If we ever go back to /icup/ again, these anthems we'll use.

/monarchy/ is invited to the 3rd 8moe Duels Soulcalibur 6 tournie. You are welcome to add another character (if you want) or re-roll your character's fighting style fighting style. The event is being hosted at >>>/icup/5943 It will be sometime this upcoming weekend.

Esther and her best friends. Colour version HD coming soon...

Now, I promised: Esther and her best friends Avellana of /av/, Grace of /monarchy/ and Lila of /tkr/ Colour version and HD

This doctrine is expounded here >>6663 and >>6664 and >>7250 and >>7252 and >>7253 and >>7394 If people don't believe their king provides & their king is wise, that will be a problem. Notice in North Korea, they thank their Leader for this harvest. The Ottomans called their Sultan 'The Father who Feeds us' Christians thank the Lord for their meals & daily bread.

>>7917 >On another board like /pol/ or another thread? I'd say take it to this general >>6355 I posted my reply here: >>7921

This should be helpful.

>>6741 >your IP is from a known spammer Well guess TOR not working.

Anyone noticed that Graceposter basically disappeared once King Charles took to the throne?

>>7856 online leftists are the most boring type of people anyway, they also worship minorities like they aren't violent criminals

>>2450 >>7859 Youre fucking retarded

Continuing a conversation from >>7917 Idk if I would describe man as a political or economic entity in any unique way. On the one hand, People that involve themselves with politics or economics will ultimately have politics and economics involved with them, but people have different sets of skills that make them better at one thing or another. I don't think everyone is equally capable of running a business, nor do I think everyone is equally capable of being a leader, but I wouldn't say that makes anyone a natural slave, unless by "slave" you mean "laborer". >Neocameralism The thing about the way our current state is run is that it legitimizes itself through the idea of democracy, which encourages excessive amounts of red tape and creates perverse incentive structures. It's not like a private corporation in goal, function, or structure, but if you could explain why you think it is, then I might have more to say on it. >I believe monarchies work best as a cult of personality Cults of personalities form around strong, charismatic men. Such a thing would form naturally if they were free to strive towards their ideals. >if you were to have a lord among lords, then they go by Aristotle's convention and would rather have it elective. As I've said, I've never heard a Hoppean argue for such a thing, and I'm fairly certain that the line of reasoning behind being against Democracy on an individual scale is the same on a collective scale. Covenant communities are not supposed to be democratic. If the person that owns the roads chooses to disassociate with someone, that person won't be able to use those roads, regardless of what the rest of the covenant thinks. The kind of property they own dictates their position in the covenant, and the one with the most important properties is effectively the ruler. That's not even counting the instances where they agree to follow the decisions of a single individual. Covenants of covenants might be a bit harder to establish or maintain, but "lord among lords" would not be. >Do you suppose that the appeal to the Free Market is not a composite brain? It depends on your views on spirituality, I believe. As a Christian, I see the market as the literal invisible hand of God. Certainly, whatever forces drive it are not merely the sum of the minds of the people engaging in it, but rather, something more fundamental about it. The logic that everything else in the universe is driven by. I see it as not being too dissimilar from evolution, or the forces that pull planetary objects closer together, or break them apart. It has more in common with mathematics itself than any particular individual. >What is your opinion on Gulf Monarchies & Brunei? I don't believe I know enough given the resources you've provided to know for certain. Generally speaking, I prefer teaching people to fish over giving people fish, so free healthcare and education seem strange to me, but I'm not against private charity, which is what you seem to be describing it as between "low taxes" and "They are so rich" so I figure I can confidently say I'm more in favor of how you describe it than what we generally have nowadays. Certainly, I can say this. Having a cult of personality, and having citizens love and admire their leaders is a good thing, and if that description accurately describes this system, then I think that is good, but we live in a cynical era where trust in leaders more often leads to betrayal, so I cannot say. >the Monarch has to be seen as a provider >I'm pointing this out so you can see how a unitary view of Sovereignty is compatible with a wide arrange of private property ownership and the autonomy of citizens. If the Sovereign is a provider in the way you describe, I see them as having more similarity to private corporations than our current system, so naturally I would tend to agree, but It is important to me that people's belief in the Monarch is based on truth, and not forced. If they don't believe, they may be excommunicated, but they should not be forced into believing, not least because it's virtually impossible.

>>7921 I'm going to be busy for a while (for the week), so I probably won't be able to follow up this conversation very much. If you're staying on the board, I'd recommend making your own general or finding something to do in the meantime (there really aren't any posters here). >Generally speaking, I prefer teaching people to fish over giving people fish My main point is everyone believes in the system that they believe provides for them in some capacity -- even if it is a system that gives them a means to prosper or gives them fishing rods. I think genuine belief in having a Monarchy goes hand in hand with this (along with believing the King is wise). >but we live in a cynical era where trust in leaders more often leads to betrayal, so I cannot say. It is preferable people trust a Monarch, otherwise there'll be no Monarchy at all -- to be frank. Plato talked about this: said that people would consider a Monarch, but their disbelief is so strong they won't. When disbelief permeates a person, & they have no sway of pre-eminence, they'll question it every turn, they'll hinder it every chance, they'll constantly look into the possibility of removing said person -- these conditions aren't ripe for Monarchy. Religion or radical political ideologies make a Monarchy a means to an end: which help people overlook the misgivings of a Monarch for better promises. >people's belief in the Monarch is based on truth, and not forced It is genuine the way I see it. However, I'm more of the opinion that the Sword of Commonwealth is a necessary thing, both externally and internally, and a foundational part in statescraft as any other craft involves carving things out.

