No.2629
A flaring controversy among us monarchists is the ideal of a sovereignty, the power and authority behind a nation, and the ideal of a people, ancestors of a nation and subjects; both of whom, it is said consist together as a nation. The sovereign is the rightful inheritor of the state, the head of a family, and commander-in-chief.
Then popular sovereignty verse the idea of a popular sovereign, being the "Will of the People" verse "the German Emperor" or the ethnic ruler rather than the collective whim of a partisanship. Which office rules supreme, the partisanship or the sovereignty of monarchy? The fundamental question is whether the Constitution is of the monarchy, or the monarchy is of the Constitution; whether the Crown is of the Constitution, or the Constitution is of the Crown.
Which reigns supreme, the Constitution of the Crown? Does the Crown and Constitution consist together as a single unit? If so, how does this correlate? Could the Constitution and the Crown co-exist as a single sovereignty?
To constitutional monarchists, what is your perspective on this issue? How much should the authority of the monarchy be undermined?
Japan is a unique example. The Constitution takes a very powerful role.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2632
>>2629
lol just burn the constitution ngl fam
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2652
I see two interesting questions here.
Question 1: "Should all Kings be popular?" (in the sense of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_monarchy ) a.k.a., "Should all Kings rule or be considered ethnic in quality?"
I think if monarchy is to survive as institution it will have to, but it does not necessarily need to be–look at modern day Belgium with its Belgians, French, Walloons, Flemish, etc., etc..
Question 2: "Does the King derive his power from a constitution, or does the constitution derive its power from the King?"
I think the traditional form of this question is, "Are Kings appointed by God, and then the Kings grant rights, or does God grant rights, and the King is then informed by these rights?" This question is a more secular form, but I think a lot of the similar arguments for this older question still apply.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2697
>>2652
That's the point of having the Crown, anon.
And yes, the questions are seculiar, but they're strongly related. The Crown itself is a symbol of power which comes from God, and the authority of the Crown is actually an equal authority likewise as a constitution would have sovereignty over a nation.
My concern is which sovereign power reigns supreme… crown or constitution? (And yes, both authorities and offices connected to them are the sovereigns, as the executive office holds for a president.)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2698
Laws don't mean anything. If they did, monarchies in Europe would still have power because their power was once in constitution. Therefore, whole debate is pointless. We already know monarchy as actual functioning ruling institution is not upheld by constitution. Law is always subject to ruler, whether it's parliament or monarch. This is a simple fact. No reason to pretend otherwise.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2702
>>2698
>no reason to pretend otherwise
You see, anon, in British courts they uphold the sovereignty of the Crown. It does matter to me. The problem is the Queen is a docile older grandmother and doesn't have to wage a war with parliament. I believe power does come from the authority of the Crown, as the forces of parliament sometimes unjustly use it.. but there is still an essence of authority there.
Too many monarchists assert that parliament have all the power, but they ignore what sovereignty is. The truth is parliament is the thief of said power, who take the car keys and hijack what is supposed to be the monarch's rule. If you read Leviathan, Hobbes also asserts that the monarch has the ability to transfer the power to other institutions and judges with the SOVEREIGN POWER'S consent…
So, the sovereign power allows this force of parliament to use the authority of the crown whether they use it unjustly or justly. The issue is that parliament use their own sovereignty, called the constitution, to challenge the authority of the Crown. Supposedly the Constitution is subject to the Crown, but the era of political consent and mass politics distorts it. You see, parliament draws from popular consensus to challenge of a select number of people to challenge the people's own sovereignty. It's absurd.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2703
King Baudouin is a good example.
I think that's the monarch who refused to consent to abortion being allowed under his authority.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2704
Someday the sovereignty of the Crown is going to re-assert itself. It is a matter of waiting and that matter of the right monarch at the right time. Monarchists should allow Time to run its course and subject everything to its authority. TIME is what crushes ideology and foolish meritocracy. It is frankly a matter of time.
