Imagine being an unironic supporter of monarchy

Imagine being an unironic supporter of monarchy

Even if your King is good, his kid could be a complete and total mental patient. Unless you're British there is absolutely no reason to support a return to monarchy.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_constitutional_referendum,_1804
youtube.com/watch?v=y-PvBo75PDo
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Every democratically elected leader in history has been a retard

Lenin was fine.

What about elective monarchies?

wat

Napoleon was great
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_constitutional_referendum,_1804

What kind? Like the Poles where a bunch of foreign powers jockeyed to put someone into their leadership?

Bolsheviks didn't come out of nowhere and weren't because of muh jews. They were a direct reaction to how shitty the late Romanovs had made Russia. Nicholas pretty much founded the modern concept of kleptocracy. There's a reason Bolsheviks initially hated the concept of family, because Nicholas was pretty much always safeguarding his faggot brother and the homo brothels around St. Petersburg. It had become the fag capital of the world, worse than Weimar Berlin. And the Church was under the thumb of the Tsar so they did fuck all about it. Bolsheviks later wizened up and realised the concepts weren't the problem but rather the people running them.

This. I'd be completely fine with a 'monarch' who earned his right to rule, didn't just inherit it because his dad had power.

Lenin lost the elections

If he was great he wouldn't lose a war.

>Every democratically elected leader in history has been a retard
Wut

>I'd be completely fine with a 'monarch' who earned his right to rule
Reminds me of Roman consuls; however, the Republic got highly corrupt as well at the latter years.
His greatness became his weakness. Napoleon literally started believing the myth he built around himself of invincibility. A great man nonetheless with many achievements not just limited to military leadership

What about Constitutional Monarchy?

Already existing ones sure, like the British, but there is no point in bringing it back to nations that don't have it. It's worthless other than as an additional symbol. The monarchy in the UK is pretty much like say, the constitution in the US, rather than actual rulers.

Lenin lost the election fucking retard.
This is the level of democrats.

The same can be said for democracy. Instead of having a single person fuck things up, you have a revolving door of fuck ups acting out like that one experiment with the monkeys and electric ladders.

youtube.com/watch?v=y-PvBo75PDo

Poor video, but it's about a real experiment. Long story short, the same phenomena is going on all around the world with humans and their governments.

Ever hear of someone say something along the lines of "It's that way for a reason!", but then they can't give a specific reason? Same psychological bullshit going on. Doesn't matter if it's a monarchy or a president. It's the same shit, different scene.

A tribe of 12 people discover three types of berries: red, green, and blue. One of them eats the green berries and dies from poison. The leader enacts the tribe's first rule. Don't eat green berries. Makes sense.

Now if he made a second rule, you can only eat blue berries over here and red berries over there, it's a stupid rule and should be done away with, but most people in leadership positions in all of history, including now, are NOT worthy for their positions and will NEVER admit to an error because it would crush their egos and prove themselves unworthy. It would be up to the remaining tribe members to fix this. After all, both the blue and red berries are good to eat and there is no difference in behavior among the tribe members after eating them. In this instance, the rule was in place as a form of control, something america and corporate america all love to do.

Furthermore, congress works like a hydra of monarchy. And they bite each other too.

But the constitution in the US still dictates what government can and cannot do, it’s still a very integral part of the US legal system.
Also there’s more constitutional figurehead monarchies than just the UK, most of Western Europe still has a royal family

>Even if your King is good, his kid could be a complete and total mental patient
And why does his kid have to be the next monarch?
Monarchy can be passed down through elections, to the oldest member of the family, to brothers/sisters, etc. It's not all primogeniture.

>Unless you're British there is absolutely no reason to support a return to monarchy.
Because you're british? Our King is better than your king bitch.

You're right, under a monarchy, there is a chance your ruler is going to be a corrupt asshole while in a democracy that's a certainty.

