/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future

>>3749

>do commoners have a moral obligation to serve a king that is deliberately working against the best interests of the nation?

Yes, and national interests are hard to define. Unless you jump into extreme hypothetical situations with the king opening up borders and doing all this wild stuff we see in the age of republics. For most cases, it is best to be loyal and obedient.

>best interests of the nation

However you define this, I wouldn't understand. This could really be dependent on circumstances and those always could go for best or worst. A king could become a vassal and have a foreign presence, but the king is still someone to be loyal to and you can still oppose the foreign presence. There are real monarchists who have done this and became martyrs for their royalty.

Unless a new king arrives, overtaking the current king as a legitimate authority, I don't see why anyone should. Popular sovereignty doesn't have a single interest except for basic comforts and this usually combines with the monarchy's interest. Hobbes explains in Leviathan that a monarchy doesn't depend on the benefit of the monarch or the subjects. Both may benefit from having justice, for example.

>>3749

If a king tells you to do something immoral, you are okay to refuse. If you are punished, you will suffer and become a martyr. A good example is Thomas More, who became a martyr and still respected his king's authority.

I apologize for raping you with Mad Monarchist quotes. I collect these and continue his tradition of pissing people off with anime stuff as a means of honoring him. Well, >>3749 as this quote suggests, you could always deal with officials around the royalty and dismantle their influence. This could be anyone in power or anything subversive.