Papageno the bird-catcher: I wish I had a trap for girls... I'd catch them by the dozen! I'd keep them under lock and key... and they'd be mine alone!

>Graceposter, why are you still a heckin' absolute monarchst in the year 2024? isn't that anachronistic? why not at least a constitutional monarchist or more reactionary neofeudalist? In short, it is because I believe the tenets of Majesty or Sovereignty are yet undefeated and unsurpassed as of 2024, and since their conception nigh 500 years ago and with Jean Bodin. It was never defeated, but neglected and allowed to collect dust. To this day, Majesty or Sovereignty is the chief case for monarchical pre-eminence well into contemporary years and neither the traditionalists nor progressives have found a better alternative, but only showed their contempt for monarchical pre-eminence -- so there is no substitute, to this day being an absolute monarchist as anachronistic as it sounds is to be sincere. >but constitutional monarchy Has adopted our language, but anyone who truly understands Majesty knows constitutional monarchy has always been incompatible with it and the status quo is a product of neglect and the decline of Christendom: in the Shadow of Leviathan, and arguably even among modern dictatorships, there is yet Majesty and all but the clothes have changed and monarchy put in more niche areas and in cobwebs. >but anachronistic I have shown why that's not entirely true with contemporary examples. >but a plain and simple absolute monarchist, not even an innovation like "neoabsolutist" A plain and simple absolute monarchist in the year 2024. It's still King of the Hill, simple as.

I think of /lit/-tier authors. Evola dismissed Hobbes for atheism, Carl Schmitt honors him: the former could be that Hobbes made fear the basis of religion (which I imagine Evola would scoff at) and was an Enlightenment author, but with this in mind fear is also the basis of the political. I imagine the latter would be impressed by how Hobbes makes fear a divine force. This is a trope that is a paradigm in modernity from H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu to Japanese cinema Godzilla. Are we in a state of awe, a state of our collective fear?

If anyone comes to this board about Charles III & recent events, I'll promptly say I'm not that much of an avid Windsorist myself to begin with -- but I offered baseline moral support to our contemporary constitutional monarchist friends & Windsorites I'm not really surprised by what has transgressed (but I don't think many others are). It's a shame for /brit/ to have a King who doesn't build strongly on foundations of kinship with his people (which is essential for true royalty to not only preserve the life of his people, but be the very life of the country, ideally). It will guarantee rebellion and disobedience, as Hobbes makes life preservation the basis of civil obedience: I am very hardline about loyalty (where there truly is a sovereign monarch) and there have been many calls for disobedience too flippantly made over many trivial matters and very slight inconveniences. This is an instance where I can't fault the backlash against Charles III: a Sovereign is truly there to protect & be the life of his people & prevent foreign invaders from molesting his subjects as if they were his own sons and his own daughters -- that is quintessential. There's a lofty plate of complaints listed against tyrannical monarchs in history, but not many have been not only complacent but even forward with the replacement of their own people. I'd go on to say that so long as it isn't -that- end in particular (to annihilate his own people), then obedience is due in many circumstances. Caligula had been rumored to say, that if only Rome had one neck: but Caligula never actually truly did that, as bad as we're taught about Caligula. It is bad enough that for a long time people question whether the royalty are truly sovereign (i.e. is this State actually a sovereign monarchy?) and owe their loyalty to begin with (a breach in belief), but worse yet there is a breach in trust and faith about future prospects of life preservation and peace. Jean Bodin wrote about situations like this, & Bodin himself said it would be wise to for even a Sovereign Monarch to be extremely wary and careful of these situations where a country is divided. If Charles III wants people off the street, he probably should have just let Starmer take the heat for that. HM's Government is obviously at fault in a situation like this & while it could be said that technically Charles III is said to be in some ways responsible, in many ways Charles III is not, & it's a good point that Monarchs that don't have a hand in affairs to begin with also lack aristocratic vigor and that will impact the decision to act wisely. & when royalty are declawed and castrated in terms of royal power and bred to be like this, imo, after a long generation after generation of breeding royalty to reign not rule and making each generation a declawed lion: this is the result in both opinion and physiognomy you'll get from that kind of process. Which isn't also to blame many other factors surrounding royalty itself is like the bad soil surrounding the royalty: if the royalty are surrounded by bad peers, inevitably that will get into the roots and in many ways just as the royalty are afflicted so many of the people themselves share that malady. Let's not pretend Charles III is alone in this, it's not only his peers in the up-top but even it seems a great number of even the people themselves aren't well at this point: in many ways the contemporary royalty share the upbringing of ordinary people in being indoctrinated about how diversity is strength and a number of issues. 4th pic related about if Charles III being an absolute monarch (that's from a friend) is a bit right, but like I said I think this is also the impact of generations & if Charles III became the problem wouldn't resolve itself right away: things would probably be not not very different -- but besides the point, in absolute monarchies where the ruler has a greater hand in affairs is also more careful and does better to work on their cult of personality and not repeat the slogans expected of ceremonial royalty.

