Why do so many people believe that the majority of history's monarchs were bad?

You can get lucky and have a really great monarch who does great things for your nation.

well the jacobins weren't marxist

>Monarchy is literally the most stable form of government

>GUYS THE KING HAS NO MALE HEIR
>OH NOOOOOOOO

>GUYS THE PEASANTS DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE THE MANDATE OF HEAVEN
>FUuUUUCK.

Liberal brainwashing even the worst monarchs were not as bad as many politicians.

Do you know any history? War breaks out frequently over who is the rightful ruler, which is why the monarch having a son who doesn't get assassinated or otherwise die, is so important.

More stable than the vast majority of democracies.

Stable is a relative term when dealing with agents who compete with each other on an ever-morphing terrain.

WE
WUZ
MONARCHS

>More stable than the vast majority of democracies.

Prove it.

maybe its because so many so called "democracies" are shitty countries.
a decent democracy is always more stable than a decent monarchy

Bourgeois propaganda

Why would the bourgeoisie be against monarchy?

promotion

Enlightenment ideals, French Revolution in general

>implying they weren't

They were a radical faction of an enlightenment movement with many a member acting like communists avant la lettre

because those are the ones that got famous.
good people are hardly remembered fondly , just look at how scrooge was portrayed.

amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684

>prove it
>here's a book that you have to buy from my insane ideologue who's considered credible by jack and shit

Showed me.

>most capable

That's a subjective opinion.

>arguing in favor of Anarcho style government

Ok buddy.

show me a democracy that doesnt by inherents placate to the lowest common denominator of degenerated socialism & with it baseline primal attributes of humanity such as greed, lieing, sin etc, bud.

They're the ones who benefit from not having hereditary positions.

Imagine the US presidency as a dynasty, the Line of Washington. The Line of Washington has currently undergone forty-three dynastic successions without a single violent dispute. As far as I know, this is unprecedented among dynasties – unless it be the dynasty of Japanese Emperors, who managed the feat only after their power was made strictly ceremonial. The closest we’ve ever come to any kind of squabble over who should be President was Bush vs. Gore, which was decided within a month in a court case, which both sides accepted amicably.

To an observer from the medieval or Renaissance world of monarchies and empires, the stability of democracies would seem utterly supernatural. Imagine telling Queen Elizabeth I – whom as we saw above suffered six rebellions just in her family’s two generations of rule up to that point – that Britain has been three hundred years without a non-colonial-related civil war. She would think either that you were putting her on, or that God Himself had sent a host of angels to personally maintain order.

Democracies are vulnerable to one kind of conflict – the regional secession. This is responsible for the only (!) major rebellion in the United States’ 250 year (!) history, and might be a good category to place Britain’s various Irish troubles. But the long-time scourge of every single large nation up to about 1800, the power struggle? Totally gone. I don’t think moderns are sufficiently able to appreciate how big a deal this is. It would be like learning that in the year 2075, no one even remembers that politicians used to sometimes lie or make false promises.

How do democracies manage this feat? It seems to involve three things:

First, there is a simple, unambiguous, and repeatable decision procedure for determining who the leader is – hold an election. This removes the possibility of competing claims of legitimacy.

Second, would-be rebels have an outlet for their dissatisfaction: organize a campaign and try to throw out the ruling party. This is both more likely to succeed and less likely to leave the country a smoking wasteland than the old-fashioned method of raising an army and trying to kill the king and everyone who supports him.

Third, it ensures that the leadership always has popular support, and so popular revolts would be superfluous.

If you remember nothing else about the superiority of democracies to other forms of government, remember the fact that in three years, we will have a change of leadership and almost no one is stocking up on canned goods to prepare for the inevitable civil war.

