are the various forms it could entail?

I'm not a monarchist, I'm just intrigued by that poll option.

Semi-Constitutional monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch retains executive power.

Think Kuwait and Jordan as examples.

[Nekokuni]

It would be lovely if God actually removed said monarch then instead of leaving the nation to have to have a bloody revolution/civil war first.

Anyone religious would say that the failure of the monarchy to prevent revolution would mean that divine protection/providence for the monarchy has been lifted.

Which is true outside of Christian circles as well, if you've ever learned about the Mandate of Heaven.

The Mandate of Heaven was merely a Confucian excuse for regicide and the replacement of the ruling dynasty.

[Ardoki]

What is a semi-constitutional monarchy? What are the various forms it could entail?

I'm not a monarchist, I'm just intrigued by that poll option.

Semi-Constitutional monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch retains executive power.

Isn't a constitutional monarchy any monarchy where the monarchy is limited by a constitution?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Semi-Constitutional monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch retains executive power.

Isn't a constitutional monarchy any monarchy where the monarchy is limited by a constitution?

Technically, but there are subsets of it, because that's such a broad category that it would be meaningless if left as it were. We wouldn't say that the Japanese monarchy and the Jordanian monarchy are similar institutions just because both have a constitution.

[Ardoki]

Isn't a constitutional monarchy any monarchy where the monarchy is limited by a constitution?

Technically, but there are subsets of it, because that's such a broad category that it would be meaningless if left as it were. We wouldn't say that the Japanese monarchy and the Jordanian monarchy are similar institutions just because both have a constitution.

The British and German monarchies were two main forms of it, right?

I know how the British monarchy operated. But how did the imperial German monarchy work? Was the government basically appointed by the emperor, with just a legislature democratically elected to approve things?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Technically, but there are subsets of it, because that's such a broad category that it would be meaningless if left as it were. We wouldn't say that the Japanese monarchy and the Jordanian monarchy are similar institutions just because both have a constitution.

The British and German monarchies were two main forms of it, right?

I know how the British monarchy operated. But how did the imperial German monarchy work? Was the government basically appointed by the emperor, with just a legislature democratically elected to approve things?

Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

[Ardoki]

The British and German monarchies were two main forms of it, right?

I know how the British monarchy operated. But how did the imperial German monarchy work? Was the government basically appointed by the emperor, with just a legislature democratically elected to approve things?

Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?

[Ardoki]

Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?

Not exactly, Constitutions still inherently limit power and constitutions can be expanded, so a monarch who holds vast power is inherently threatened by the concept of a constitution itself.

I am very much against Absolutism myself, but against the UK style of Constituionalism, nor the German Empire levels, which is far too autocratic in my eyes.
I favor a strong balance between the two.

I also strongly disagree with the idea of ruling without popular mandate. Forcing the creation of a Monarchy on a populace that does not want it is tyranny. And blood-monarchies, while inherently appealing to me, are ultimately a failure and lead to corruption, tyranny, and incompetence, something I despise. I prefer adoptive monarchies, myself. The idea is to to adopt the most qualified heir who most closely follows your values, to provide a force of stability, and to ensure the ideology doesn't deviate. However, that successor, is treated as family, not just politically, but genuinely.

Why have the ideology not deviate?
Simple:

My version is meant to be a check against radical extremism on both sides, as well as partisanship, allowing society to progress in any direction, whilst ensuring stability, a competent active government when democracy is gridlocked, a rallying cry for when society is divided over the elected government, virtue, morality, and to protect liberty.

It's the check to the failures of democracy and monarchy, and is designed to allow stability, combat corruption, incompetence, gridlock/division, and tyranny, while also not being too powerful in itself.

I'm still in the early conception stages of it's design, but those are the guidelines, and I'll likely be making multiple versions. My current, favored version is based on the USA Government Structure, with both an Elected President and Monarch.


I should stress that anyone who takes my ideas and forces them upon a country betray the very values it's based on, and if somehow, my ideology becomes popular, but people somehow abuse unforeseen consequences to become tyrants or to try to force it through tyranny and dictatorship, etc., and not Democratic means, then it was partially my failure for not accounting for it, but also I denounce them and would excommunicate them as well as demand they step down.

Granted, I'm not implying my ideas will be successful, but if they are, I want to lay down some groundwork now. I shall also be putting a similar warning in the official text, if I ever get that far.

Your system is very interesting. I'm not a monarchist, I think I would prefer the more meritocratic element of an adopted heir over a blood heir.

[Second Empire of America]

Wow edgy

I wanted to say something about that but I wasn't sure what I could say in response to it. To me America is not an oligarchy because the popular vote of each state does go towards the election of the President, but at the same time it's not a direct election for the office, but rather elects a body of people (The Electoral College) to vote for the desired candidate.

