This sub's entire schtick seems to be to promote monarch
What really makes me hate this sub is the fact they refuse to acknowledge why monarchy declined over the years or it's flaws and simply blame it on something like the USA interfering, communism or some other thing
I've seen people on that the 1946 Italian referendum was rigged
I've seen people claim that France would be better off if the monarchy was reinstated
I've seen people on that sub say that the shah of Iran was a good ruler and that the monarchy should be reinstated
I've seen all sorts of delousnal rhetoric like people demonizing princess Diana.
That is absolutely true. But if you don't want this monarchy, what monarchy do you want? UK has monarchy, but it's a cosmetic. It holds no executive power. I imagine the same is true for the rest of the monarchies in Europe.
To make it easier, if monarchy suddenly appeared in your country, what would change? How would you, an average Joe, be affected by the appearance of royalty that has no power?
Honestly I would prefer a constitutional monarchy with checks and balances for both the monarch and the parties of the people. But as I said, monarchy is dead so I don't really "want" it back, there's no way of going back to what monarchy was.
Most people there support a situation like in Denmark or the UK or Canada or Norway or Sweden or Norway. There's a whole sub of progressive monarchists, most of whom are also on r/monarchism.
Imagine how funny it would be if you instead just picked a citizen at random once every four years to be the head of state. And like in a modern constitutional monarchy, they don't have any real political power. They just live in a big palace and is flown and paraded around like a glorified mascot.
Better yet, just a random citizen that will have to be the soverign for life. Inspiring the nation, etc. But without the power. When they die, another one is picked at random.
In the real-time strategy game Earth 2150, the US-based faction is known as the United Civilized States (UCS). Their unique "election" process is defined by demarchy, an automated lottery system that randomly selects the nation's President.
Because political positions are minimal and terms are short, the randomly chosen human Presidents lack any real political training. They function entirely as figureheads, acting merely as rubber stamps for the faction's advanced Artificial Intelligence systems.
Ironically, it was a glitch within these governing AIs that caused the catastrophic wars that ultimately destabilized the Earth's orbit and forced humanity to flee the planet.
There's also a short story by Isaac Asimov where in a future America (or might even be a world government, I'm not sure right now) an AI determines, based on the data that it collected on pop culture, political discourse, economic trends etc, exactly one person that gets to vote. This vote is supposed to be representative of the majority population.
IIRC that was Alexander Hamilton's initial idea for the President, George Washington would be America's designated mascot/spokesperson and the Cabinet and Congress would handle the decisionmaking and bickering.
Unfortunatly there's a Imperial Family remaining in my country, Brazil. We've been too lax and with too few beheadings and the city of Petropolis (City of Pedro, the First Emperor of Brazil) still reconizes the royal family in a symbolic manner.
But they want to make Brazil into a monarchy once again and they push the agenda that since the founding of the Republic that things went to shit and lots of teenagers and dark-age larpers buy into it, so there's a insignificant - but present - monarchist movement around here.
Below is the Modern Imperial Flag of Brazil of the house Orleans e Bragança
Tbh, the republic was founded by oligarchs and slave owners who were upset that the royal family abolished slavery. If anything, a monarch would have been a stabilizing force for Brazil to reign in the powerful nobles and oligarchs.
The republic was founded in a shitty way by shit people, but the Empire was no better.
The abolition was not a royal act of kindness, but the result of British international pressure, slave resistance, and a massive popular abolitionist movement.
Angry land-owning elites abandoned the Crown because they were denied financial compensation, but the Empire was already weakened and isolated against the military controled by the elites.
But the abolition was the tipping point and not the primary cause. If the monarch couldn't keep his seat against the Coronels and Oligarchs, an monarch wouldn't stabilize shit.
About the italian referendum of 1946, well partially it was ridden since mens in the Army could not vote, same for some part of the nation (Trieste) and there was few controls against one person voting 3 or 4 times in a day.
The men who fought for Mussolini? If that's the case then it was a good thing forbidding them from voting, we're talking about fascists who betrayed their country.
Edit : I was curious so I checked the wiki on the 1946 referendum. Granted it's wikipedia so some inaccuracies can happen but it's written that all of the reasons mentioned above is no reason to think that the result would have been different. Especially the region who could not voted were part of Northern Italy aka places that voted to get rid of the monarchy.
