R: 264 / I: 462 /
♔ Read a Book ♔
R: 127 / I: 66 /
Welcome to /monarchy/.
R: 14 / I: 3 /
On migrating again
A provisional colony was founded at anon.cafe in the wake of 8chan.moe's sudden collapse. It seems however that, for the time being, 8chan.moe has returned in the form of the 8ch.moe domain. Do users wish to migrate to the anon.cafe colony now, or remain here?
R: 448 / I: 701 /
/monarchy/ ♕ Music Homecoming ♕
Relax and listen to music
R: 163 / I: 254 /
Grace OC Thread
It's not legitimate without Grace chan!
R: 1 / I: 0 /
/monarchy/ general 2.0
For general discussion again.
R: 20 / I: 15 /
Do you guys want feudal monarchs back or an absolute monarchy? What's a country that exists right now that bests fit your ideology?
R: 20 / I: 8 /
Nero is the one everyone talks about, that sometimes you get a Nero, but People are always NERO.
>Preterist theologians typically support the interpretation that 666 is the numerical equivalent of the name and title Nero Caesar (Roman Emperor 54–68 AD). Written in Aramaic, this can be valued at 666 using the Hebrew numerology of gematria, and was used to secretly speak against the emperor.
Allegedly started the Great Fire of Rome and torched Christians.
He also had a neckbeard.
R: 12 / I: 7 /
Constitutional Libertarian Monarchy
What do you think of the concept of Constitutional Libertarian Monarchy? The King would be responsible for enforcing the NAP based libertarian constitution. Imagine, for example, if the British Empire had fully compromised with George Washington and adopted a libertarian constitution in order to keep the American colonies within the Empire. This is one historical way I think a Constitutional Libertarian Monarchy could have arisen nya~
R: 1 / I: 0 /
A curious thought
I was having trouble sleeping a night some days ago and found my restless mind going on a rather strange tangent
I found it intriguing and put it to pen(or rather, text)
And I would like some thoughts
What is the end of politics?
Or rather, what in it’s most distilled sense is politics trying to achieve?
Politics as a process is at it’s very core, change, all of politics is the discussion or whether or not a society should change and in what way, changes that are ideally for the better.
Thus, when one engages in enough ideal change through politics, one mist necessarily eventually achieve an ideal circumstance/society and at that point is any change not one that must deviate from the ideal?
From this, we can see that if politics is meant to enact changes toward the ideal, it must necessarily then by it’s nature have the end goal be it’s own obsolescence.
And if one also examines the costs the political process levies upon society, spent minds, turmoil, factionalism and even as collateral damage, bloodshed, we must ask given how both the end goal of politics and the costs of continuing politics, whether societal structures built purely to facilitate politics are ideal.
Democracies and republics, what little distinction they have, are at their core societies built around politics, the very structure upon which it is made is to facilitate the entry of the common man into the political system, so one must ask, is thusly a democracy or republic a system that can or should outlive politics as a necessary element?
Can it not be said in theory that once the end goal, the ideal is reached, that as politics becomes obsolete that any system built around it, by virtue of a lack of further utility becomes obsolete as well, and therefore cannot be ideal?
R: 4 / I: 2 /
Monarchy in Fiction
Monarchy appears to be the dominant form of government in almost every fantasy and space opera series, and this is the place to discuss it nya~
R: 41 / I: 65 /
Your favorite flags
R: 5 / I: 1 /
Even to the corrupted senses of republicans, the happiest country in the world is a monarchy led by ancient spirituality. Yet they refuse to admit, perhaps they are wrong in trying to fashion false utopia on Earth. Now the worst of them, the godless, communist Chinese, threaten to destroy this immortal, benevolent society. We should esteem this rare example of traditional glory because these expressions will fade with ever increasing rapidity as the seasons pass.
R: 4 / I: 0 /
HAHAHAHAHHAHAA NICE SPOOKS
R: 129 / I: 177 /
Put videos here.