The Founding Fathers despised "Democracy", believing it to be tyranny by majority, but to say that America is ruled wholly by a select few (Oligarchy) is not quite correct, at least no more correct than it is in any other country.

The President lost the most recent election by 2.8 million votes and got to run the country anyway. The Senate is run mostly by rural states and gives next to no representation to large states like California and Texas. The House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the US government, is blatantly rigged by rampant redistricting fraud. The current opposition party could win the House elections by as much as +6% and still be cheated out of a majority. The Supreme Court is blatantly Oligarchial; Supreme Court justices rule for life with zero accountability. Whatever America is, it is undeniably not a democracy.

[Kowani]

I wanted to say something about that but I wasn't sure what I could say in response to it. To me America is not an oligarchy because the popular vote of each state does go towards the election of the President, but at the same time it's not a direct election for the office, but rather elects a body of people (The Electoral College) to vote for the desired candidate.

The Founding Fathers despised "Democracy", believing it to be tyranny by majority, but to say that America is ruled wholly by a select few (Oligarchy) is not quite correct, at least no more correct than it is in any other country.

The President lost the most recent election by 2.8 million votes and got to run the country anyway. The Senate is run mostly by rural states and gives next to no representation to large states like California and Texas. The House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the US government, is blatantly rigged by rampant redistricting fraud. The current opposition party could win the House elections by as much as +6% and still be cheated out of a majority. The Supreme Court is blatantly Oligarchial; Supreme Court justices rule for life with zero accountability. Whatever America is, it is undeniably not a democracy.

Yes, yes, the America is not a democracy argument, blah blah fucking blah. What’s next, are you going to say that the American left is not truly leftist as well?

[Frievolk]

The President lost the most recent election by 2.8 million votes and got to run the country anyway. The Senate is run mostly by rural states and gives next to no representation to large states like California and Texas. The House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the US government, is blatantly rigged by rampant redistricting fraud. The current opposition party could win the House elections by as much as +6% and still be cheated out of a majority. The Supreme Court is blatantly Oligarchial; Supreme Court justices rule for life with zero accountability. Whatever America is, it is undeniably not a democracy.

Yes, yes, the America is not a democracy argument, blah blah fucking blah. What’s next, are you going to say that the American left is not truly leftist as well?

This has got to be ironic.

[Erdogan in cool sunglasses]

When someone is able to rule as a king that means God supports him (because without this support he would lost his power). So definitely a monarch has a God given right to rule but it isn't a thing which makes a monarch for me.

To establish a dynasty monarch should be someone exceptional in the whole society, a true leader who knows what his people want and how to get it. Being a monarch is more alike serving the nation than tyranny (honestly this should apply to democratic politics too). When someone can't serve the people he never should be a monarch.

But his descendants have easier task to do. It's enough that they are born in the ruling family because of their ancestors braveness. But of course that applies only to the ideal world. When the descendants can't rule in the good way they should be dethroned.

Then what's the point?

Part of the idea behind monarchism is that 'the people' can make the wrong decisions for the nation and the monarch can override it. That being said, of course corruption has to be avoided in any government.

The point is that what is good for the people is usually not what they want. Monarch is able to make decisions which are good in the long term and create safe, rich and stable society which is satisfactory for the people (probably Saudi Arabia can fit to that description). In opposition to these democratic politicians have to focus on short-term work to win another election which often is bad for the people (Greece is the prominent example of that thinking).

[Bienenhalde]

Anyone religious would say that the failure of the monarchy to prevent revolution would mean that divine protection/providence for the monarchy has been lifted.

Which is true outside of Christian circles as well, if you've ever learned about the Mandate of Heaven.

The Mandate of Heaven was merely a Confucian excuse for regicide and the replacement of the ruling dynasty.

It might have been used that way...but that would not have been the original intention of early Confucians. A leader does not gain the Mandate of Heaven simply by seizing power. They must rule virtuously and adhere to the traditions and ethics of Confucianism.

[Nekokuni]

The Mandate of Heaven was merely a Confucian excuse for regicide and the replacement of the ruling dynasty.

Erm....
It actually precedes Confucius.

So I very much disagree with that, and the guy who replied with it being built on the idea of ruling virtuously is correct.
I myself am interested a similar mandate, but less divine, more populist, yet removed from elections, but also bound to democracy-so they can't abuse their power, nor be removed for having beliefs that one side disagrees with, etc.

Oops, my mistake. I've always heard it used in conjunction with Confucianism, and a lot of writers I read ascribed the concept to Mencius, so I figured that it had its roots in Confucianism (not necessarily Confucius). Though I still dispute that it was built on anything other than the desire to legitimize treason against the sovereign, while using eloquent and clever language.