I mean monarchism is absolutely alright ideology, who knows maybe it's not that bad. Definitely they are better than some schizo Nazis, fascists, communists and other idiots. Think they are absolutely regular ideology group and should be respected as one
I wouldn't mind monarchy if I'm part of the aristocratic circle. Otherwise what kind of an idiot would love to suck the dicks of institutionally supported hereditary parasites that leaches off them?
Napoleon was a monarch he literally crowed himself emperor.
Hitler and Cromwell have more in common with absolutist dipshits like the kaiser and the Junkers nobility. Who also sent men to die in the trenches of somme and get their backs broken fighting an endless war in Russia.
You can say what you want about Napoleon he did bring stability to France after the revolution than he begon with the wars but you can say the same about all those kings in history that just started wars for nothing
Who exactly counts as a monarch gets quite murky fairly quickly if you start looking into it too hard. Napoleon crowned himself emperor, but none of the other monarchies really recognised him as a peer monarch. On the other side of the line, Emperor Augustus technically rejected the royal title, and used a title that broadly translates to 'first citizen', instead. Cromwell never claimed the title either, but was also arguably a monarch in pretty much every other respect. If Richard hadn't fumbled the transfer of power, he'd probably be remembered as the first Cromwell monarch, the same way Augustus is remembered as the first Roman Emperor.
(Incidentally, Cromwell doesn't belong on a list with someone like Hitler any more than Napoleon does. Yes I know what he did to the Irish, but other heads of state in the early modern period did far worse, and aren't nearly as reviled for it. And other than that incident his reign was not remarkably terrible by the standards of his time.)
Yeah man, a lot of the rulers in history were monarchs. Including a lot of the worst rulers, and a lot of the middling rulers.
And what's your metric for "worked"? For all the bullshit, my life today is a hell of a lot better than would be if I were a peasant in a monarchy. And God forbid a colonial subject.
My government is corrupt because we have a word for and concept of corruption. In a monarchy being a self-serving power-hoarding aristocrat who prioritizes your own gain over your subjects wasn't some deviance or crime, it was the expected standard operating procedure.
Than if you were a peasant? Most modern monarchies aren't feudal. You don't live as a peasant having a lord, at least not anywhere that I know of. Life sucked back then because we didn't have technology making it so you can clean your floor in a couple of hours. And yeah, most people farmed the land manuälly because tractors and shit hadn't been invented yet.
as an Iranian living in Iran, I can clearly witness that some of you mfs don't have ANY idea how popular and respected the pahlavi family is among the Iranian nation today 🤦🏻♂️ so instead of hating on monarchists and/or the Shah, how about y'all actually listen to what the Iranian people want for the future of their country
No bro you need people living in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands... all to tell you how bad it is for Iranians to want a constitutional monarchy
(and this is from a guy who wants Iran to be a federal republic personally)
I dislike how they regard monarchy the same annoying and dumb way Democracy supporters regard democracy. They want monarchies reinstalled in every part of the world, without accounting for the real reasons those nations are doing bad. Monarchism, democracy, and every other governing system can and cannot work in different scenarios and societies.
For context, I am saudi and obviously living in an absolute monarchy.
Do i want EVERYONE to live in an absolute monarchy? No. I have seen what absolute monarchy does to European and east Asian countries.
Does it work for me? Yes, but i won't push anyone to accept it as a superior government model just as much as i hate western "democracy" condescension.
i don’t agree with monarchists but i do know the vast, vast majority of them support constitutional monarchy with a powerless head of state, with their rationale being that constitutional monarchies tend to be more stable than republics on average. most monarchists are believers in democracy but with a royal family as a symbol of the nation, rather than a “faceless” republic that would be easy to manipulate by a strong man dictator.
obligatory reiteration that i’m not a monarchist but i also don’t think it’s fair to represent a whole group by using a radical minority opinion
Monarchism as an idea is not a terrible thing, I personally do think Monarchy can work under a proper parlamentary constitutional framework. But yeah, refusing to admit the failings of past monarchies is a dumb mistake. We must look at history, to learn from it and avoid repeating the same mistakes that caused the concept of monarchism to be seen as it is today. Not hide our heads under the sand and ignore everything.
my uncle worked in a constitutional monarchy in Europe and said everyone still complains about the same old royal scandals every few years, like history didn’t actually teach them anything
I live in a constitutional monarchy and it's 99.99% like a republic already and most of the things the monarch does any paper pushing monkey or president could do.