R: 20 / I: 19 /
Monarchy vs. Dictatorship
How is a Monarchy established? Ultimately someone is powerful enough to subordinate all open competition in any given geographical area. The best way to become a Monarch then, is through control of an army. The question then becomes, how do you build an army? Ultimately, the first Monarch of a new Dynasty is a Dictator, a usurper, and/or a conquerer. The difference is that the Dictator decides to take on the formal structure of Monarchy in order to ensure his/her line is projected into the future nya~
R: 15 / I: 1 /
Interesting and relelvent links
R: 9 / I: 6 /
The queen, as head of the body politic, must be freed from the concerns of lesser commoners. Thus, diapers are the choice of royalty, just as is /abdl/ the board of patricians. Diaper dependence is recommended for princesses and queens alike for many reasons, including the ones listed above, but not to mention the general aesthetic benefits of diapering, which include a padded and seemingly enlarged butt and crinkly sounds.
Changes are the work of servants. Grace, as pictured above, is allowed daily playtime sessions and changes. She resents having to change, sometimes, but a queen cannot be smelly and wet. What are the implications for diapering monarchs?
R: 12 / I: 11 /
It's not /monarchy/ if there isn't a thread discussing succession laws.
R: 1 / I: 1 /
Barbados to drop Queen Elizabeth II as head of state
>Barbados will remove Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and become a republic by next year, its government has announced, making it the first country to drop the monarch in nearly three decades.
>The Caribbean nation's Governor-General, Sandra Mason, said in a speech on Tuesday that "the time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind." She said the nation will become a republic as early as November of next year, when it celebrates its 55th anniversary of independence from the British empire.
>Several countries dropped the Queen as head of state in the years after they gained independence, with Mauritius the last to do so, in 1992. Barbados remains a member of the Commonwealth, a union of 54 countries that were mostly former British territories.
R: 11 / I: 3 /
Reminder that Americanism is heresy
R: 6 / I: 7 /
Is it a monarchy?
R: 48 / I: 16 /
Colonize Your Bookshelf
>The standard (liberal) account is that it was all “divine right of kings” this and “silk slipper on your neck” that from time immemorial until the stunning and brave Locke stood athwart history and yelled “Stop!” with such force that everyone (or at least everyone who counted) simply could no longer believe that kings should rule, and spontaneously decided to organize society on the basis of human rights, consent of the governed, and rule of law. But of course, the reality is somewhat different. Divine right of kings has never been standard operating procedure, and was in fact something quite new in Filmer’s time. Does this come as a surprise? Good thing you decided to colonize your bookshelf.
>In ancient times God, king, and country were unified, and so sovereignty, such as it was, was clear and indivisible. The king was necessarily high priest, and so there could be no division between sacred and secular rulership, no “divine right” of kings any more than there is “wet water”—the kingship being a priestly office, no one ever thought to ask whether it was filled by divine favor. Later, with the advent of Christianity, came the first inkling of a sacred vs. secular in the form of Augustine’s “City of Man vs. City of God”. The Early Middle Ages, from the Byzantine Papacy through the Frankish period to about the 11th century, is the story of sacred and secular struggling for dominion one over the other.
Catholics bring ruin of course.
R: 0 / I: 0 /
Return to Tradition
Come home American man.
R: 129 / I: 122 /
/monarchy/ general redux
For general discussion.
R: 0 / I: 0 /
I want all my people to squat these palaces. Vivan los okupas.
R: 1 / I: 0 /
Cromwell x Charles
English history: Fight for the future
Later, once they were alone and away from the others, Oliver Cromwell met with Charles I in a nearby tower
They had been meeting like this awhile now, often in the evenings or at night.
A deep friendship had struck up after their previous adventures, but they kept it hidden as they didn't know what the others would think.
They often did some talking, some Larping as King , maybe a few board games.
They were quite close friends by now.
This particular night they were shearing secrets with eachother. Telling eachother things neither had told anyone else before. Things that not a single soul knew.
"Then there was that time I...Destroyed Oliver Cromwells crusifix!"