The best solution, to me, would be to strengthen the pluralistic institutions that share power with the monarchy, since that would be the best means to put a check on autocratic power.

[Ardoki]

Your system is very interesting. I'm not a monarchist, I think I would prefer the more meritocratic element of an adopted heir over a blood heir.

Ah but you see, the very idea of a adoptive heir is to enforce meritocracy.

The following is a theoretical idea that may help the system but I see some big issues with it, so quite willing to scrap it:
To achieve this system, the monarch would need to treat everyone like family, and be recognized as everyone's father or brother. People should be taught to treat like family but to not simply be subservient. To respect their decisions, but think independently. That way, the monarch is respected, and people have an attachment to the monarch(Thus making these adoptions easier) but are willing to question them.


As I said, there are some obvious issues with the above idea, so that's not a system I really like, alternate ways of ensuring that the heir gets along with the adoptive father as well as continues to hold onto the ideals of the nation-as they must both be talented and hold onto those ideals-while allowing society to progress in any direction, would be welcome.

That's what I meant sorry. I think your idea is quite meritocratic, which I actually kind of don't think is too bad in principle.

[Blanco-Campeon]

tfw no President-for-Life like Hamilton wanted

[The Archregimancy]

Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?

I think that this discussion is perhaps making the common modern mistake of conflating a ceremonial monarchy with a constitutional monarchy.

The term 'constitutional monarchy' is, in modern political discussion, usually held to mean the types of ceremonial monarchy with a powerless figurehead common to most of the surviving modern European monarchies (some microstates and the Vatican apart).

However, this isn't entirely accurate. The semi-executive monarchies that were common in Europe in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries, where the monarch's power may have been constrained - but wasn't eliminated - were also constitutional monarchies. At its broadest, the term 'constitutional monarchy' is even functionally meaningless, since it can encompass both the ceremonial monarchy of the United Kingdom (a country that has no written constitution) and the absolute monarchy of Qatar (which does).

So a distinction needs to be made between the technical/historical and common meanings of 'constitutional monarchy'. The common meaning is largely restricted to the modern ceremonial form of symbolic figurehead monarchy; the technical/historical meaning applies to any monarchy whose power is defined by a constitution, which encompasses a far broader range of possibilities.

Attempts to conflate the two meanings as synonymous often leads to confusion - though the thread poll, to its credit, recognises the distinction.

[Bakery Hill]

Monarchism unites grandparents with investment proprties and their NEET grandchildren. It's a positive force for intergenerational cohesion.

[Frievolk]

Just something I'd appreciate if others could answer:
The British Monarchy might be the earliest modern example of a Constitutional Monarchy. It's possibly one of the main forms of constitutionalism for other aspiring monarchies that wished or wish to democratize. However, it doesn't have a Constitution.
Sure, it has legal constitutional texts (i.e. the Magna Carta, etc.), but it doesn't have a written, penned down Constitution that sets the contract between the Crown, the State, and the People. Should it, therefore, actually be called a "Constitutional Monarchy"? And if no, then what should it be called?

[Second Empire of America]

Just something I'd appreciate if others could answer:
The British Monarchy might be the earliest modern example of a Constitutional Monarchy. It's possibly one of the main forms of constitutionalism for other aspiring monarchies that wished or wish to democratize. However, it doesn't have a Constitution.
Sure, it has legal constitutional texts (i.e. the Magna Carta, etc.), but it doesn't have a written, penned down Constitution that sets the contract between the Crown, the State, and the People. Should it, therefore, actually be called a "Constitutional Monarchy"? And if no, then what should it be called?

I'd personally call it a "Ceremonial Monarchy". I like constitutional monarchies, but I dislike the name, because apart from your example, there are absolute monarchies that do have constitutions.

[Frievolk]

Just something I'd appreciate if others could answer:
The British Monarchy might be the earliest modern example of a Constitutional Monarchy. It's possibly one of the main forms of constitutionalism for other aspiring monarchies that wished or wish to democratize. However, it doesn't have a Constitution.
Sure, it has legal constitutional texts (i.e. the Magna Carta, etc.), but it doesn't have a written, penned down Constitution that sets the contract between the Crown, the State, and the People. Should it, therefore, actually be called a "Constitutional Monarchy"? And if no, then what should it be called?

I'd personally call it a "Ceremonial Monarchy". I like constitutional monarchies, but I dislike the name, because apart from your example, there are absolute monarchies that do have constitutions.

And yet "Ceremonial Monarchies" don't fit the term either. For example, Prussian Constitutionalism is decidedly constitutional, but it doesn't demote the crown into a mere ceremonial office. Same with most non-Western Constitutional Monarchies rn (i.e. Malaysia)

[Seraven]

Is it possible for French monarchy to be restored?