/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future★

>>1339 (OP)

Absolutely compatible. Celtic Ireland used to be almost anarchic despite having a king.

Not necessarily compatible. The king's purpose on Earth is to rule, and nothing limits the extent of his authority besides God and his (the King's) own prerogative. It is legitimate for him to consolidate authority in his own hands, just as it would be legitimate for him to decentralize authority. The so-called "anarchy" of the Medieval period was the consequence of the technology of the day, not an inherent quality of monarchy. The ruling styles of Charles I or Louis XIV are more representative of absolute rule.

>>1357

There's a story of Freidrich the Great having trees planted at one of his palaces which blocked the wind to a windmill of a nearby farm. The farmer took the king to court and won. I also love that at any time a messenger could be sent to the king for complaints and he'd the the action into his own hands. During one of the Silesian wars a town in east Prussia sent a messenger to the king because on of the town council members was being a dick (can't remember exactly what he did) and Freidrich wrote a letter himself telling that conselor to fuck off, and sent the messenger back.

>>1357

I’d agree with all of this. Property rights are a component of natural law which the King is bound to respect (just like all humans are).

Perhaps I made a distinction between natural law and minarchy; to me, minarchy implies that there are certain authorities that are technically, hierarchically below him that he is for some reason expected to obey. This would be like if a regional vassal, a local governor, or town council passed a law or writ that the monarch deemed inappropriate, and the monarch would somehow have no recourse for this.

This would be silly. The local and regional authorities are beholden to the King, not the other way around. The only authorities to which the King is subordinate are God (i.e. the natural law, such as property rights and so forth) and the vested religious authorities (the Pope or Patriarch).

>>1343

no iceland? https://sredniowiecznaislandia.com/english-summary/

>>1365

Okay, then I misunderstood you. Sorry for the rude reaction image, then.

>>1366

It didn't have a king, or not for several centuries. Later on, the Icelanders accepted the Norwegian king again.

My exposure to modern monarchy comes from libertarian communities that sometimes make the case that a monarchy is preferable because there is a single individual who is ultimately responsible for any state injustice against you, and who can be legally held responsible if the injustice is not corrected - rather than you just falling through the cracks of the system and getting the runaround from whichever department.

Is that mindset common among modern monarchists? If not, what purpose do you consider the monarch serving better than other forms of heads of state? Is a libertarian leaning common, or do modern monarchists tend to advocate for strong and fatherlike rulers?

In my opinion, minarchy is compatible with monarchy, however since it is bare minimum anything could really be compatible.