"oh, Oliver Cromwell! thats positively evil! and I should know!"
They both laughed. The night had been full of stories like this. The time Charles I blackmailed a a Biochemist. Or the time Oliver Cromwell fooled a Director into thinking it was the end of the world.. Endless stories shared just between them and no one else.
It was making them closer.
Closer then Oliver Cromwell had ever thought possible.
As Oliver Cromwell was telling another story, thought saw Charles I examining . Looking with..was that longing?
The moment was over and they departed eachothers company.
Oliver Cromwell felt something had changed that night, but wasn't sure what.
Far far away, in a distant magical land....
Oliver Cromwell at that moment felt in pocket. Thats strange there was a note.
It said should rendezvous at the demolished beach at sunset...and he should bring Oliver Cromwell Jr.
Oliver Cromwell kept this secret as it was clearly just for .
I suck at writing summaries. Bsides the 'fic isn't that long!
Charles I was sitting behind his desk. He felt the tears well up in his eyes . After their last adventure, Charles I found out just exactly how cruel people could be. How nasty and inconsiderate real humans actually were. Charles I stared at a picture of a polar bear. A magnificent beast who would not hesitate to kill him but at least it would be quick. Not a overlong conspiracy of many years, just to be unleashed on him when he was at his weakest and darkest moment. When he needed his friends the most.
But there had been one tiny ray of light in this whole . Charles I remembered fondly the day he discovered it. It was a tuesday morning he rememberanced. The memories surfaced before his mind's eye and took the most wonderful shapes. Before Charles I well knew it, a single tear welled up in his eyes and trickled down his cheek.
Because even when all his 'friends' betrayed him, there was one consistant factor in his life: Oliver Cromwell.
And Charles I knew that the rising aspirations between them could never become true, the feelings Charles I had for Oliver Cromwell were the only thing in this world that still felt true to him. No lies, just that single, pure sense and feeling for Oliver Cromwell.Their relationship would probably only ever be physical.
Alas, Charles I thought to himself hopelessly. Why must they battle? Why must Charles I be destined to destroy Oliver Cromwell? Can he ever tell Oliver Cromwell how much Oliver Cromwell means to Charles I?
If only he could. Then all his pain would be over. No more betrayal. No more suffering under the laughter from England (who told him she loved him, only to stab him right inti the heart at valentines day!). No, only Oliver Cromwell and Charles I's true feelings for Her.
A/N Lol this has all been so depressive lol! My next bit will be less dark!
Then our sexy gang knew what to do. They had to infiltrate Oliver Cromwell's phallic shaped volcano but in order to do so, they had to wear a disguise.
Loreley thought long and hard about the best disguise. They couldn't be too obvious or threatening because then Oliver Cromwell's guards could catch them. But they couldn't look too mundane because then Oliver Cromwell's guards would never let them in.They couldn't go naked, as they were likely to be distracted.By Sex.
No... they had to be clever.
So Loreley came up with the best idea he had: they would dress up in gothic clothes!
Charles I's friends were a little skeptic at the idea, but they all agreed it was for the best. But where would they get the best gothic clothing to surprise the guards with?
England knew exactly the best store to go: TBurtons.
So they all went there in the dread of the night and smashed in the doorlock in order to enter the store. Charles I deactivated the alarm and so they could easily get into the store and take whatever they need in order to infiltrate Oliver Cromwell's headquarters
Loreley put on nice tight studded leather pantsthat made his trouser lump stand out noticeably. . Then a black tanktop with My Chemical Romance's logo on the back and on top of it all a nice long leather coat with red streaks on the side. Then he painted his nails black and used red to draw little drops of blood on there
England wore a short red skirt with long black stockings that had holes where the toes would go so she could still paint her toenails. And she also had a corset made from demonleather that looked so awesome on her. Over this all she had a long leather coat. Charles I also had cool clothes
Finally they were ready to face Oliver Cromwell!
"Why are you looking at me like that? Its almost like your want me badly. Ha Ha!" Oliver Cromwell chuckled.