>Monarchy is literally the most stable form of government
Oh god the stupid things nations has done due to the whims of the monarchs are boundless, especially in China

Forgot to mention, this comes from here:

slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/

More choice quotes:

"Let’s review how Elizabeth I came to the throne. Her grandfather, Henry VII, had won the 15th century Wars of the Roses, killing all other contenders and seizing the English throne. He survived several rebellions, including the Cornish Rebellion of 1497, and lived to pass the throne to Elizabeth’s father Henry VIII, who passed the throne to his son Edward VI, who after surviving the Prayer Book Rebellion and Kett’s Rebellion, named Elizabeth’s cousin Lady Jane Grey as heir to the throne. Elizabeth’s half-sister, Mary, raised an army, captured Lady Jane, and eventually executed her, seizing the throne for herself. An influential nobleman, Thomas Wyatt, raised another army trying to depose Mary and put Elizabeth on the throne. He was defeated and executed, and Elizabeth was thrown in the Tower of London as a traitor. Eventually Mary changed her mind and restored Elizabeth’s place on the line of succession before dying, but Elizabeth’s somethingth cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, also made a bid for the throne, got the support of the French, but was executed before she could do further damage.

Actual monarchies are less like the Reactionaries’ idealized view in which revolt is unthinkable, and more like the Greek story of Damocles – in which a courtier remarks how nice it must be to be the king, and the king forces him to sit on the throne with a sword suspended above his head by a single thread. The king’s lesson – that monarchs are well aware of how tenuous their survival is – is one Reactionaries would do well to learn."

There's definitely some sort of relationship between how much absolute power you have and how likely you are to treat people like ants and cities like anthills.

>The Line of Washington has currently undergone forty-three dynastic successions without a single violent dispute.
>American Civil War didn't happen

>I can't read

Forgot to add Texas, but you still contradicted yourself.

>Modern democracy is a 200 year old institution and counting.
>Monarchies have been around for literal millenia
>Dynasties have come and go and bloody civil wars were fought just because some baby was born in the wrong womb.
>"Vast majority of democracies."
Yeah let us even consider that many of these troubled democracies are literally new states.

>he's asking this shit seriously

Ever heard about the French revolution?

Many of those troubled democracies are about as democratic as North Korea anyway.
Obviously when the elections are just a formality to legitimize the absolute ruler-for-life or his son in the eyes of foreign observers, people are going to react like they would under an absolute monarchy. Probably even worse if they have a feeling they got duped.

The stupidity and ignorance that's why.

>Obviously when the elections are just a formality to legitimize the absolute ruler-for-life or his son in the eyes of foreign observers
>Every third world country is north korea president 4 lyf tier.
I see you have a meme knowledge of the third world.

Or to use an example: people like to claim the American elections are a sham but if it was in a banana republic, Bernie would be running against Clinton (or Obama) only to get pressured/bribed into retiring in her favor right before the vote and Trump would have been somehow prevented from running at all, leaving him no choice but to use his wealth to fund a private army to take over the country by force.

You can't deny that many "troubled ""democracies""" are hereditary dictatorships. Don't make me list them.
Another big category are the juntas with puppet civilian administrations.

Why'd you quote "troubled?"
They're nominally democracies but there's nothing nominal about their troubles.

"troubled democracy" is an euphemism.

Well, I can, since I live in one. SEA's democracies are just shit but the "EL PRESIDENTE" days are over (well, except for Thailand and Burma & its Juntas. Oh there's a stellar example of a "stable monarchy" for you).

Good and bad kings are remembered, the meh ones aren't. Every Frenchman knows Louis XIV and Louis XVI. The other Louis' aren't really that remembered, except maybe Saint Louis (another king who was really, really good).

>More stable than the vast majority of democracies.
There is no such thing as a pure democracy in the world nowadays, not even Switzerland. Not every Republic is a democracy, and Republics have a history going back literally thousands of years.

The biggest reason to prefer republics, democratic or otherwise, is that in a monarchy ruled by inheritance you cannot guarantee a good, or even a halfway decent, king. You could end up with a literal drooling retard like the Spanish and Austrians had on occassion.

But with a democracy, ALL rulers are 'meh'. I'd hardly say that's an improvement.

>But with a democracy, ALL rulers are 'meh'
Which means they aren't destructive. Nor (theoretically, assuming the system works) in a position to oppress. And if they somehow do happen to be utterly shit (like Hollande in France), after 4-5 years you're rid of him.

Imagine a spineless slug like Hollande ruling France until his death. The country would never recover.