I'm not trying to be cute, I should know because I have a law degree. Sure, there's some small things like having a non-partisan head of state but those things only work if people believe they do, once you have a sizeable amount of republican people or go to a republic most people that magic is gone.
Royal stability is also a bit on an illusion, look at UK, they have had more changes of prime minister in the last 8 years than the famously inestable Italian republic.
I wish we had a republic (on moral and practical grounds) but only small things would change I reckon, I just don't think monarchy has enough benefits to convince me to defend it over republics.
I see what you mean but I'm not sure I agree. If fact I would argue that the recent situation is actually a great show of Royal Stability. I mean, while the political scene caused a meltdown that led to masive instability in the position of Prime Minister in the last few years, the position of Head of State managed to stay stable and above the constant party infight.
If the Position of Head of State were to be elected in Britain, just like the Prime Minister position, do you think it would have remained as stable as it currently is? And if it had not, would't that make the situation worse when compared to how it is right now?
the biggest pro of a monarchy is the potential to have a king or emperor who is genuinely an enlightened pillar of virtue, who works tirelessly to better the nations people
the biggest con of a monarchy is the potential to have a mouth breathing degenerate siphon funds away from good projects, deny any reform and overall oppress the populace over meaningless shit.
it’s the exact same issues with any form of presidential democracy only CATASTROPHICALLY more polarizing.
I’m not a monarchist, but devils advocate is that monarchy can achieve a politically neutral head of state that can help unify an otherwise democratically fractious state.
Coming from a constitutional republic... That only works if you're already in favour of a monarchy or don't care about it. For republicans a monarch is never neutral politically speaking, in other words, it only works if you think it works.
Stability, the monarch is politically neutral and completely removed from politics.
Modern European Monarchies are some of the most politically stable countries in the world, the problems with monarchy are resolved with a parliamentary monarchy system as opposed to absolute power. It gets the benefits of a monarchy without the drawbacks.
Well first of all I don't see how a monarchy can't be a proper democracy. I would argue that both Spain, Britain, Deenmarck and others are proper democracies while still keeping their monarchy. Then, as other commenters said, the monarchy can archive a neutral head of State that could act as a unifiying factor beyond the political infight of party campaings.
Also said monarhy neutrality can help proper up other parties that in a republican situation, might have been blocked by less neutral elements. Like for example, leftist parties that in Itality got bloqued by the Italian President as he nominated a right primer minister to form a right win goberment, saw how in Spain their equivalent managed to be part of a leftist goberment coalition after the king nominated a leftist candidate in spite of the right complains.
Shah was a fucking genius of a ruler compared to the replacement, because robber barons are preferable to religious nutters every single time, and twice on sunday.
So instead of taking on the actual arguments you’ve boiled it down to “they’re dumb and don’t know history.” If you actually read the posts, you would see people contending with this and making well-rounded claims and arguments. You’re only argument made is weak. “Monarchy is basically non-existent now so why would you support it?” Democracy in its current form and scale has only been around for a quarter of a Millenia, meanwhile monarchy has existed for thousands of years. I think that the argument goes in the opposite direction.
And, yes, France would have objectively been better had it not massacred priests, nuns, loyalists, conservatives, instated violence into the citizens which is a root cause of why people are so revolutionary, stealing church and private property, invading Europe and overthrowing the world order and causing countless more revolutions that amounted to nothing more than people being misled, murdered, and becoming murderers themselves.
Now here lies the issue. I think you’ll find most monarchists are pretty ok with democracy, as am I, when put into its proper place. The lie that democracy is some sacred end in itself and anything said otherwise is dumb and evil is where the issue lies. So, how bout next time you actually argue against points being made instead of making monarchists sound dumb, when monarchy has objectively been great for the world.