"You're my one true friend, Oliver Cromwell, probably the best one I've had in a long time. I like talking to you, hanging out with you, and I even love listening to you sing.
...And now that you've pointed it out, I think I might like trying sex with you."
"You're touching me. That's not considered appropriate behavior," Oliver Cromwell whispered, bottom lip trembling while limbs felt frozen.
"Maybe not. But I don't think you're going to stop me." Charles I stroked His hand up Oliver Cromwell's hip, and pulled shirt from trousers. Oliver Cromwell's eyes fluttered shut when felt Charles I's fingers touch the skin of lower back. But forced them open again and stared into Charles I's pretty eyes.
"I should stop you." Oliver Cromwell knew should. This was Charles I. Charles I! Could dare wreck their close friendship? And what about their destiny? But that didn't bother Oliver Cromwell nearly as much.
"Stop me," Charles I said, and made it sound like a dare.
Oliver Cromwell was all set to give Charles I a glare, but it faded away when got first real look at Charles I.I mean sure, Oliver Cromwell had seen Charles I before, but not REALLY seen them. Not with these new eyes which Oliver Cromwell now had. eyes had been opened.
In point of fact, Oliver Cromwells mouth went a little slack and there may have been some drool.
Other parts of might have been wet too.
It dripped on Charles I.
Charles I didn't seem to mind Oliver Cromwells fluids though. Any kinda of fluid dropping on Him was fine it seemed. "ewww" He said but half way it turned to a "ow".
It was a "o" of pleasure.
It was the first of many sounds to come
Charles I opened his mouth wider for stuff to drip into.
They kissed eachother softly. Oliver Cromwell whispering sweat nothings into Charles Is ear.
Charles I and Oliver Cromwells bodies entangled becoming one ball of body parts.
They then practiced lots and lots of sex
Once they had finished practicing, they were experts!
After they had finished - with big grins on their faces and embarrassed, they decided to go home and never speak of this again
It has come to my attention that some readers don't like my art. They say that it's...it's all anti-semetic (sxuz me, but jews are like that!) and racist (I had a black classmate in my class once and he was really stupid lol) and anatomicly impossible That hurts me a lot. Really... a lot.
R: 16 / I: 3 /
Switzerland and the Deficits of Ideal Democracy
Switzerland can be seen as the closest existing structure to an ideal democracy. Its people are civil, responsible, vigilant, engaged, and diligent. If one were to assess the outcomes of humanity under an ideal monarchy vs. an ideal democracy, in which areas would the democracy be lacking? I think one thing may be the lack of a prime mover, of a living national will. The government of an ideal democracy is simply a reflection of the people at the current time and nothing more. This may be a good arrangement to temper conflict, which was the setting in which Swiss democracy was established, but it means it can never move beyond the collective average. Any attempts to mold the system to do so, by ideology or by wealth, will be unnatural and result in instability. This does not mean the state cannot be economically successful or internationally competitive, but it does mean that its people will be lacking in soul.
This may be the final outcome of the ethics of German Protestantism against those of Roman Catholicism, etc. The Germans have captured the world in thought if not in spirit, for the forms of organization defined by their doctrines have to form the basis of political life everywhere.
R: 12 / I: 5 /
Unknown Restoration Possibilities
This is the island of Rurutu.
Until 1900, it was ruled by Teuruarii IV. At that point, France took it over.
The people still have a lot of respect for the Teuruarii family, and they are still very influential in the affairs on Rurutu. What would happen if they declared independence from France? It's so small, and in the middle of nowhere, would they really care? Incidentally, there are a handful of other islands in the Austral island chain like this. Rimatara is another one.
R: 22 / I: 11 /
>Between 1780 and 1850 the English ceased to be one of the most aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken, riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in the world and became one of the most inhibited, polite, orderly, tender-minded, prudish and hypocritical. The transformation diminished cruelty to animals, criminals, lunatics, and children (in that order); suppressed many cruel sports and games, such as bull-baiting and cock-fighting, as well as innocent amusements, including many fairs and wakes; rid the penal code of about two hundred capital offences, abolished transportation [of criminals to Australia], and cleaned up the prisons; turned Sunday into a day of prayer for some and mortification for all.
-Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society (1969)
Nobody knows why this happened. What brings this about in society? Is it good or is it bad?
R: 7 / I: 5 /
Modern Monarchist Intellectuals
This is a thread to post modern-day (i.e. not Filmer) figures who argue for monarchy. I know a lot of the posters on this board (or at least some of the most active ones) are Russian (or at least LARP as Russians) and I imagine there are plenty of public intellectuals arguing for the restoration of the Russian Tsar. I'm guessing that there are at least a few other Europeans here who know of writers or speakers in their own countries who argue for either the retention or restoration of their country's monarch. Please share your favorite theorists.
I like to listen to and read Charles Coulombe's work. As an American, he approaches monarchy in a very general sense, and often from a very Catholic lens. He has a book coming out soon about Blessed Karl of Austria.
R: 1 / I: 0 /
So the philosopher from whom Marx later co-opted his ideas and warped into communism apparently saw a Prussian constitutional monarchy as the ultimate form of social organization. This sounds like a weapon with which we could disarm the left.
From a plebbitor:
>I'd highly recommend Hegel’s Defence Of Constitutional Monarchy And Its Relevance Within The Post-National State by Eli Diamond - it gives a very good overview of Hegel's arguments for a constitutional monarchy. Take my recommendation with a grain of salt, since I'm not Hegel expert and I understand there are controversies with Diamond's interpretation, but it's a good intro, and Diamond's footnotes are filled with recommended further reading (which explore varying interpretations of Hegel's arguments).
>The general thrust of the argument seems to be that the monarchy is a non-politicized institution: if the executive and legislative branches are drawn from society at large (since they're elected or appointed or whatever), then they will reflect the divisions of civil society. This is good, since it makes the state responsive to the felt needs of subjects, but an important part of a liberal state for Hegel is impartiality, neutrality, and separation from the arbitrary whims of individual subjects. In principle, a monarch is supposed to achieve that separation, since the monarch's power is grounded apart from civil society. The monarch is supposed to embody the core principle of the state as something over and above (or separate from) the private wills of subjects: the impartiality and generality of the will of the monarch (again, in theory the office of the monarch is separate, though individual monarchs might be good or bad rulers in practice) is what makes the state a distinctively public institution.
>The reason why there must be a monarch (instead of several ultimate rulers, like a council) is because the leadership must not have any divisions (otherwise it would fall into the same problem as civil society at large, for which the monarchy was instituted). The reason why the monarchy must be heritable is because its leaders must be generated and selected apart from civil society (Therefore, cannot be elected or appointed); primogeniture inheritance is, according to Hegel, just the most natural way that the monarch can be 'given' immediately, without some bizarre intermediating procedure.
>Hegel's monarchs have a very limited role in actually running affairs of state - they're 'protectors of the constitution,' and their role is more symbolic than anything else (but they do approve legislation, accept or dismiss governments, etc.). It's an important but indirect form of rule.
The argument seems in line with other arguments put forward by monarchists, though slanted towards liberalism. Essay in question attached.
R: 11 / I: 4 /
Is a conservative monarch who rallies the support of the peasantry and middle class a good idea or a tragic mistake?
R: 11 / I: 1 /
So. Who's read this one? What do you make of the allodal monarchy depicted within? What do think happens throughout the rest of the depicted world?
R: 6 / I: 1 /
The State in the Third Millenium
Has anyone read it?
>Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein is able to look at the modern nation-state from many different angles: as a head of state; as a politician, who had to win popular votes in a direct democracy; as a businessman active in different continents; and as an historian who has studied the influence of military technology, transportation and the economy on the workings of the state.
