[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / doomer ]

/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future

Monarchy news and discussion
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 4 per post.


The King is dead! Long live the King!

File: c8ede7708f0cbaa⋯.jpg (47.02 KB, 523x523, 1:1, 88812058129058_300x300_1_4….jpg)

 No.4067

TO Constitutional Monarchists

>Where does the crown, as a symbol, belong in a constitutional monarchy? What does it symbolize and where does it benefit over the constitution; is it more important than the constitution?

The monarchical equivalent of a constitution is its crown. It is the final authority and symbol of monarchy. The sovereignty survives around it as an instrument of organic rule. A crown is what God gives and what people receive. It is the traditional and most legitimate governments to have crowns instead of constitutions. It is what sovereignty is made of. Between a people and justice, the crown remains a symbol of humility and heritage. Concrete blood over intangible ideals. It is designed to be worn and allow for civil order and laws. It is divine and spiritual. It represents a pan-European sovereign status belonging to royalty since long ago.

<How could a crown be anything like a constitution, OP?

Let me answer this. It is the authority behind sovereign nations. A constitution is no different than a crown. It captures the same oath and duty, the responsibility to the sovereign's source of power, and the emblem of justice.

<OP, there are no words, no articles, no dogma, and no ideologies within a crown

Because a crown is for organic, traditional government and traditional authority. By traditional authority, that is the traditions handed down from the crown from monarch to crown prince. The royal's constitution is his ancestral wisdom; the achievements of father and grandfather, great ancestor and mighty heroes of the past. Their heritage is their guideline for all aspirations. It is unwritten. The monarchy, for what it is, rather than a state is a royal household and operates within this structure. The monarchy doesn't depend on voting and political activism, or dividing the multitude into political castes or partisanships. It doesn't come about through monarchist parties. It isn't social contract theory, for the most part, that brings a monarchy. It is who is born and how this generational growth will bring individual sovereigns. The birth of a new royal to succeed and look back to the achievements of their ancestors. The crown succeeds the constitution in spirit and individual power.

Questions

Answer whichever #number interests you.

>1. In a constitutional monarchy, how much authority belongs to the crown over the constitution?

>2. What does the crown represent and mean to constitutional monarchists. Those who have a place for constitution and crown.

>3. How is crown superior to constitution?

>4. How is constitution superior to crown?

>5. On your input, whether it be crown or constitution, which of these do you make the final authority and why?

>6. How could the present dilemma of unbalanced constitutional authority match with the crown authority of monarchs? Most constitutional monarchists want a balance. How do you make a balance?

>7. Absolute or parliamentarian? (As in still valuing the absolute quality of a monarchy or taking parliamentarianism)

>8. Stance on divine right vs social contract theory

This thread will go to others to discuss the symbols of monarchy, like crown, scepter, orb, and other traditional regalia.

 No.4090

>1. In a constitutional monarchy, how much authority belongs to the crown over the constitution?

I'd say that the constitution is supposed to protect the crown againts kings, who are sinful humans like all of us. King can be a rebel and a revolutionary just like common people. Rulers of Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, England etc. rebelled againts their ruler (God). King of Spain destroyed all of Franco's legacy by creating a democracy. The constitution limits the king just like dogmas of the Church limit the pope.

I think that it also answers numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5

>6. How could the present dilemma of unbalanced constitutional authority match with the crown authority of monarchs? Most constitutional monarchists want a balance. How do you make a balance?

I'm not sure what is meant here, but I'll go with interpretation: "how do you balance the authority of those executing the constitutional power with the power of a monarch"

I would give the power to parliament, with house of commons (no interest in monarchy, but also no interest in defending the king that is wrong) and house of lords (interest in monarchy, but interest in defending the king that is wrong). These should balance out, I think

>7. Absolute or parliamentarian? (As in still valuing the absolute quality of a monarchy or taking parliamentarianism)

My answer to number 6 means that I would establish some form of parliament, but it shouldn't have any power except checking if king is in line with constitution. Taking into consideration how rarely such parliament would be needed (king should we might as well call it an (almost) absolute monarchy.

>8. Stance on divine right vs social contract theory

Divine right


 No.4272

>>4090

Interesting stance.


 No.4455

To be honest, a political constitution has some benefits. It allows the monarch to peer into the demand and limits of the political class.


 No.5038

Anymore?


 No.5379

There are a lot of good constitutionalists.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / doomer ]