How did absolute monarchy propagate into the 19th-20th century?

How in the history of civilization did the concept of monarchy remain almost unchanged until the American/Jacobian revolutions began spreading populism? It stagnates a culture and creates a monopoly on power that would have likely pissed off at least one sizable peasant revolt to the point of successful government upheaval.
Was life really just not that bad?
Was it a problem with not having communication/education among a large segment of the populous?
Did capital punishment and torture have a better deterrent effect in these eras than it does in the modern world?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

people are cucks who demand to be cucked

>It stagnates a culture

because that's a bad thing, right?

oh wait. maybe a stagnant culture is better than the other option... no national culture. like we see in 2016

the peasants, the lower class, were always cntent as long as they got food, and were not educated enough to know anything better.
The middle class was usually educated enough, but wasn't big enough to pose a threath.
Only when the middle class reached a critical mass, a replacement of the old order was possible.

Because absolute monarchy represents the alliance between the state and the middle class against the aristocracy. That's where its power is derived from. That's also why it was able to incorporate enlightenment ideas into its legitimacy, it represented the national-liberal ideal of every citizen equal under the monarch, as in Hobbes' Leviathan.

>How in the history of civilization did the concept of monarchy remain almost unchanged
But it didn't. The kings in England had it way different than the rulers of the Ottoman Empire who had it different to the kings of Bohemia who had it different to the kings of Spain.

>Britian absolute monarchy before the American Revolution
Seriously look up how the monarchs ruled in Europe, different for almost everyone.

>because that's a bad thing, right?
I'd prefer Japan to get rid of their porn censorship laws literally from the 40s.

Culture needs to be continuously reevaluated and improved upon.

>porn is good for society

Disregard

So do you just not like seeing other people's genitalia, or should woman cover their hair because of those imtoxicating rays? Where on that scale do you fall?

>rich people paying extra taxes so they can sit on a fancy chair with a funny hat and attract £1000000s in tourist revenue is """bad"""

>it stagnates a culture
good

>muh tourism

this meme needs to end

>until the American/Jacobian revolutions began spreading populism?

It's the French Revolution that killed monarchy
The US independence war was barely heard of outside of North America

I always thought Queen Elizabeth's husband (Prince Regent?) died a long time ago. Apparently he's still alive and well. Very unassuming figure.

It didn't. "Absolute monarchy" began to weaken at the end of Louis 14's life, well before the American revolution/jacobins, before that time monarchy as a system of government had been progressing from the notion of a king as the first lord among many lords to absolutism. Contrary to American education history did not begin with the Declaration of Independence.

>It stagnates a culture

What a load of bullshit. The Enlightenment occurred when the world was run by monarchies, for christ's sake!

not only tourism, they pay more in tax than other rich people, look it up

your basic premise is fucked.

absolute monarchy in britain had ceased to be a thing by the mid 17th century, certainly well before the 18th century and the american revolution.

remember what the americans were complaining about - those that werent simply making a naked power grab and trying to get out before slavery was banned- was a lack of representation in parliament, not that there wasnt a parliament.

the british had had constitutional monarchy for at least 100 years before the american tax protest began.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

>I always thought Queen Elizabeth's husband (Prince Regent?)

prince consort, a prince regent is a prince who assumes the duties of king but not the title while the king is incapacitated, or has not reached the age of majority.

for example George IV acting as Regent for his father after he went mad.

Prince consort is the title given to a prince who marries a ruling queen, for example Prince Albert when he married Queen Victoria

>How in the history of civilization did the concept of monarchy remain almost unchanged until the American/Jacobian revolutions began spreading populism?


I have no idea what I'm talking about: The Post.

Monarchy as an institution changed ENORMOUSLY over the ages. The monarchies of despotic Greek city states, Charlemagne's court, a feudal monarchy in the 14th century, Polish style electoral monarchy, are all far, far different than absolute monarchy, which itself was a fairly short-lived institution.

To answer the question of why absolute monarchies remained as long as they did, the simple answer is just that they were really efficient at what nations needed at the time: strength. As demonstrated by Poland and the >Holy Roman Empire, when you have a bunch of feuding princes who all say "fuck you" to the King, it's kind of hard to get anything done. Professional standing armies were really created by Louis 14, and even though he never really won any wars of note, the theory was still a good one.

I take it you've never heard of the Janissaries, nor the Roman Legions, nor the Black Army of Hungary.

Its "prince consort"

First, absolute monarchy wasn't the only system of government in existence until the French Revolution. Many states and city-states operated under different forms of government throughout history, like the Dutch Republic.
Second, there were many peasant and urban revolts prior to the French Revolution, but they always failed because of the lack of arms, difficulty of communication, and other reasons.

>improved upon.

Nice meme

>muh American revolution

Fun fact. The British once got rid of the King way before the Americans did.

Of course the Lord Protector's son was such a bad successor, they invited the king back.

the american revolution had zero influence on monarchies, the british were already under parliament rule before the french revolution
all your questions are phrased in a leading way towards some prior assumption you've made, you need to learn to remove bias from your mind when thinking about these things