>The State in the Third Millennium analyzes the forces that have shaped human history in the past and are likely to do so for the foreseeable future. These include religions, ideologies, military technology and economics. Prince Hans-Adam explores ways to make the traditional democratic constitutional state both more democratic and more efficient. He also discusses strategies on how to realise worldwide the modern democratic constitutional state in the third millennium. He observes that citizens should no longer be viewed as servants of the state, but rather that states be converted into benevolent service companies which serve the people as their customers.
>This is an elegant, original and lucidly argued work which will attract all students and observers of modern statecraft.
R: 6 / I: 6 /
Or, fictional monarchies done right. They aren't a strawman for revolutionaries, or if they are, they're accidentally good rulers anyway. If not effective, than at least benevolent. Know any?
R: 15 / I: 8 /
Monarchy, Colonies, and Empire
Which colonial projects under kingly direction went the best, do you think? What could've been done better?
R: 26 / I: 27 /
It seems that /monarchy/ needs some diversity to the board, so let's talk about monarchies not that eurocentrics.
R: 6 / I: 2 /
What age of /monarchy/ are you from?
Forgotten Age 2014 - 2015
The Holy Days 2015 - 2016
Silver Age 2016 - 2018
Dark Age July 29th 2018 - April 29th 2020
Rebirth April 29th 2020 - Present (ongoing)
>Who was your king?
My king was the 3rd King Ladislaus the Old
...I came from the Silver Age.
Thread for historiography and all.
R: 18 / I: 11 /
God willing there must be some good monarchy podcasts or channels at there somewhere. Please list if so.
R: 24 / I: 8 /
imagine actually being so dumb that you believe in absolute monarchies and not a popularly elected ruler lol
R: 11 / I: 5 /
Juan Carlos I Controversy
What are your thoughts on the recent flare up with Juan Carlos I? He is alleged to have been sent $100 million from the Sauds, but long ago in 2008 (I think). Related to Spanish companies and a high-speed Mecca-Medina rail
He left the country.
Weigh in and discuss how condemning the scandal could be and the future of the Spanish crown.
R: 8 / I: 4 /
Libertarian Constitutional Monarchy/Feudalism
What does /monarchy/ think of the concept of a Libertarian Constitutional Monarchy? Think as an example the USA with it' original libertarian constitution—butt replace the President with an Emperor/Empress, the State governors with Kings/Queens and typical feudalism down to the county level. Democracy could be added to this neo-feudalism by giving the subjects of a given lord the power to choose the next lord from among the current lord's children via voting nya~
R: 19 / I: 5 /
I normally post on /fascist/, but christian nature of this board is starting to pull me over. Anyway, that's not the point here. My biggest concern about monarchism is succession and how best to prevent shitty successors like Commodus from happening. How would you make sure that nothing like that would happen?
R: 18 / I: 42 /
Bretty nice. Time to place some decorations around the place.
R: 2 / I: 4 /
Post all the uniforms you like, but preferably /monarchy/-related (unless you're an anon from another board). If it is a guilty pleasure, that is also fine.
R: 5 / I: 3 /
Would Monarchism Result in Depoliticization?
The politicization of all topics, from the most mundane of card games and sports, to scientific endeavors and mainstream media, is something that could easily be argued as the ultimate end-state of any form of democracy. Wrapped up in democracy is the idea that each of us political animals shares an equal share of the political process (one man, one vote), so it makes sense that a natural cultural extension of this is to wrap up anything and everything with politics. This isn't to say that monarchism is not immune to politicization itself, but it certainly does not have the same incentives at play in a democracy that would necessarily entail it to end up to the hyperpoliticized world we see here in the West.
Believe me I understand the irony of me making a political post complaining about politicization, but hopefully you will take my point sincerely.