The only people who actively support an Absolute Monarchy, or a powerful monarchy is someone who's a) standing to gain from such a corrupt system or b) never experienced one.

slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/

This is just anecdotal evidence so I know it's not an argument, but in my personal experience those who support an absolute, pre-revolutionary monarchy tend to see themselves as displaced nobility, though only a negligible minority of them would be able to trace their lineage back to a pure and legitimate noble line. Most of them, if they were lucky, would've been the disgruntled bourgeois, frustrated over their lack of political representation.

I've met quite a few here in Australia who think they're some temporarily embarrassed landless gentry. I think it's the need to create an identity for themselves, separate from the rest of society, so they lump all modern political ideologies into one big grouping and denounce it all as massive failure.

The Bourgeios are literally the most successful, innovative and adaptive class in the history of mankind.

You're giving them too much credit.

>Wake up, get out of bed get ready to serve my lord Schlomo II.
>Year is 17 A.G., recently moved to Schlomo II's patch after being promised a bigger bread allotment than I was receiving under Chaim III
>Fuck yeah, this is progress oops I mean restoration. Fuck yeah.
>King's self driving bus takes me to the palace for work
>Bus takes a tunnel underground so we can enter through the servant's entrance in the basement
>On my way in notice a group of new recruits in HR taking IQ tests at a row of terminals
>One of the screens starts flashing red, electronic alarm sounds "130 IQ PLEB DETECTED"
>Drones swarm in and grab the goy, er guy taking the test, drag him away
>Thank Gnon, can you imagine living with such imbeciles
>Get ready to start work
>All real work is done by superior robots
>Humans receive payment by entertaining the king
>Just got a huge promotion from the groveling department
>Put on my crab suit
>Enter the royal throne room. Schlomo II sitting on his throne
>Spend the rest of the day dancing in crab suit for King Schlomo, singing hymns to Gnon
>Almost at the end of shift, master of entertainment comes in and tells King its time for the final entertainment

>Dis gon be good
>130 IQ pleb from earlier is brought out by drones set before king
>Master of Entertainment: "Sire this man is guilty of poisoning our world with his low IQ DNA"
>King: "Accused, have you anything to say in your defense"
>The Accused: "Sire, I may be dumb but I have always been loyal. In the year 15 B.G. I started an NRx twitter feed with Moldbug quotes and reactionary cat memes"
>The whole throne room is silent waiting for the kings reply
>Crab dancers, grovelers, the royal family, hangers on, royal joke duck, all silent
>King: "Ha! No man of 130 IQ could truly comprehend the sacred NRx texts. You are a mere entryist. Feed him to Gnon!"
>A cheer goes up, the whole room starts chanting: "Gnon Gnon Gnon Gnon"
>A screen lights up on the opposite side of the room with a cold indifferent visage
>A fiery pit opens before the screen
>The king's drones drag the screaming pleb into the pit and he dies an awful death
>The visage drones: "This pleases Gnon. Now more crab dancing."
>Fuck. Gotta work overtime
>Shift finally ends and robo-bus takes me back to my techno-hovel
>Eat my bread allotment while watching The Radish Report
>What a great time to be alive

Pretty much the only modern form of monarchy that would work (other than the tax-sucking puppets many Yuropoors have) is some kind of Bonapartism. And even then I consider both Napoleons to be more comparable to Roman dictators (heroes who arose to save the Republic in times of crisis, I'd also add De Gaulle and maybe Pétain to that list) than to real ancien regime monarchs.

Yeah, it's probably no coincidence that many of the greatest leaders overthrew the old regime and/or started a new dynasty.

>The Line of Washington has currently undergone forty-three dynastic successions without a single violent dispute. As far as I know, this is unprecedented among dynasties – unless it be the dynasty of Japanese Emperors, who managed the feat only after their power was made strictly ceremonial.

To be fair, this is a bit disingenuous, considering that US presidents are usually only in office for a couple of years, whereas monarchs often reign for longer, sometimes several decades. For comparison, while the US has had 43 presidents in its 250 year history, the UK has only had 11 monarchs in the same time frame.