History will repeat itself.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2705
>>2702
Yes Elizabeth II is docile stupid cunt, now explain how come none of the other constitutional monarchs in Europe have real power either.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2706
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2707
You have to trust and hope that these circumstances will resolve themselves. Monarchs have power, but they live in a world that would isolate them from using power in every abuse of justice.
Queen Elizabeth II does enough to honor the tradition of Great Britain. You republicans are so power-hungry and have hungry meritocratic ideals and policy-making, it disgusts me. The Queen of the UK fulfills her duty as a monarch, maintains what traditions remain in a scrupulous and dishonorable society in this decadent era, and the Queen understands her sovereign power very well.
A good monarchist looks to a proper monarch who is a good father, a pious man, and a just authority in the land. A bad republican cares only about setting forward his tenets and grabbing all the power, hastily dashing off tradition and all discretion… for what policy might satisfy the partisans among him.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2708
Monarchy will resolve itself in another way. It takes the next heir and succession of crown princes to bring in a new rule. Eventually, an heir will arrive and use the authority of monarchy, ideally when the constitution is so weak and so futile and parliamentarians run into a crisis. There are enough chances for a monarchy to re-assert itself, but I said it was a matter of time and waiting.
I never said constitutional monarchies don't have power, but it's conflicted. There is real sovereign power, but the sovereignty is undermined under the guise of a constitution and assembly of politicians. The authority of the Crown is real in these monarchies, but the monarchs themselves are allowing and watching helplessly. The poltician's scepter is is media and the rock of the politician's authority is his ideas and promises. These things dissipate, but the media has always been a danger to monarchies since the French Revolution. Essentially, the political assemblies are taking the state for a joy ride and returning it to the monarchs in a crappy condition.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2720
I'm not one for theological arguments, but I do think there is some logic we can tease out from the fact that most theological arguments grant the monarch as sovereign as opposed to the constitution as sovereign.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2977
>>2720
I'd actually like to hear stronger non-theological arguments. I understand the desire for more arguments besides "It is God's will".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2994
>>2720
We have a Hobbes thread. Hobbes provides a secular basis for sovereignty of kings. It is very influential on a secular basis and I'm almost certain Hobbes inspired a few political constitutions for particular constitutional monarchies. It is secular in the sense of social consent, but it isn't necessarily democratic; what people often view in Hobbes as social consent is understood that the WHOLE body recognizes a political sovereignty. They need to re-define what consent is. My other issue is claims that Hobbes was an atheist. It seems doubtful despite what has been said. From my point of view, Hobbes seems to have provided a secular basis of argument for those who deny Divine Right of Kings and would argue against it on that basis. By all means, Hobbes was pro-monarchy.
If you want a good balance between Divine Right and secularism, Joseph de Maistre makes the perfect middleground pitch and states that both are true and it has a hierarchy in itself. Maistre agreed with Hobbes point of view from certain angles, but Maistre still uplifted the notion of the divine at work. As for how Divine Right is understood, it is often attributed that monarchs rule by the grace of God as any other government might rule. Their grace and willpower allows them to make decisions at their own consequences.
What I love is everything Hobbes has to say about honor. If you look around chapter X of Leviathan it has many details about honor and another book called De Cive outright outlines it. For some reason I believe Hobbes picked up and incorporated notions of chivalry in his political theory and I find that admirable.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2995
Maistre makes the case here.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2996
If you want to lean in the direction of the Divine Right of Kings aspect of monarchies, Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha and Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet's Politics drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture. Despite what criticism Patriarcha receives, the book provides invaluable insights on the institution of monarchy. It's worth a read and is very short. I have not read the latter yet. I'm introducing these for newfags who might lurk and need to understand a few insights.
PDFs are available in the reading list thread. I will post here.
Politics drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Bossuet--Politics.pdf
Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/filmer-patriarcha-or-the-natural-power-of-kings
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3006
>>2977
There is a few in the FAQ, but fwiw, me as well.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.