An Apology for Ceremonial Monarchs

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Hide country (this board displays your country when you post if this is unchecked)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf, pdf Max filesize is 12 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 4 per post.

File: b7dd32596f5438c⋯.jpg (28.57 KB, 240x350, 24:35, libertyXORequality.jpg)

An Apology for Ceremonial Monarchs Anonymous 09/02/17 (Sat) 14:34:50 9c32dc No.679

I feel like there are a lot of posters shitting on ceremonial monarchs. So, can I just say I think that ceremonial monarchs are at least better than no monarch at all, and that I think they at least play an important ceremonial function?

I think there's still an important political function of them in recent times. Although rare, you have the odd cases of people like Juancarlos stopping another Spanish civil war, King Albert II running Belgium, Grand Duke Henri courageously standing up for his religious role (even though he ultimately failed in this regard in the end), etc.. Politically, they have the role of, "The last wall of defense," or "The ultimate backup plan."

More important is ideological. Monarchism is antithetical to the idea of egalitarianism and that people are necessarily equal. I think there's a lot to be said about the importance of that idea, keeping it front and center, and at the very least maintaining it as a counter-current to the current Marxist sociopolitical trends. When you have a monarch, even if they are just "ceremonial," it is like having this constant subconscious articulation of that idea presented to the public.

Pic very much related.

Anonymous 09/02/17 (Sat) 18:44:33 000000 No.685

A more important basis behind this question is, "Would a Fabian strategy towards monarchism work?"

Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 17:47:19 23e1de No.698

>>685

what is a fabian strategy?

Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 19:43:18 000000 No.702

>>698

When you achieve political goals through a gradual and incremental process. E.g., the Fabian socialists would approve anything that would grow the scope of the State, because it would lead things to a more socialist endgame. Should a monarchist approve any minor measure that would support the monarchy (e.g., giving the Spanish monarch the power of promulgation or the Grand Duke of Luxembourg the power of veto, etc.), or should he advocate for a dramatic restructure directly to an earlier, more monarchist governmental structure (e.g., a return to the pre-French Revolution consitution in France)?

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 22:50:21 61edc9 No.730

>>685

A Fabian strategy towards monarchism would not work. Elements of it could be borrowed, but we are in a much more precarious position than they. Increasing the scope of the state nearly always benefits the chances of ending up in a stable socialist system, increasing the powers of the monarch is not nearly so certain to end up going the way we want. The left has its ratchet to operate, we do not.

On the other hand, OP has a very good point that what many monarchists dismiss as nothings can be very beneficial to our cause. We need to win a war of perceptions, and these minor moves we can make are very capable of adding up. We just need to be more selective about it than the Fabians did. Critically, we need to make sure our messaging is right.

For instance, to undercut the power of the House of Commons in the UK could have two very different results - if we went about it explicitly as an anti-democratic effort, we'd be hit with thermonuclear levels of backlash, but if we went about it on the basis of a constitutionalist line about preserving liberty, we could significantly shift the population towards our point of view along with clawing back whatever power is explicitly at stake.