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

Absolute monarchists uphold this doctrine. Again, our view is unitary. Not because we're socialists (Jean Bodin & Thomas Hobbes don't go as far as Plato's idea to have all things common to establish a community of pleasaures & pains -- although I do think a cult of personality suffices to establish that adored community of pleasures & pains which is sought after by race nationalists in having everyone be on race -- so that people generally feel and share their emotions -- as does the others). I will post a series of quotes expounding upon this doctrine. Bertrand de Jouvenel berates sovereignty as a right over rights -- but rather it is a unitary view of the same thing, that the rights are portioned out and justly divided like white light passing through a prism. I don't think the intention of absolute monarchists with the doctrine of 'Lord of All Goods' is the mother of all socialism like Alexis de Tocqueville calls it, but that the Monarch was the original proprietor & the original father of families, by which all the estates of a City gradually moved out of (as sons moving out of their father's estate, because the father's estate was full, came to have their own rooms in that same estate, but houses as in a city -- in that view, that is how monarchical rule came to be understood by the extent over the city and justifies monarchical rule in politics as the father of families). I talk about this here: >>7210

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.

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

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.

>>7641 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.