Is there a more abject form of cuckoldry than monarchy? The entire nation's efforts focused on worshiping and enriching a single man and his descendants, crying with joy as they take the fairest maidens and the finest silks for themselves?
Cash pigs and bull-preppers got nothing on monarchists.
"Oh, I'm a stupid worthless peasant unworthy to govern. I would be lost without Your Highness ruling over this servile wretch. Please, accept this tribute that demonstrates my utter and complete submission to Your Majesty. Ah, did my pretty daughter strike your fancy, my Lord? Oh no no, I do not dare to presume you would marry the child of such a lowly man as myself, but I would be overjoyed if you would take her as a maid to clean your chamberpots and perform any other services... Oooh, thank you Master! I am certain she will please you! Give her a good whipping if she dares to refuse Your Grace's advances!"

>Your Grace
You failed to use His Royal Highness' favoured pronouns. The punishment for this form of lese-majeste is 20 lashes followed by 3 days in the stocks and castration.

Anyone think we should've gone with the Roman "adoption" system?
>Hadrian himself is supposed to have delivered an oration from his death-bed, in which he praised adoption as opposed to inheritance
>the author of the HA avers that nothing good ever came of natural sons, and that the only decent imperial sons in all of Roman history were those who had been adopted
>Adoption was a surer path to dynastic longevity than biology, for it had the coincidental benefit of ensuring that a competent adult would be in line for succession, while, at the same time, giving the reigning emperor room to negotiate with the governing class

There are plenty of countries and political entities that have a head-of-state fulfilling the same ceremonial and practical functions as a constitutional monarch without actually being a hereditary monarch, it's usually a president or something like that.

Which is why modern monarchies are so much more democratic than all other governments

>he actually believes people voted 99.99% in favor of anything in a free and democratic vote
Even if the vote had been in favor of continuing to breath oxygen there should have been more people voting against.

>Which is why modern monarchies are so much more democratic than all other governments
wut

>This. I'd be completely fine with a 'monarch' who earned his right to rule, didn't just inherit it because his dad had powe
Yeah no dynasty ever established itself through conquest

>monarchy is only absolute
>social advancement is not greatest in a monarchy with a favourite servant
HE DIDNT STAND FOR DA FLAG DAT GOD GAVE US

Compare Britain and America

>He doesn't understand the difference between respecting an object that represents the country and all the people in it versus asskissing some asshole because his ancestor bullied your ancestors into kissing his feet centuries ago.

>he doesn't understand the will of the people is made manifest in the monarch
>thus by disrespecting the monarch he disrespects all living people not just the long dead that would hate betas like OP

8 of the top 10 "most democratic countries" are constitutional monarchies, and the other 2 are Iceland and Finland

They are uncomparable.

All under the EU though, no?

Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all in the top 10 I think, so no

What about Spain? They have a similar monarchy to Britain. What makes them different?

By the way that is a Spanish Crown.

Yes and far much more costly to the state, compare the French presidents costs to the British queen

First off its incomparable, second off why

I think he's referring to the idea of restoring long-dead monarchies rather than retaining existing ones. So Spain restoring its monarchy after a relatively short gap or Britain retaining its monarchy makes a lot more sense than France deciding to reinstate the Bourbons

But revenues from the Queen's lands go directly to the British government which more than makes up for the privy purse

that's stupid. you can be great, you can be excellent. you can do everything right (he didn't) and still lose everything. life's a bitch.

that's one way to look it. by monarchy you have a somewhat random person be the next ruler. by the accident of his birth order.
under democracy you pretty much have to have a throat cutting psychopath* - cause that are the needed qualifications to push up the political ladder.

*doesn't mean a cutthroat psychopath might not be a good leader of course

wtf i hate democracy now

This. Existing monarchies that have somehow survived the test of time I have no issue with, but bringing back old dead ones is just LARPing and fucking ridiculous.

A balance needs to be found between a decisive, coherent, premeditating and enduring executive and a corrective entity to the former.
A constitutional monarchy that retains executive rights is one such possible equipoise.
A properly instructed ordinary individual with no distinctive talent rule for a term of decades is arguably better for stable legislation than a president elected for a term fixed at 4-5 years with a limit of two.
Republics have proven to drift into oligarchies naturally, better that the monarchy is official and steered by mores and tradition than by the whims of some tycoon.