No.7968
Do so many monarchs end up endorsing liberalism (European meaning of the word, not American) and liberty to the point of cucking themselves because they get exhausted? I mean exhausted in the sense of, "I HATE this job, is there any way I can reduce my workload in any way possible?"
Pedro II is the ideal example that I'm sure a lot of you might be thinking of by this point in the post, but I also mean something much more subtle than that. It seems to be what happened to the British monarchy. They kept delegating more and more of their job not because of some ideological political stance, but because they already had so many other things to do and would just rather not be bothered with them–especially if they're just going to get criticized for any little thing. Until now it got to the point where they just do the ceremonial, and even that's fucking exhausting because even that is under a goddam microscope of analysis and you end up getting someone like Prince William. The Spanish monarchy seems to have undergone this process incredibly quickly.
Did this process not happen as vigorously in the past or in poorer countries today because media, the economy, and society as a whole was/is so much simpler?
Why are so many modern monarchs cucks?
____________________________
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.8136
>>7968
I don't really have an answer, but I've heard the same thing suggested of politicians in Europe giving more power to the EU
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.8681
Because they're professional idiots
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.8690
>>7968
>Why are so many modern monarchs cucks?
With the advent of liberalism as in liberating yourself from responsibility becoming the norm, some monarchs find it easier to just go with the flow and get a cushy paycheck from Parliament (much like the current House of Windsor, lazy bums) than it would be to actually take some moral authority and tell the peasants to stop wasting their lives with pointless vainities.
>the Spanish Monarchy
I'm familiar with what happened to the Spanish Monarchy, but I have a feeling Franco being regent had something to do with it. OP, please enlighten us on your take as to what happened to Spain.
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.8695
Monarchy on its own merit is worthless, it also needs a binding together with a strong Catholic Empire that befights the wicked lie of liberalism
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.8702
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.8704
>>8695
Emphasis on strong Catholic empire. Else you get a scenario like a monarch trying to strike down a euthanasia law and almost getting dethroned for it.
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.8709
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.8714
>>8709
> a monarch asserting his dominance over other monarchs is suddenly a bad thing
>being this new to medieval European and church history
Get a load of this guy.
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.8717
>>8714
My king is Jesus Christ. Your king can be the pope, but we Christians call that Antichrist
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.8719
>>8717
Bud, you have a very very very basic bitch understanding of church history. No Pope has invoked Unum sanctam since Boniface the III. Making it null and void.
Besides the only reason why Boniface III even enacted such a thing because the king of France was Levying taxes against the church to fund his own Wars against the English. If you even bothered to study history you would know that the pope passing Unum Sanctum not only made him very unpopular from Both temporal and spiritual communities, it also cost him his life.
> my king is Jesus Christ
Then your queen is also the Blessed Virgin Mary. If your king is Jesus Christ you would recognize that he gave the keys to the kingdom to his Chief Steward St Peter for a reason ( you would know why if you bothered to read the Bible).
Martin Luther (piss be upon him) is one of the biggest antichrists in church history. He's man-made traditions have shattered Christendom and gave way to the Revival of ancient heresies like the cathers and other Gnostic groups.
You Protestants are the reason why we even have the modern world.
You Protestants are the reason for the various revolutions that killed millions of people.
Protestantism is republicanism enacted on God's kingdom. You spiritually Political Animals make me sick.
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.8740
>>7968
Pre-industrial revolution society was smaller due to less food being produced, and much, much slower since you had to rely on horses. That means that you have more time for decisions as everything moves slower, and there's a lot less decisions, especially since until that point pretty much everything still ran fairly solidly on tradition.
After that, life got much, much faster, and they're much more numerous due to more people existing, and they're much more complicated since "let's just do what we've always done" really isn't an option anymore.
I mainly blame absolutism. It was a solid idea back when it started, since powerful feudal lords where endangering the crowns and they really weren't necessary at that point. Later on though, absolutism became impossible to maintain due to the abovementioned points. You ended up with more and more things delegated to clerks who really didn't give a shit since they had no personal stake, and every time they fucked up the king got blamed because he had hired them.
Feudalism could have saved monarchism.
>Why are so many modern monarchs cucks?
Because they were already born into a world where they had no power, and were never educated in how to handle (or obtain) power. They just got taught to be a good zoo animal for the tourists to gawk at.
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.8766
Monarchy needs a strong bureaucracy, a sort of limited democracy to work, furthermore, monarchies fell because of free markets
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.8770
>>8717
Don't listen to the Catholic, become Orthodox my son and fear no longer the retardation that is the papacy
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.8883
>>8740
Don't buy into the "Absolute Monarchy" meme, even the most "absolute" of them ruled on plenty of decentralized lands, had many balance checks to keep them from doing crap and delegated much of their works to ministers.
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.8884
>>8883
It's not a question about absolutism, but monarchy. You anons keep getting assmad at monarchists that actually have some ideal of monarchy (rule of one) in their heart apart from aristocracy (rule of few).
Absolute comes from the notion of 'absolved' from Roman law and the ascribed 'absolute monarchy' meme is usually just a jab at monarchy conceptually, that one man should rule, not the royalist argument of the best man and general circumstances where he should be 'absolved'–absolute–where the law cannot measure.
Royal constitutionalists are always butthurt because they don't have a heart for monarchy. They like democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. That is the heart of constitutionalism, but often confused for legal monarchy–the spirit of this institution is mixing all three rather than making monarchical arguments. Imo, the royal constitutionalists usually go towards democratic/aristocratic talking points, like muh check your balance (implying, again, mixed branches of all three, not specifically monarchy).
What matters to the 'absolutist' is that the monarchy is the sovereign power and central to the body-politic. A political body has a center, this 'decentralization' business is pretty daft talk.
It speaks for itself how upset these people are over the notion of monarchy, rule of one, like any other normalfag these days.
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.8885
>>7968
>Why are so many modern monarchs cucks?
Royals are a product of their constitutional system and are just doing their job. People don't respect them because they don't see them as monarchs. Anons could blame on it "absolutism" all they'd like, but that bird was out the window long ago and can't be blamed for every mishap you see with the royal governments today.
Feudalism couldn't prevent what you see today. Putting the nobles or wealthy in these shoes today wouldn't "uncuck" the royals. It doesn't even involve the royals–all you anons are doing is focusing on the nobility and trying to sidestep royalty… that's what they do today. Seeing as how the whole soil is corrupt, it would probably be the same.
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.8886
>>8885
To make the point clear: the problems we see today aren't only inside the government, and 'decentralization' wouldn't resolve it only–because the powers that be clearly aren't in the government only. Revamping that political structure as a throwback to Medieval times would only shift the cards a little, but it wouldn't swap a new deck.
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.8895
>>8709
and that is the authroity the pope rightly helds
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.8928 
Not all modern monarchs are cucks. Liechtenstein is doing pretty good considering its relative size and place in the world. The Prince is super Catholic and stopped an abortion law from getting passed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.