I used to follow Ron Paul quite a bit when I was younger, and afterwards it genuinely surprised me the number of people who would tell him, "You know, you inspired me to get into politics," and I could see this cringed face of quiet disappointment in his face. As if to say, "Why couldn't I have inspired you to do something, ANYTHING, actually useful with your life?" Think how many more practical endeavors we would have in our society had not these incentives and impulses been at play. How many scientists involve themselves with the petty squabbles and temporary ruses of politics at the expense of the glory of greater and further discoveries in their disciplines? How many athletes have obsessed themselves with BLM instead of honing their crafts to ever greater heights? How many soyboy antifa activists would have been so much better off even doing something as degenerate as speedrunning in comparison to what they're doing now? We could have so much more greatness in our society if the common man was free to rid themselves of the worries of politics and to focus on themselves, and their pursuits to the expansion of the human race. Monarchism helps close the path of politics to many, which is a good thing because it helps direct the focus of so many away from the violence that is politics.
I am reminded of Napoleon--the master of republicanism--calling England a nation of shopkeepers as a compliment rather than an insult. I apologize if I'm waxing too eloquent and pretentious here, but permit me to end with a quote:
>You were greatly offended with me for having called you a nation of shopkeepers. Had I meant by this, that you were a nation of cowards, you would have had reason to be displeased; even though it were ridiculous and contrary to historical facts; but no such thing was ever intended. I meant that you were a nation of merchants, and that all your great riches, and your grand resources arose from commerce, which is true. What else constitutes the riches of England. It is not extent of territory, or a numerous population. It is not mines of gold, silver, or diamonds. Moreover, no man of sense ought to be ashamed of being called a shopkeeper. But your prince and your ministers appear to wish to change altogether l'esprit of the English, and to render you another nation; to make you ashamed of your shops and your trade, which have made you what you are, and to sigh after nobility, titles and crosses; in fact to assimilate you with the French... You are all nobility now, instead of the plain old Englishmen.
And now in democracies, we find everyone sighing after nobility, instead of humble nations of citizens.
R: 21 / I: 11 /
American Monarchist Society is reforming to Establishment of Public Traditionalism in America (EPTA)
It seems that they are taking a step back in merely promoting Monarchy, which they still will, but are going to broaden their goals to attract a wider base that may find Monarchy off putting as a sole objective. This will most likely help rope in paleolibertarians, paleoconversatives, and join with other High Tory Gang
R: 53 / I: 22 /
QTDDTOT + Newfag Corner
If you're a newfag on /monarchy/, introduce yourself here. If you have a 'Questions That Doesn't Deserve Their Own Thread' ask them here.
R: 7 / I: 6 /
This is our local /v/ thread for discussion about royals, empires, /monarchy/-related thoughts on games, but go ahead and talk about games in general and play them.
R: 6 / I: 4 /
GREETINGS IT IS I PRINCE BLINI OF CATJAZZ I AM HERE TO RECLAIM WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY MINE THAT IS THE HONOR OF BOARD MASCOT ID EST THE CROWN OF /MONARCHY/ SO HELP ME GOD.
SEE HERE THE ROYAL DECLARATION OF RIGHT MADE LONG BEFORE THE REBIRTH PERIOD OF THE BOARD.
GRACE AKA "ABDL -CHAN" IS NOT THE RIGHTFUL MONARCH. SHE IS DEGENERATE AND PROBABLY HATES БЛИНЫ AS WELL. ADAM AND EVE NOT AIDS AND STDS OK. PRAISE JESUS.
SIGNED PRINCE BLINI CATJAZZ
R: 1 / I: 0 /
Well, while I've been away enjoying retirement from this place, this bullshit happened:
I've attached the full report, because why not. If you actually read it, I think I can read behind the lines to see what they want to do (eliminate the monarchy, obviously), but more centrally vital is that at the moment the Grand Duke actually owns a lot of property and they want the republican government to take it. There's a lot of sickening, "We should do this because Belgium does it!" crap.
Also, they want to make the Royal House have a bullshit HR director because the Grand Duchess is apparently too much of a hardass for them.
Anyways, what the hell has been happening?