Whig historiography.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

That makes it even more amazing, not less. If you had a monarchy where the kings or heirs kept dying in short succession (even from natural causes) you'd bet it would cause great instability and civil wars, especially when the throne inevitably passes to an infant or inbred retarded nephew who was supposed to be the last among potential successors in his cohort. Democracy produces an inexhaustible supply of reasonably competent legitimate successors that it can cycle through until the country is in good hands and the people satisfied with their ruler.

The Japanese are wringing their hands right now about how to handle the Emperor's upcoming abdication despite the fact that they had decades and generations to prepare the succession.

>If you had a monarchy where the kings or heirs kept dying in short succession
In other hands, if the monarchy didn't work in the way a monarchy is supposed to work, then the monarchy wouldn't work!

For fucks sake, I'm a republican (lower case r) and even I think you're being retarded.

>Democracy produces an inexhaustible supply of reasonably competent legitimate successors
And an equally large supply of the corrupt and easily bribable. Which is why Maurras' main argument for monarchy was that a monarch cannot be bribed. Just look at Shillary and her extremely questionable foundations that get money from dubious sources, or Sarkozy who might be running for president yet again straight after a corruption scandal. Or Bouterse in Surinam, literally a drug dealer and assassin who became president to stay out of prison.

Democracy has is flaws, some much greater than those of monarchy. A monarch can easily be retarded, but a democracy can much more easily be subverted away from the good of the nation and the people.

Top 5 richest nations in the world:

>Qatar
>Luxembourg
>Singapore
>Brunei
>Kuwait

4/5 are monarchies

Bottom 5 countries:

>Somalia
>Central African Republic
>DR Congo
>Burundi
>Liberia

All republics

>Microstates
Clearly we should ditch the nation state model and live in such communities.

Outside of Luxembourg and Brunei those are not microstates.

>if the monarchy didn't work in the way a monarchy is supposed to work
What do you mean? If a king dies, power passes on to the next in line. That's how it's supposed to work. There's no mandated duration.
Back when medicine was shit, the throne changed hands a lot more often and a king ruling for decades as an adult was memorable enough.

>I think you're being retarded
That's my line. A country changing rulers so frequently without degenerating into civil war and anarchy would have inspired awe in the old days. There's nothing disingenuous about noting how easily and painlessly democracies can find palatable successors and handle frequent transitions of power.

>And an equally large supply of the corrupt and easily bribable.
You seriously think the king's inbred nephew would have been much better at resisting private interests, even if we charitably count the royal family's interest as the public interest?

>Maurras' main argument for monarchy was that a monarch cannot be bribed
Then he was a bloody retard who should have been reading Confucian literature or mirrors for princes instead of hagiographies.

But isn't it kind of ironic that the tiny European monarchies who survived the enlightened post-Napoleonic republican craziness and national unifications (Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco) are some of the wealthiest places on the continent?

Shitty-States might as well qualify.

Because most people in the modern era are liberal democrats who think the only way we get a good leader is through choice.

Same reason we assume all dictators today are evil, liberalism is built on the (often illusion) of choice between multiple democratic parties.

>Oil shithole
>European micronation
>East Asian micronation
>Oil shithole
>Oil shithole
Yup, they're rich because they're monarchies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
Look at wealth per adult and you get a very different result. Brunei and Kuweit aren't even on the list, and Qatar is near the bottom. The top ranking countries are all republics or symbolical monarchies that are de facto republics.

Also, it's quite unfair to just look at the list of the lowest countries considering how many, many, many more republics the world has compared to monarchies.

Not even close. Hong Kong could be called a "city state" (yes, nominally it's a part of China, but still) it has around 7 million people. Singapore has around 5 and a half, that's more than Finland, Slovakia, Norway, Costa Rica, Ireland, New Zealand, Croatia or Bosnia.

>Singapore is not a microstate
If Singapore was part of Malaysia it would be rather unremarkable. Because we compare it to real countries instead of London or Paris, it tops international rankings. It's basically the same thing for Qatar and Kuwait, especially since most of the population aren't citizens but hired foreign labor.

There are very few true nation states, my friend.

And many of the powers that be that manage the world aren't any of them.
>Great Britain
>America
>China
>Russia
>One is a federal republic consisting of immigrant peoples, one is a union of kingdoms, two are ex-empires pretending to be nation-states for the sake of global acceptance.

