Why is it that royal families never cared aboyttheir own nationality or people

Why is it that royal families never cared aboyttheir own nationality or people.
Literally every royal family I've read about cared about their own power and maybe their religion but never for the people their ancestors were part of.

Woah... Its like the Elites only care about money and just use meme concepts such as race and nation to make us fight each other

Could this be?? Nah. Must be da joos

user fuck off with the jews I'm not a /pol/ack, but seriously why were there never idealistic/nationalistic royal families?

What about Nikolas II, he helped start war with his cousin over pan-slavism despite not being a slav himself.

The russians also helped the greeks and armenians though, both these peoples aren't ethnically related to russians. They probably did it to undermine the ottomans instead of idealism.

Because when monarchs ruled the world, nationality didn't matter. If you asked random peasant who he is, then he would say that he is "local". If nationalism was born in middle ages, then you would probably find lots of nationalistic monarchs.

I once read for the common man in the middle ages ones ethic or cultural group meant very little to them.

It was only until the hundred years war when the English began seeing themselves as "English" in response to the war with France, and the French beginning to see themselves as "French" in response to the English.

You've got a hard enough time finding idealistic individuals among a general population, you're setting yourself up for failure by trying to apply that quality to such a broader grouping as family. There were many notable humanists, philanthropists, idealists, nationalists, ideologues, and so forth within noble/aristocratic/wealthy families in history. Louis XVI was one such individual, whose reluctance to use force against his own people and overall leniency was a major contributing factor to his downfall. Napoleon III withdrew aid from the Kingdom of Sardinia and called for a ceasefire in the Risorgimento upon witnessing the bloodshed of the war - further attempting to halt the Kingdom of Italy's incorporation of Rome to appeal to France's Catholic masses, ever the populist as he was. You'd undoubtedly had swathes of landed nobles throughout history who genuinely cared for the wellbeing of their serfs. The King of Thailand, whose death is still mourned, is another example. Why aren't men like this more common? Because simply wanting the best for your people isn't enough. People make mistakes, and in politics there's no Bioware choice of Good, Evil, or I want to be a dragon. Though Ludwig II might best personify the last choice, seeing as how he tried his damndest to just live a real-life fairytale.

>but seriously why were there never idealistic/nationalistic royal families?
there were, but after the napoleonic wars, that's when the concept of nationalism was born

in the middle ages, they were more about noble blood than nationalism, like the nobles would boast about their gothic or hunnic or whatever "warrior race" blood they might have

Weren't both of them ruled by related french royal houses?

Fair enough but before nationalism became big how did a commoner identify himself?
They must have known that not everyone around them spoke the same language as themselves that should have been enough to differentiate themselves from their neighbours.

But if those groups didn't care about their ethnic or national identity where did the idea come from that they were a united warrior race?

>But if those groups didn't care about their ethnic or national identity where did the idea come from that they were a united warrior race?
they werent a united race, they were just warriors, superior to peasants and equal to eachother, and obviously superior to filthy infidels and heretics

before nationalism people identified the same way they do today, by their religion, language, kingdom they live in, culture, etc.

Not always true. For example Peter the Great dragged Russia out of the dark ages. He even apprenticed in a European shipyard to learn shipbuilding.

Nation is a concept to control the masses

Probably because most monarchs were not the same ethnic or even cultural group as their subjects. They might have been originally, but their tendency to intermarry with the nobility of foreign kingdoms meant that, sooner or later, they ended up becoming a small but distinct and insular group that saw themselves as superior to the ethnic groups of their subjects due to their relation to the various "warrior races" they had ties to.

>Control the masses by uniting them based on shared ancestry and culture, thus allowing them to easier agitate for their own interests and defend themselves from those who would seek to conquer and exploit them
dumb post/10

house of wessex

But that is basically nationalism.

Royals are basically a kike clan

But how was that something he did specifically to make russians better.
I mean tsarist russia was not a nation state.

Yes, but for the common man that meant very little. All they knew was foreigners were in their land, and they were fighting a war.

I recall reading a report that some English were going about spreading the word that the French intended to destroy their language and way of life.

Didn't most royals marry other local nobles making them actually not that different from the locals?
Only the ottoman royal family seemed gdnetically much different than the commoners and even then they had shitload of serbian and greek in them.

Nationalism is the belief in nation-states, that all people who belong to the nation should live in their own state

Nations are as old as civilization

Modernizing Russia
1. Peter the Great recognized that Russia had fallen behind western Europe. Determined to learn from his rivals, Peter visited Holland and England, where he toured shipyards, examined new military equipment, and observed western customs.
2. Peter returned to Moscow vowing to transform Russia into a great power. He began by expanding Russia's army and constructing a new navy.
3. Peter did not limit his changes to military organization and technology. He improved Russian agriculture by introducing the potato, strengthened the Russian economy by importing skilled workers, and liberated Russian women by allowing them to appear in public without veils. In a famous and much resented act, Peter forced nobles to shave off their traditional long beards.

Just nobles? Wasn't the ban on beards universal with the exception of priests and monks?

Because only retarded white/black nationalists care about those things.

It started with the emperor personally cutting off the beards of the boyars during assembly. Then later he initiated a beard tax for everyone except monks and peasants. Peasants however had to pay a stipend tax when entering a city.

maybe because nationalism is a modern phenomenon and maybe there's no evidence that no royal family ever cared about "the people"

They cared about their people like you would care about your property. Caring about them like you care about your fellow noble friends and family would have been considered absurd.

>muh ancestors
This is a modern invention, it was for those still living, or at most a grandfather's, with the respect of his will being more respect for the dead
Also Louis XVI was spending thousands on grain research to prevent famine, Prince Albert donated thousands to the royal society
you're tarring them all with a brush

>victoria didn't donate thousands to poor relief

>gay
>cucked by prussia
>tried to keep to his faith
>sponsored wagner
yep that's what would happen if I was born back then

Cuz most of them were filthy germ*ns

It's because Christianity destroyed real monarchy, before that they did care.

Because intelligent and well to do people don't care about stupid things like nationalism.

> why were there never idealistic/nationalistic royal families?
Nationalism was originally a liberal ideology (see the 1848 revolutions), but it got eventually coopted by conservative monarchies, specifically Germany and Russia. Austria wasn't on board though, and they were the only "classical" monarchy left in the 20th century.

>aurelian was a monarch

Not correct.

The ottomans and russians were classical monarchs too though.

Russians? Only until Alexander III when they abandoned the traditional ties with Prussia and Austria and went full panslavist.
Ottomans yeah, you're right.

>thus allowing them to easier agitate for their own interests and defend themselves from those who would seek to conquer and exploit them

>Easier to defend themselves from those who would seek to conquer and exploit them

because nations are garbage. and their 'people' are made better (civilized, richer) by putting them through trials and disasters.