>>7747
>Looking at history, monarchs used to be an international force, speaking French and maintaining difference from the local culture
I wouldn't say this is always the case.
For example, sometimes monarchs rise from their people's background like the royal houses of the Serbian Rebellion – Karađorđević and Obrenović – those dynasties are national in terms of their people. A monarch doesn't always come from a wealthy background. You always find instances of your peasant monarchs rising up from the wheel of fortune. As for the internationalist views of monarchy, my opinion is many nations owe their monarchies for the nation-building and heritage brought from them.
>The British Commonwealth, for instance; could that still move toward greater unity (in terms of foreign policy, money transfers, international trade deals…)
It would be ideal, but the British Commonwealth is moving towards a strange internationalist direction that wasn't understood in the days of the British Empire. It is become more multiculturalist and not multi-national – these two terms are important. A multiculturalist seeks to shake up a box indifferently, while a multi-national empire deals with separate ethnic lines.
>or are people too nationalistic now, and resent any international sovereignty?
It isn't that they are nationalistic, but they are taught that imperialism is evil and all about Darth Vader going around with a squadron of stormtroopers. There is much to say that empires weren't always mutually exclusive to the imperial power. There were benefits to being within an empire. Sometimes it was consensual. And honestly, I don't see anything wrong with conquest and expansion. Military strength is a good thing, and it allows for more economic growth when resources and opportunities are consolidated in these imperial campaigns. Land that would otherwise be useless, now have opportunity for strategy like Gibraltar. Resources unused; those gradually develop, and colonialists get to experience the freedom and liberty they wouldn't experience in the homeland? Isn't this a win-win for most people? Colonialism provided those people to have the frontiersman experience again. It's just the case that empires are only seen as evil, but you have empires such as the Holy Roman Empire that breaks conventions, and there are also the cultural legacy of emperors such as the Tsars and the legacy of Romans. While imperial has its roots in military conquest, it also adapted a stronger meaning.
>resent any international sovereignty?
The EU is garbage.