[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

They're just LARPing, right?...right???

Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = 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, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload4 per post.


IN CASE 8CHAN IS DOWN: http://txti.es/monarchy FOR NEWS ABOUT WHERE TO REGROUP

File: 5f3d1fd75f6b78a⋯.jpg (21.59 KB,272x350,136:175,114976-004-7BEF5156.jpg)

 No.6309

There are many electoral monarchists showing their vices and making communists blush with their talk of guillotines and beheading monarchs. This is a shameful state for a monarchist to be in, electoral or hereditary, but that won't be the topic of this thread. Rather than discuss people with a vendetta against monarchy (whether it is absolute or plain hereditary; mostly narrows to hereditary), I'll have to be an apologist for hereditary monarchy. This is because these people basically come down to a hatred of primogeniture succession. For the reason of centralizing land and favoring the eldest son unequally over the other sons.

>centralization

Monarchists who favor hereditary principle and yet still like primogeniture have to wrestle with two extremes. There is the aristocrat-lover, ultra-individualist who hates nations and nationalism in favor of micro-states and divided up counties/prince-electors, and then there is the nationalist who wants the big national state with democratic anti-primogeniture sentiments. This comes down to the age-old struggle between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The monarchies of the WW1 period in Central Europe reached a middle ground between nationalism and royalty. There were two German states, but an encompassing pride for nation regardless. This might upset nationalists who favor complete unification while seeing multi-ethnic peoples together in hereditary empires. Hereditary empires unified people thanks to primogeniture (without electoral succession) thanks to gavelkind succession becoming less practical. Centralization organically grew as land became more indivisible because the eldest son inherited land and the land remained tied and incorporated more and more people on said land rather than constantly unifying and splitting it up again.

The electoral monarchies were strongly hereditary monarchies and those that weren't would later become hereditary with the rise of primogeniture. I don't think the electoral process of aristocrats would avoid centralization, despite primogeniture bringing people under a fold. Usually centralization and decentralization are a rising tide and happen regardless, especially when empires grow larger and larger; but this doesn't mean they have to be overbearing on liberty. An anon pointed out that the Russian Empire, despite centralizing with the Romanov dynasty, still was fairly better off in the later centuries despite abolishing serfdom.

>how about hereditary roots?

While electoral monarchists can boast about being older in a sense with Germanic states favoring electoral bodies, there are a few exceptions (especially outside of Europe). Some electoral processes among those were incredibly superficial and strongly hereditary like the Byzantine Empire (despite laws) and other cases. There are also those monarchies that didn't establish themselves by right of vote, but by conquest in certain niche cases with the monarch winning a battle and declaring himself king. As for other monarchies, this could involve the Kingdom of Wessex with its tales of kings and its strongly hereditary monarchy, the things surrounding the strongly hereditary realm of Norway, and so on with the Rugii Kingdom and other exceptions to the rule.

>the evolution of monarchies

In France, the Merovingian dynasty started electoral but later became strongly dynastic and hereditary. Those kings played roles such as being judges and ruling idly. Until the electoral office of the Mayor of Paris and the kingship merged together with Pepin the Short's takeover and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire. After that, the House of Capet started the longest succession of primogeniture in France and the electoral process vanished in 1,223 AD.

Between 1,223 AD and 1,670 AD, most monarchies in Europe became hereditary. In most of England, the Norman Conquest (offically in early1200s) . In Scotland, primogeniture started to exert itself in 1,371, Portugal, and Sweden later in 1537. Outside of Europe, there were plenty of civilizations with strong dynasties like Zhou Dynasty in China and Egypt's dynastic rulers. Imperial Japan was also the longest hereditary dynasty to boast.

>how did it become necessary and how did kingdoms/nations develop?

Primogeniture became necessary with growing military conquests and the need for indivisible lands. The development of many nations owe gratitude to this process and these monarchies. I think nationalists should recognize this. While aristocrat electoral monarchists should also recognize that the electoral process even in decentralized states can evolve to become federal (like the United States in its development).

____________________________
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.6310

File: 3552e016fc1f64b⋯.jpg (425.39 KB,1200x915,80:61,1724970123971290389012089.jpg)

Electoral monarchists (out of spite for absolutists) also like to downplay the role of monarchy even in electoral monarchy (to a mere footstool), the notion of hierarchy, and the pious nature of monarchy. Monarchies back then were strong in piety and still powerful in battle and moral authority. This isn't also unanimous for all the monarchies in the past. It varied from monarchy to monarchy in Germanic tribes. Why is there any need to attack the way that monarchs come down from the grace of God only to attack absolutists? I had an electoral monarchist get prissy that the grace of God has no place in monarchy and they needed a constitution to represent them better. This is the startling thing about electoral monarchists sometimes. They exaggerate the influence of nobility out of spite for monarchy (even more powerful than they were), decrease the influence of moral/spiritual authority and warfare, and ramble about beheading kings. While some of us might not like the idea of aristocracy playing a central role in life, most monarchists don't hate aristocracy as much as these monarchists hate monarchy. In fact, many are for aristocrats.