We hear about Anarcho-Tyranny & I see many people quoting Aristotle about marks of tyranny. Let me say this. ... Remember when Aristotle said that le tyrannical monarchies would carry the worst elements of democracy & oligarchy? this ain't no absolute monarchy Supposedly a democracy & constitutional monarchy married to all kinds of liberties & rule of law, Aristotle's ideal. Don't forget it Remember when Aristotle said that le tyrannical monarchies would divide the people most & not democracies or constitutional govt? In the age of multi-party democracies, the people are constantly being divided like a household divided against itself into factions and parties. Remember when Aristotle said le tyrannical monarch would use the conspiracy of women & slaves to overrule the patriarchs & estates? but this is supposed to be a democracy & constitutional monarchy that prides itself upon the estates, whereas no such thing happens in Saudi Arabia. Remember when Aristotle said that there would be a Fascist Leader, fond of making war & would keep the City at his gates & constantly working? but here is a State that supposedly abhors Fascism & Leadership cults of personalities, & a welfare State as well. Remember when Aristotle railed about the unitary Despotic East & how the people were too inferior to rule themselves & they preferred the company of foreigners? but this is the West and there is liberal constitutional govt & great pride in democracy as well. Remember when Aristotle dismissed Plato's Republic and for Aristotle's Politics & his ideal mixed City: the true nature of its strength was Diversity & not too much Unity? >Diversity is a Strength >Multi-Party Democracy & the pluralism of the Estates as heads, mixed state Remember when Aristotle said that all the royalty have to do is give up all their power to reign longer? but to whom? Plato suggested the capacity of a ship's sail should match the capacity of the boat, but we pride ourselves on diverting all to the inferiour magistrate or PM. --Jean Bodin said that it should be the opposite, that the fundamental power should stay with the Sovereign, & giving too much to the magistrate or prime minister was a bad thing: and right now we're witnessing the result of that. But also, when a monarch gives up all his fundamental powers to someone else, he is no longer responsible or invested in what is happening. Jean Bodin would say that not giving involved in a serious division like this would be a wise thing: when a monarch is supposed to be a voice of unity, if he gives an opinion -- it is to be just that, but that is not the case here and I'll elaborate soon. LASTLY, remember when Aristotle said that hereditary royalty, lacking tyrannical power, are yet apt to outrage others & have familial disputes (Meghan & Harry)? >In hereditary royalty -- a further cause of destruction is the fact that kings often fall into contempt, and, although possessing not tyrannical power, but only royal dignity, are apt to outrage others. Their overthrow is then readily effected; for there is an end to the king when his subjects do not want to have him, but the tyrant lasts, whether they like him or not. & also >Again, tyrannies are destroyed from within, when the reigning family are divided among themselves, as that of Gelo was, and more recently that of Dionysius; in the case of Gelo because Thrasybulus, the brother of Hiero, flattered the son of Gelo and led him into excesses in order that he might rule in his name. Whereupon the family got together a party to get rid of Thrasybulus and save the tyranny; but those of the people who conspired with them seized the opportunity and drove them all out. In the case of Dionysius, Dion, his own relative, attacked and expelled him with the assistance of the people; he afterwards perished himself. Ok, I concede, Aristotle's right on this little matter, but case in point is this... So many people quoting Aristotle about marks of tyranny & yet we don't live under a tyrannical monarchy or absolute monarchy per say... in fact, Aristotle's ideal of constitutional govt & mixed State & rule of law & democracy starkly prevail in contrast.

We hear about it all the time: North Korea, Fascism, Nazism, Totalitarianism, & a Leviathan State w/ managerialism: but what is the difference between our status quo w/ Aristotle's ideals & North Korea?

The fundamental difference between those totalitarian regimes & the plutocratic West is this: They truly believe Unity is Strength. Whereas in the West we believe truly DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH. In the West, this is not a boon to the State, albeit we see Stately power, but a malady.