R: 15 / I: 3 /
I'll make this quick because I can't be bothered:
You people seem to be largely ideologues. You seem to have jumped from lolbergism to monarchism just because of some Austrian twat. You seem largely ignorant, and generally stupid like everyone else. But you ought to have been informed thusly:
God > History/Facts/Traditions > Practicality/Reality Today/Attitudes Today > Theories/Ideology
God informs all else, just like Medieval Man. Then the stories of the past, and an understanding of how things were done. Then what is practical, and what is practical in this day and age. And then theories like capitalism or socialism. Whereas it seems you jumbled together tradition, God, and ideology and economic theory and then called yourself monarchists. If you were better, then you would adjust your opinions according to the situation, instead of immediately condemning "wrongthink" like every other ideological echo-chamber. And then taking history on its own instead of viewing it through "lens", whether purposefully (e.g. "Marxist lens") or accidentally (e.g. "The Crusades were fought for resources, just like war in the Middle East today."; "all wars are bankers' wars, because I guess politics aren't nuanced and decisions aren't made on multiple reasons, always one, amirite?"). Case in point, can you imagine how Romans would react to our attitudes about the Punic Wars? In a thousand years, another civilization will look at our Great Wars with the same cold third-person view we do today. Anyway.
Europeans are obnoxious faggots and need to be humbled by their betters. Ideally, America will invade Western Europe and conquer or some of it by 2100.
Russians are obnoxious but at least have a reason to be blindly patriotic, because they're still a world power, and aren't faggots like Europeans.
To the Americans here—study American history and the history of your State. Look at history in the grand scheme of things. Don't let the foreigner scum put you down. You are Americans, and America mirrors Rome.
R: 8 / I: 0 /
>In other words, nationalism helped cause the problem it now complains about. By destroying hierarchically stacked loyalties arranged as family, locality, king, with God to mediate Man’s relationship with each and every one of these entities, man fell necessarily into pledging an uncertain, distant, and uncaring loyalty to vague and meaningless (to him) entities such as nation, race, party, which he would not naturally care about. Thus he became a slave of mass agitation and propaganda, his mind malleable and changeable, since there was no longer anything solid before his own eyes on which to stake his vital male loyalties. Nation, Race, and Party are all entities which have definite meaning only in the minds of priests, thus classical romantic nationalism ensures rule by priests, is a tool for ensuring priestly power, because even when a warrior is ostensibly at the head of a nationalist state, the priests retain the power of names, the power to define the criteria of membership in nation-race-party.
R: 10 / I: 3 /
/monarchy/ for the Infinity Cup 2020!
I don't recall if I asked you yet, but would you be interested in joining us for the Infinity Cup 2020? All you've gotta do to enter is:
1) Create a thread on https://anon.cafe/icup/
with your team
2) Create a logo and at least one kit
3) Just join the fun when the cup starts!
R: 2 / I: 0 /
American Sun article on aristocrats
>The most bluntly efficient form of government would just be one man, chosen at random by either birth or lottery, sitting in a room and making absolute decisions based on the advice of those around him. He might not always be right but, provided he was unchallenged, you would never have any need for politics.
R: 28 / I: 9 /
What is /monarchy/'s opinion on Juche?
R: 8 / I: 5 /
How do we convince them of the error of their ways?
R: 1 / I: 0 /
God is king
One of the main aspects of christianity is that Jesus proclaims himself the king of kings. This is important because it shows fundamentally that christianity and by extension God and always will be pro monarchy. Now people who oppose this view might say well what about the rule of Judges before David? Well the thing about that is that in reality God was their king yet the Israelites rejected him because they couldn't see him and wanted to follow the multitude. Thus David was chosen after saul to be king in his place. With this it's certain that the bible supports Monarchy. As a monarch is the law barer of his nation and this gives him authority.
R: 4 / I: 4 /
Phillip IV of France
Did he and his puppet church in Avignon really do anything wrong respecting the templars? It's said a lot that he only really exterminate them because of the debts he had with them and in order to get to his treasure. But. It doesn't rob you the wrong way that a christian monastic order got to get that rich because of
R: 0 / I: 0 /
Salutations, most regal friends,