France might be the only one, but that is open to controversy since what is "French" really just showed up in the 1700s.

Singapore has 5 and a half million people, that's not a microstate.

We can go on and on, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, UK, all of them are monarchies.

It's pretty amazing how people say "Empires are dead" but when you look at the maps of Russia and China you'd realize that unlike many colonial powers, they still largely have most of their historic empires.

The bible says that kings are a terrible idea
I'm going to go with the word of God

>If a king dies, power passes on to the next in line. That's how it's supposed to work.
>A country changing rulers so frequently without degenerating into civil war and anarchy would have inspired awe in the old days.
Pick one.

>You seriously think the king's inbred nephew would have been much better at resisting private interests
The king's inbred nephew. Not the king himself. What is the king's inbred nephew even doing? If he's really an inbred retard, he's either just lounging around or put in some symbolic position where he gets to wear fancy uniforms and do nothing. The problem only arises when the king HIMSELF is inbred. Even if the inbred nephew somehow turns on the king, that's betrayal. Not abuse of power (as, again, this nephew most likely has close to no power and most certainly no power that outshines the king).

>Then he was a bloody retard
Uh-huh, of course he was.
>Confucian literature or mirrors for princes
Because that totally describes the flaws of the West European system of monarchy, doesn't it? Even the difference between Droit Divine and Heavenly Mandate is large enough to make the two incomparable.

Cogent historical analysis my fellow intellectual.

When your monarchical dynasty is nothing more than a cultural showpiece, you're not a real monarchy.

>Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, UK, all of them are monarchies
And how much does the monarch have to say in those countries compared to their prime ministers? Or do you really think those monarchs give a passive boost to the economy like in some fucking Paradox game?

Citation needed, because the Bible is pretty pro-monarchist according to some.
madmonarchist.blogspot.nl/2010/10/bible-and-christian-monarchy.html

Perfect example of a No True Scotsman.

>The bible says that kings are a terrible idea

Oh yeah that's why Jesus is called "the king of kings" and not "the president of presidents".

Your argument ignores the fact that humans now are different from humans in the middle ages. Are government now more stable because they are democratic, or more stable because barbarism has been weeded out and bred out of us?

It's not No True Scotsman if the "Scotsman" in question doesn't fit the commonly accepted definition of Scotsman. David Cameron, being an Englishman, truly isn't a true scotsman for example.

The republics in most of the world all have put limitations on democracy in one way or another, so they aren't real democracies. At best they are limited democracies. How about you open up the Federalist Papers, or look at the anti-democratic reforms of Charles de Gaulle, or read Montesquieu or pretty much any modern political writer. The closest you come to a proponent of true (unlimited, direct) democracy is Rousseau, and even he believed this could only work for city-states like Geneva and that France was too big for such a thing to work.

>M-Muh representative democracy though
Yeah, which is why they are limited by unelected judges and in many countries unelected heads of government, right?

In Sweden it's even worse, they're a national embarrassment. They're a holdover from Napoleonic political matchmaking, the current thing looks like a more pathetic Francois Hollande, and is only relevant when he gets caught with prostitutes.

Then again this is Sweden, so perhaps he is a true Fisher King to his nation.

Isn't the Swedish dynasty nowadays descended from like a traitor general to Napoleon?

Yeah, Bernadotte.

>Pick one.
I pick both and I pray a history book falls off a shelf and embeds itself in your thick skull.

>The king's inbred nephew. Not the king himself
Well he's the king now that the king is dead. By the way, it's statistically unlikely that the former king was not corrupt.
>The problem only arises when the king HIMSELF is inbred.
Yes, that's why monarchies fare badly when kings die so fast or the rules of succession are so strict there's no decent legitimate successor to be found.
By the way, it's a caricature to claim that only inbred kings abuse their power and foster corruption. I used a inbred retard as an example of one that is obviously extremely manipulable.

