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.

>>7641 (OP) I have always thought that absolute monarchy is not necessarily the best option. I would rather see a more decentralized monarchy with a return to a feudal structure where a noble class has responsibility for the common people under them. For example, in my county, there would be a count whose responsibility would be to maintain the county and protect the serfs (citizens) who live in it. Instead of a governor of the state, there would be a duke, and if the duke began to implicate policies detrimental to the citizens, this would be detrimental to his counts under him. They could either vote the Duke out, take up arms against the Duke, or bring the grievance to the King to settle the matter. For a monarch, it would be the same thing. Dukes and other higher nobility would keep an immoral and dangerous monarch in check. While superior to the rank below, each rank has a vested interest in the lower rank. Counts need the serfs to be happy and prosper because their stability and wealth depend upon the serfs. A prosperous serf leads to prosperous count and on up. A dangerous and immoral noble upsets this balance and leads to a check in his power, either from below or above. It is a self-healing structure.

>>7861 >I have always thought that absolute monarchy is not necessarily the best option. I will bring criticism from an absolutist perspective. This structure lacks monarchical pre-eminence. It is one thing to be a superior any one, but the quality of monarchical pre-eminence is greater than this: because the question poses, greater than any one, but less than altogether. A pre-eminent monarchy is not simply greater than any one, but less than altogether: a pre-eminent monarchy is great in comparison to the whole state. My opinion is as soon as we conceit the idea of killing a monarch (without even evidence of any injustice) it is sufficient proof we aren't in a state of awe or under the sway of any pre-eminence; no Christian would dare think disobedience or the capacity to cruxify & judge Christ, since Christ has pre-eminence over Christians... it is the same for monarchy or honestly any other leader. Communists never think to even overthrow Lenin or pre-conceive malevolent intent there. >I would rather see a more decentralized monarchy To quote Homer, ill-fares the state where many kings rule; let there be one ruler, one king. The ideal of monarchy in the grand scheme of political governance benefits from a unitary conception of politics. Otherwise, we revert to Aristotle's constitution, where monarchical rule over the political state itself is taboo & reserved in principle for the economical estate. This is counter-intuitive to the idea of monarchical rule in so many ways. >Dukes and other higher nobility would keep an immoral and dangerous monarch in check. We merely trade the virtues & faults of one system (monarchy) for the virtues & faults of another (oligarchy): it might put in check an individual, but there is still imperfections now not with an individual but with a group. Which might suffice to say, Aristotle's water argument, that a group is less difficult to corrupt than a droplet of water. I also consider Bodin's counterpoint, that a group can also dissolve virtue like salt in a lake and bring it down to mediocrity or problems of another kind (factionalism)... This might be a virtue if your conception of politics is pluralistic, but my opinion is a unitary view of politics works better with monarchy like a well suited glove fit for royal rule. Pluralistic idea of politics contradicts monarchy (which is, by definition, unitary & one-ruler)... it prefers monarchy as a building block among many other monarchs (one among equals), but this is to gradually return to the state Homer lamented about in the Illiad where many petty kings rule.

If you make a system where the folly of one person is no worry, that system likely ceases to be a Monarchy. People say, that if a Monarch dies -- disarray follows; but that is how you know it is a true monarchy.

rape!

>>7853 (OP) Commiecat poster?!

>>3833 (OP) kek, based.

>>3833 (OP) I would pay to see royal wrestling, tbh.

>>3833 (OP) Fucking rigged

I was here for Halloween 2024! Does this make me more likely to receive a royal land grant? Also, Grace looks very nice in Egyptian attire.

Grace is cute

>>6455 >>6478 Despite what I said, I like your mp4 and will save it.

>>7368 (OP) based

>>3037 Pure kino

Would be nothing without White tech. They'll be brought back to camel hoarding whether they like it or not.

>>3051 Gemerald

>>2926 >>2925 Grace chan is a /monarchy/ board tan. inb4 plebs say "that's how I became a monarchist"

>>2298 (OP) After seeing my country be raped by the 'republic' that's in place and seeing my people suffer for it, a monarchy just seems to be the best case scenario. Someone invested and with a real incentive to be a good ruler is preferable to some prick who only cares for his 4 to 8 years then he can run with the money.

>>2298 (OP) (OP) >how did? By being disappointed with all other political models and then being disgusted by current "monarchy". I want something epic, legendary, grounded in both the past and the future, and I want it to feel divinely inspired.

>>6803 (OP) >Emperor >they/their LOL

Fact checked by Real schizo patriots

>>6717 Many thanks, friend! I love the first guy's work, but it looks like he's taking a break from commissions at the moment. It'll be a little while before anything happens I guess, but consider it in the pipeline.

>>6727 Oh, yeah. I took a look at his website first and assumed commissions were closed. I didn't want tobe a bother. But I DM'd and now it's in the works. Thanks for the contact!

>>6596 What about her pantsu?

There is so much incest here.

>>6445 (OP) I did intend to post a thumbnail image but it wouldn't let me, something about Tor, forgive me ignorance because I don't really know how to work with that

There isn't much to do here. If you plan on staying, I recommending finding things to do you'll be comfortable doing w/ 1 or 2 anons for the long-term or what will keep you long-term engaged here. What I do is store my stuff here and share what I read. Suggestions: 1. You could blogpost. 2. Make another /monarchy/ OC tan to commission or get drawings of in your own containment thread, like Grace. 3. Make /monarchy/ OC? 4. Make threads about any monarchy, history, idea, policy, constitution, current event, or book. 5. Treat /monarchy/ like a variety of boards with royal characteristics: so feel free to talk /v/, /ck/, /fit/, /a/, /tkr/, but in your own thread where you may reside long-term (b/c this is a small board & you might as well settle for the long-run if you want anything out of it).

>>6446 I just realized the name slot isn't what I thought it was, now I look like a fool, haven't used these in too long >>6449 Thanks for the advice Anon, I take it this place simply isn't the kind of board I'm used to on my frequent trips to /tg/ or such. I appreciate the effort to acclimatizing me given how these usually are. Guess I'll just blogpost here about my political journey that prompted the thread according to your recommendation