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.6311

File: ff85cbb86610027⋯.jpg (68.77 KB,550x437,550:437,egyptian-priesthood-pharoh.jpg)

The worst instance is downplaying moral/spiritual authority in favor of political authority. I think this is ironic. To underestimate the role of priesthood and the high priest of kingship is ignoring that the basis for orderly laws and legislation was set on the foundation of spirituality and morality. In ancient societies, the priesthood mattered and especially in older monarchies. Ancient Egypt is a primary example.

Likewise, with hierarchy, anyone who appeals to the hierarchical role of aristocrats should also remember the hierarchical role of kings. Sure, the king might not have been too powerful politically, but it was still a role of status higher. We all love pyramids that have a base, a middle, and a top. As for legalism and worshipping of laws, the laws left over in the early Medieval period were Roman laws and other societies would import Roman laws or learn from it. Rome is a much developed society. Otherwise, there were tribal customs and traditions for a society.

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.6312

File: 962f6f328f0b347⋯.jpg (91.05 KB,1024x512,2:1,DWQZV6BU0AAOecx.jpg)

"Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." – Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy, 1789

Aristocrats and parliaments, elected head of states, they consider to be tax watchdogs that will keep taxation relaxed. I doubt it. While you could point to outrageous examples of dynasties with high taxation, like Qin Dynasty, which embraced legalism, you can also notice other dynasties with lower taxes. Take notice of this quote:

"The Chinese people have only family and clan solidarity; they do not have national spirit…they are just a heap of loose sand…Other men are the carving knife and serving dish; we are the fish and the meat." - Sun Yat-sen describing Qing Dyasty and how decentralized it was. If Qing Dynasty isn't good enough, Ming Dynasty was pretty hereditary and they were laissez faire.

Hereditary monarchies don't have to be so strongly centralized. Most monarchists want a dynasty to last as long as possible (seen as a good thing), an aristocracy that respects kings, and some kind of prevailing order. While, on the flip side, people could argue that centralization is better than decentralization. I might as well say it there could be a middle ground.

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.6313

File: 737518f1f33fa5f⋯.jpg (31.18 KB,635x452,635:452,8482-004-7D9CC6B2-17.59.37.jpg)

>>6311

If you want better laws, you should first think about what moral influences are behind those laws before extolling them. The imperial dynasties embracing Confucianism usually had lower taxes. The imperial dynasties embracing legalism typically were stricter and had stronger laws.

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.6314

File: bce23fd0ad4aa44⋯.png (32.49 KB,1181x239,1181:239,primogeniture.png)

>from succession thread (because why not)

<Male-preferred primogeniture makes the most sense to me, as long as there is some legal mechanism to allow for disinheriting the crown prince if he is not of sound body or mind. Things like tanistry, partible inheritance, and the Rota system encourage civil war and the gradual disintegration of the realm. Primogeniture allows for an indisputable heir to the throne to be (hopefully) produced either before the reign of the king or early on in it. This allows them time to be trained extensively in the duties they will one day fulfill, and also minimizes the chance of needing a regency council to run the kingdom because the king died while his heir was a child.

>Should children under morganitic marriages be recognized for purposes of inheritance or succession?

<I see no reason why not, especially if the marriage would be particularly eugenic. Introducing a bit of genetic diversity to the noble gene pool is not a bad idea, and marrying commoners who have no claim to anything might be safer for the realm than marrying into a family from a rival kingdom that will be able to make a legitimate claim to your throne in a few generations.

>Should children under cousin-marriages be recognized for purposes of inheritance or succession?

<That's a tough one. Cousins are usually genetically distinct enough to avoid most of the risk that comes with incest. However, falling into a Hapsburg situation where successive generations are continually marrying their cousins will eventually lead to a bad situation, even if the political benefits of keeping certain lands and titles in the family are undeniable. The best approach would probably be one where cousin marriage is legal but socially stigmatized, and any children not of sound body and mind are disqualified from the succession.

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.6317

>>6314

>any children not of sound body and mind are disqualified from the succession.

By whom? The primary issue I see with giving a power like this to some outside body, is that the outside body will abuse their power to declare royalty mentally unsound in order to gain more power for themselves.

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.6320

>>6317

>By whom? The primary issue I see with giving a power like this to some outside body, is that the outside body will abuse their power to declare royalty mentally unsound in order to gain more power for themselves.

Hm, the dynastic succession normally would go to the monarch if things were sound. The monarch could secure his succession. If not, the royal house. If not the royal house, the privy council. If not the privy council, clergy and parliament could assist. I think the body is enough to secure itself. It is a tough call.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]