Those totalitarian regimes like North Korea would never allow such a diversity or even import a foreign population: they believe in Plato's community of emotion among the people & that Unity is strength. Multiculturalism & multi-parties stands in stark contrast to that ideal. To prove this point, Charles III himself is alleged to have called Britain "a community of communities", whereas DPRK wants the community to work as one person with single-minded unity. Like one person, in the style of Plato's Republic coalescing the people to work as one or Hobbes' Leviathan corporatism of one person as well: yes, that is something Plato & Hobbes have in common with Plato's Republic & Hobbes' Leviathan... both believed in unity of the State as its true nature.

This is what I determined is gemrald, gem, iron, coal & brimstone w/ e-monarchists.

I thought recently about my frustration talking with traditionalists & how very literal the nature of monarchical pre-eminence (when it comes to discussing the King's Two Bodies discussion & my criticism of it). Aristotle clearly meant that the King was his natural capacity was a literal demigod or Hercules among men and a superior, and that for what it mattered his relationship to the State was of the State itself or the whole in relation to the part thereof: today there is a lot of back and forth about the whole notion of "I am the State" and I find the anti-absolutist bickering to be incredibly annoying (no less b/c this is one area where I feel State & Church are consistent: King is the State, Christ is the Church) – to fully understand the gravity of a Monarchical state, you must understand the gravity of holding one person to be a superior to myriad people or at the very least on par, which not many monarchists really do understand – but I feel the discussion becomes unnecessarily more complicated than it needs to be – so I hate the idea of conforming discussion of Monarchy as a political form to every nook and cranny of the belief of a denomination. It is a popular stance with most e-monarchists and esp. amongst the traditionalists that the particular denomination belief and the structure of monarchy must go completely hand in hand on every level, but I don't think so. I find mixing theology and denominational discussion too much with Monarchy to be annoying and not helpful at all (unpopular opinion). I feel to understand Monarchy in the West, like I've said before, understanding the context of the Herodotus Debate and the Ancients and so much else but in my context also the 17th century authors as well. It comes off as a "secular" understanding of Monarchy… but it is still a political form of State and concerned with worldly affairs as much as that implies. So I can only give voice to my frustration and like Hobbes says it might be that there are three persons in the Trinity but not so with a State or mixed constitution…

It's true I did talk at length about how royalism in the West was well understood in lieu of Christianity, but in the context of the political domain not enough. Generally speaking. Not to descend into the particulars of each denomination. I feel in the West there is a kind of blindness or apathy to royalism itself in the political affairs not at length understood as well as Christianity: on the pre-eminent aspect of monarchy and the meaning of royalism in the State, and the lack of dynastic patriotism in the West. Sure, they could call it merely secular or mundane, or relate it is a Caligula syndrome or vanity with the Gods, or a Pagan Caesarism, or say at best royalty should be seen as icons of Christ – my response is I feel the same way Hobbes felt about the apathy towards State and Monarchy – I lament like Hobbes that the rank of monarch is seen as merely another title of highest honor or "another rich guy" and nothing at all especial or pre-eminent in a way or the significance of one ruler being a superior in relation to the State… or any of the sentimental and familial feeling of royalism I see in dynastic patriotism is not well reciprocated enough in the West. … My opinion is you either "get it" or you "don't get it" with Monarchy. I tried to rationalize why people "don't get it" or are so uninspired. I've come to see it that 1st, it is a cultural difference between peoples how esteemed royalty or monarchy is – 2nd, it has a lot to do with the media people consume and how they were raised for what ideals and expectations they have – 3rd, that the West hasn't really had a dynastic patriotism the same way as the East or viewed royalty literally as the founders of their race and fathers and mothers or especial like in myth. I really don't want to bother with people who "don't get it" or understand it the same way I do, but I used to think my views were well shared – but really I'm in the fringe minority of monarchists.

Conversely, I would say that as much as an anointed monarch is a placeholder for Christ and an icon thereof, a king in his own way must have the full strength of king: which isn't to say, such a king should take the place of God, but to carry the strength of the word king in his own immanent brilliance. As Christians have a blood relationship with Christ and a familial bond, so too in the State with a King there is a kind of blood relationship and familial bond. As Church is called the body of Christ, so also the Monarch is the State. Aristotle's maxim: >Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but their ways of life to be like their own. In this sense, I agree with Aristotle's maxim here (albeit absolutists have a habit of disagreeing): that if didn't really know a king amongst themselves, they'd fain to know it with divinity as well, & the saying Christ is King would be lost to people -- if they didn't know kings in their own especial way or if there wasn't any immanent brilliance to it. This sentiment might be lambasted as but a secularism and mundane way, but that is not the way I view it: I see the kingly bond with subjects, formally called political (or lambasted as secular / temporal), with more sentimentality than those quips.