>>7923 I understand, and if I'm being honest, I'm a fair bit busy myself. I might come here from time to time, especially since it seems /liberty/ is dead and I don't know what happened to them in the meantime, but I wouldn't feel comfortable making this thread too much about me, especially since you have made your opinion on right Libertarians quite clear elsewhere. I don't think there is much disagreement that the Monarch provides in terms of cultural stability, and that such a thing is necessary for a functional society. Whether a cult of personality would form naturally, or has to be formed from the top down, a functional society will eventually have one. My position is mostly that a free market will create such a system naturally, and bring it to it's ideal scale through market forces. I can see how important trust and admiration for a Monarch is for them to remain as a Monarch. I believe it's easiest to trust a process than a person, which is why I've sometimes thought of the idea of an AI ruling an otherwise Libertarian system, but there are too many potential imperfections, and opportunities for human error in AI for me to expect it to work properly all the time. If people can be convinced that the Monarch has an incentive to help their subjects, then that is easier to trust than the idea that the Monarch themselves are perfect. >Sword of Commonwealth I'm not sure I'm familiar with this. That said, I tend to agree that world peace is an impossible goal. The best systems are the ones designed to adapt to the best and worst conditions of human civilization, which is why I find the capitalist method of tying greed to providing the public with goods and services so appealing. A system that can turn it's weaknesses into a strength is an ideal one. The best I can think of is an adaptable one that is capable of congregating when needed, and reorganizing at any given moment. That's how I view Libertarianism. Anyways, thank you very much for the conversation. It was interesting, though I'm sure some of it was lost on me. Hope your thread get's more traffic so you don't end up just talking to yourself, and the occasional outsider, like me. Bye.

The Stuarts + Julio-Claudians are my favorites. I also have a soft spot for the Kim dynasty.

>>7502 Habsburgs. Also Přemyslovci.

>>7502 No question here.

>>4505 Its not Cirno.

>>2728 Oi you got a loicense to talk shit?

>>2729 > yes, yes and yes

UK in pretty rough shape now. Shame.

>then as a catholic traditionalist, I will assert the idea of decentralization and one among equals for monarchy and the idea of a Europe of a Thousand Liechensteins <although I would NEVER peddle those same ideals for the Pope as one among equals among the bishops nor abide well with a thousand Protestant denominations being like a pagan pantheon in every country.

Just the tip of the iceberg of all the insanity surrounding constitutional monarchists.

It is like Sauron from Lord of the Rings. Having Monarchy is just bad because like Sauron and the One Ring. No one man should rule. Nobody should have power. Throw the ring into the fire, frodo.

If anyone should be Anarcho-Monarch, Pope Francis. The perfect Monarch is the Anarcho-Monarch who doesn't rule a State. Pope Francis doesn't rule a State. A Church is nothing like ruling a State & unlike a State it is fully consensual & voluntary from Church tithes up.

It is about sharing love and giving love freely instead of taking it. This scene 100% describes my new outlook on monarchy.

If the monarch has no majesty, but is simply a pawn or a fashion accessory for whatever denomination -- this won't do.

>>7860 An absolute monarch has way more incentive to care about public appearances than a purely figurehead monarch who has no stake whatsoever. This is more natural and comely to an actual ruler. >However, if the monarch attempts to advocate such ideas for the realm, these checks and balances must be activated. Is this about King Charles III? If there was ever an emblem of constitutional monarchy, this is as far as it gets & yet this is a problem. King Charles III is no atheist, but inspired by the traditionalist & perennial views (which attests in universalism of religions). So Charles III wanted to be Defender of the Faiths. >but understands the importance of religious institutions for the harmony of the realm I think you should follow a likewise example & understand the importance of monarchy to political society. What Christ does to the Church (i.e., gives a blood relationship, makes them a family), a Monarch does for political society (makes them one family). Monarchy, that is, the unifying leadership of one person, brings harmony. This is the strongest virtue political society can achieve for men, because they have the virtue of a family altogether, which means staying through good and bad times, which means not stabbing and betraying one another in factionalism, which means a blood bond to said monarch, like a child to his father, which should be revered as inseparable and a common source of unity in that society.

If your view of the monarch in monarchy (in general) is like gollum from Lord of the Rings, you're playing into disbelief (& not in a state of awe); people constantly keep this in mind, which makes for very bad monarchists for kings. ... I've always been of the opinion Communists make way better monarchists for their Leaders. They regard Lenin and Mao like prophets, highly idealized & with strong belief in their politics. Monarchists regard theirs like Gollum, a shrivel little creature & only a companion. ... You have to make people believe again. Refurbish them with a notion of pre-eminence w/ monarchy, a sense of Majesty. Constitutional monarchists are competing with politicians who'll offer the people a lot more & who'll make them in awe of their leadership, making people monarchists for them & no king.