>that totally describes the flaws of the West European system of monarchy, doesn't it
Well, yes, that's what the mirrors for princes are meant to do.
>Even the difference between Droit Divin and Heavenly Mandate is large enough to make the two incomparable.
Apparently not. Look, dumbshit, every piece of advice ever written for kings and future kings went like this "now, you know a lot of people are going to try to flatter you, bribe you and manipulate you, and it's VERY VERY important that you resist them. Let me reiterate that point for 800 pages." Clearly they didn't think kings were incorruptible. As far as I know, the only people besides Maurras who claimed that were the radical fringe of the Japanese Ultranationalist movements who used mystico/religious mumbo-jumbo to argue that the Emperor was spiritually immune to selfishness. The Emperor himself thought they were dangerous lunatics.
Despite all precautions, the history of monarchies was still filled with foolish tyrants and puppet rulers who led their country to ruin simply because their corrupt advisors knew to placate them with wine and women, to say nothing of the pragmatic deals and power plays that even good monarchs need get the support of the elites. And how was someone like Louis XV not corrupt in every sense of the word?

>Corrupt
But anyway, everyone, except a (((few))) would gain from it. It would mean that government can be planned for the best by the best, without fear of unpopularity ruining things in the long run.

>and I pray a history book falls off a shelf
Will it damage my brain to the point where your argument seems logical. A system that leads to civil war and anarchy doesn't work. So yes, a monarchy in which somehow, for multiple decades, every ruler dies after 4 years, doesn't work. Your comparison about 50+ successions in a dynasty makes no sense.

>Well he's the king now that the king is dead.
That's still not abuse of power. It's treason, clearly, but he did not abuse a specific power coming from a specific public function to kill the king. Just like a senator ordering the assassination of a president isn't abuse of power, but a senator taking bribes to push for (for example) more lax tobacco legislation is.

>Yes, that's why monarchies fare badly when kings die so fast or the rules of succession are so strict there's no decent legitimate successor to be found.
Again, bringing us back to the first point: a monarchy doesn't work if the monarchs keep dying ever 4 years.

>Well, yes, that's what the mirrors for princes are meant to do.
How about you go ahead and explain how a king, an absolute king no less, can be bribed. He already owns the entire country. Hell, if he's British he even owns all the swans in that country.

>"now, you know a lot of people are going to try to flatter you, bribe you and manipulate you, and it's VERY VERY important that you resist them. Let me reiterate that point for 800 pages."
"Bribe"? In the sense of "push for this law or do this or that and I will pay you this or that"? What ludicrous amount of money or land would be needed for that, while still being insignificant enough to not benefit the kingdom as a whole?

>As far as I know, the only people besides Maurras who claimed that were the radical fringe of the Japanese Ultranationalist movements
And... you know, most reactionary thinkers? The monarch was not infallible, but by his position as monarch downright unbribable. How do you bribe a man who already has everything?

>And how was someone like Louis XV not corrupt in every sense of the word?
Corrupt and incompetent? Clearly. But what he wasn't was bribed. Perhaps influenced from the wrong directions, but his power was not bought. There were no lobbies that rewarded him for passing edicts in their favor.

"Traitor general" is simplifying it a bit

>(other than the tax-sucking puppets many Yuropoors have)
Which ones are those?

>using China as an example.
M8 Chinese Dynasties lasted over 300, only exeption being Qin and Sui.
Chinese democracy didn't even last a decade.

The monarchs of the Netherlands are the best paid monarchs in the world, for starters.
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9412600/Dutch-royal-family-overtake-Britains-as-most-expensive-in-Europe.html

Roughly 60 million euros each year. Imagine that money being invested in health care, or education, or impulse programs to create employment.

Right, when I think of Americans, what comes to mind is "peaceful, complacent, respectful of etiquette and decency, never angry or prone to barbarism, hold revolution in contempt, would never think of opposing their rulers."
Clearly that's why they succeeded where uncivilized Chinese anarcho-individualists failed for thousands of years. It's too bad the Emperors never got the idea to massacre a few million rebels and their families to promote stability and select for a more docile population. Oh wait.

>Dutch-royal-family-overtake-Britains-as-most-expensive
Well that wouldn't be hard. The Windsors are a net gain of £200m/yr.
Which brings me to the question of how Orange-Nassau is funded. Taxpayers, or like many others, through their own holdings?