Bust of K. Charles I (1633) in Rosenborg Castle - K. James VI & I and K. Christian IV were close friends & drinking buddies. The Stuart Monarchy had close ties to Denmark, & I imagine they kept this bust after the English Civil Wars close to heart.

King James VI & I married Christian IV's sister, Anne. On a royal visit to England, Christian IV & King James VI & I indulged in heavy drinking & made wild stories / gossip.

King Christian IV was a very profound & pre-eminent ruler & founded numerous cities named after himself and built beautiful homes. He ruled Denmark & Norway. The former elective, the latter then hereditary. He also reigned long like his friend James VI & I.

After the success of Christian IV, his son Frederick III would make Denmark not only a hereditary Monarchy, but hereditary & absolute Monarchy for the next 189 years. Pre-eminent, hereditary, & absolutist ideals of Monarchy were of the fundamental law until 1849 constitution. In light of the stories of Absolute Monarchy, it is usually the Stuarts & Louis XIV who get the spotlight. Yet Denmark not only was a full absolute & pre-eminent Monarchy, but exceptionally it was so de jure -- & so around 56 years after the French Revolution even. Kongeloven - Lex Regia of 1665, & Mahendra Constitution of Nepal 1962, & Russian Fundamental State Laws, & Mario Palmieri / Alfredo Rocco on Monarchy/Fascism & also w/ Jean Bodin, James I, Filmer, Hobbes & Bossuet works - I recommend to any modern Absolute Monarchists to study. This is my answer for absolute monarchists feeling crestfallen in light of modernity as of now & the re-surgence of mixed constitutionalism / limited monarchs / anti-absolutist traditionalism. For modern philosophical constitutions, instead be called "the fundamental laws" (a little semantic change makes a big difference) & the powers not divided from but derived of Majesty like Mahendra asserted & absolute Monarchy should be the fundamental law as the form of State.

That is how we fix the status quo: Follow Frederick III's & Mahendra's example, adapt the semantics, & re-assert Absolutism, monarchical pre-eminence, & Simple Sovereign Monarchy as opposed to the mixed Constitutional Monarchists today. The works I cited have the answer & ideological foundation enough. It doesn't necessarily have to be opposed to parliaments, assemblies, or estates -- only re-assert absolute & simple monarchy, the ideal of monarchical pre-eminence & majesty & soveriegnty, and the unity of State first with absolute monarchy as its fundamental law.

Mahendra of Nepal's example in his constitution outlines how are derived from his Majesty & his Monarchy, which is the fundamental law as it is the form of State. Modern absolute monarchists should keep Mahendra of Nepal as well as Frederick III among others like Jean Bodin in mind (when it comes to this predicament).

These examples are proof enough that the absolutist notion of monarchy is not dead or outdated, but sitting in neglect.

I look at constitutional monarchists & traditionalists and it's clear to me everyday they are renouncing Majesty and slipping closer and closer off the edge to the ideology of petty kinglets and a truly limited kind of monarch (and by no means truly Sovereign), that traditionalists in abhorring absolute monarchy, now abhor hereditary monarchy & are endorsing elective monarchy and many kings in the same State (that Homer warned us about) but even some are endorsing rotational government, citing examples like Malaysia. It's a slippery slope & the word Monarchy will become meaningless if they fully get their way, since traditionalists and constitutional monarchists aim to dismantle our legacy firmly rooted in the understanding of the Herodotus Debate (which includes Monarchy & the simplicity of State and where the stress on Monarchy really consists) along with notions of monarchical pre-eminence in exchange for mixed constitutionalism again. Going along with Aristotle's political maxims, the constitutionalists will resist any monarchical rule over the State, deeming it outside of monarchy's proper estate. The natural course, like I said, will go to elective monarchs not hereditary and rotational government. Jean Bodin also said, >What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people -- is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king.

Malaysia is the true incarnation of all ideals Traditionalists & Tocquevillists seem to want. Powerful Oligarchical Form / Nobility, elective & limited Monarch, mixed constitution / composite State, rotational govt / rule by turns, many kings in the same State. Not a monarchy. Malaysia is like what absolutists disliked Venice & the Doge for. Like Venice & the Doge - Malaysia is the favorite example of shills for limited monarchy / mixed constitution / elective monarchy in its truest form. i.e. what Charles I was killed for not being: - Aristotle's king

Rousseau says he would have been a Royalist, if he could accept the supposition of Royalist writings... that likens domestic to civil government.