The whole idea of "monarchy as an institution" is mostly what I'm complaining about.
I wouldn't be making this case about Frederick the Great if it wasn't for trads throwing it in my lap and pulling me into their zeitgeist bullshit.
I hate their zeitgeist bullshit. I would rather not listen to the trad babble about the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment dialectic or how the modern world is burning his skin off. It's like generational meme or "decade" culture on steroids.
At the end of the day, I am clearly stating, because you trads leave me no other option, that I prefer this Augustus with the imperial armor and want this out of monarchy more than Augustus draped in solitude for priestly robes. I will viciously contest your tradism and desire to put priests on the pedestal rather than this or listen to trads bemoan about kings. I posted that video of Ramses II, the Battle of Kadesh, and the warrior monarch. I will kick dirt in your face.
When it comes down to me and trads, if they're going to make me choose, I am kicking dirt in their face. I want the epic, warrior Augustus dawned in armor more than the priestly, solitude Augustus.
I somewhat disagree with OP, and I don't think Augustus is any less august when he dawns the imperial armor rather than the priestly robes. I think that the majesty of monarchy is the personal character, the pre-eminent man, because that is the supernatural belief inherent in monarchy. It isn't just that they take an institutional office.
And while it is true that kings in the Spartan oligarchy also had a spiritual power, they were also warriors and I'm not really with the trads on their priest fetish--it isn't my taste.
My main problem with this is that first it seems like a parliamentarian image. Second, it treats monarchy more like a part in relation to the whole rather than the whole in relation to the part... denying the pre-eminence and glory in monarchy, the supernatural characteristic, the majesty, the unity, the belief in leadership; almost none of you believe in leadership, or look at it with contempt.
Sick of your three-fold complaint about the usual Charles-Louis-Nicholas ordeal and especially the way you badmouth it too, anti-royalist. I'm not sucking up to you no matter how much you give me that tit-for-tat attitude about what the monarch owes you. I want to be around monarchists who have the view of monarchy in mind, support it, and see the monarch as something innovative and useful today.
I am not a fan of the so-called limited royalism. I don't like the powerless, shelved off royals you trads like, because you feel it divides the church or the clergy. I would say that it is better to have one day as a lion rather than a thousand years as sheep. I'm not surprised there is contempt for limited royalism today. At some point, while you could say that retain royal status, they cease to be monarchs.
If you really want to brag about limited monarchy, you get a leader with term limits like a President.
>Imagine calling divine revelation petty and divisive
I complained about political parties in that instance, but since trads really try to make themselves seem cool in comparison to "muh enlightenment" I really do go out of my way to contrast and ask them whether they too are content with viewing monarchy as solely a high priest and not emperor in majestic armor.
No matter how "trad" you people paint it, I don't like it.
I am tired of dealing a rivalry with anarchists each day, and "anarcho-monarchism" isn't what I really like either. The word "anarchy" makes me vomit.
I hate coming to this board and sensing the ideological bitterness, and the contempt between us. I hate my own petty grievances and frustration with you peasants.
Monarchy, one body, and one head...
Anarchy, the headless body.
I'm hitting the road and leaving this board.