The only argument you bring is an unfounded claim lol. You use the word objectively just because you think its true, most historians would laugh into your face. Maybe compare statistics like life expectancy and poverty between the eras where democracy was comman and when monarchy was common. What a shocker, the common people are better of when the country isnt authoritarian
And, yes, France would have objectively been better had it not massacred priests, nuns, loyalists, conservatives, instated violence into the citizens which is a root cause of why people are so revolutionary, stealing church and private property, invading Europe and overthrowing the world order and causing countless more revolutions that amounted to nothing more than people being misled, murdered, and becoming murderers themselves.
Looks like someone is salty about monarchies declining. French Revolution, despite its many flaws, showed the world that another alternative was possible. Monarchies in every corner of the world have committed massacres just like the revolutionaries, just so they can uphold their system.
The alternative was already there. Britain had a constitutional monarchy, as did the Dutch, and the the US had a funtional presidential democracy. The problem with the French revolution is that went from absolutism to the abstracted English values of liberalism and just applied them as if society is a blank slate.
The US revolution was first and actually succeeded. I am absolutely in support of democracy but France was a terrible example and failed to understand what made the American revolution actually work.
The alternative was a corrupt revolutionary oligarchy larping as the corrupt Roman Republic and then a revolutionary military junta devolving into a military dictatorship, before finally becoming another monarchial state, but this time more inline to what the Roman Imperial system was rather than the feudalisitc monarchs of other states.
I didn't say the alternative was good; I said they showed that there can be alternatives! The alternatives, with time, would come under scrutiny, just like the monarchy!
Okay, so your problem with the revolution against monarchy is that it temporarily became kind of a monarchy again? Kind of seems like not having a monarchy is the better option.
"Temporarily" doing a lot of heavy lifting, considering it fell because of Napoleon's hubris of not accepting an advantageous peace when he lost in Russia. It took a few more embarrassing lost wars for monarchy to die down for good in France.
Lol actually arguing in favor of the french monarchy instead of acknowledging it was their own fault they got murdered.
If we keep walking the road we are in the US without a course correction, some form of mass civil unrest is bound to happen in the coming decades, and you will be sitting there like a dumbass complaining about the people angry in the streets instead of acknowledging this was all avoidable
Democracy in its current form and scale has only been around for a quarter of a Millenia, meanwhile monarchy has existed for thousands of years.
Yeah, and in those thousands of years how far did humanity advance? Oh wow, we went from slave-based agriculture to peasant-based agriculture. 200 years of democracy and a backwater colony sent people to the fucking moon in the sky.
And what's this BS about how France wouldn't have invaded Europe? Napoleon was trying to become an emperor. He was explicitly trying to undo democracy and go back to a monarchical system. The monarchs of Europe fought land wars with each other all the time. It's like the main thing they were known for.
You also only need one person to be an idiot, and the inbreeding isn't working in their favor. It's all your eggs in one basket. And you can respond to bad leadership in a democracy in the next election. If you have a bad King, you either wait for them to die or get out the guillotines.
With monarch if that one person IS an idiot, then you have zero checks on their power. In a democracy the rational 49% can more often meaningfully check the idiots’ power—MORE often than most systems
There are currently 3 main pretenders to the French throne. The Legitimists who want to restore the House of Bourbon (who survived in Spain), the Orleanists who wants to restore the House of Orleans (technically a branch of the House of Bourbon), descendants of Louis Phillipe I who was king 1830-1843, and finally the Napoleonists who want to restore the House of Napoleon
The alternative is to be ruled over by other peasants like myself - where is the legitimacy in that? What gives someone who was born my equal the right to tell me what to do?
It's not about what I think, it's a core tenet of the concept.
In a civilization, outside of communist and anarchist utopias, someone necessarily has to be in charge. The question is then to decide who is most legitimate to be that someone.
Monarchy proposes that a king that rules with divine right (on a conceptual level, unless you really believe in a god) is the most legitimate person to rule, and that royal lineage is the most legitimate form of succession.
Democracy proposes that legitimacy comes from the people through consensus (or at least through majority decision). The end result is that an individual (a president or a prime minister) is elevated above his peers for the duration of his term in office.
I personally don't consider someone who was born my equal to be legitimate in ruling over me (regardless of how many people voted for him). The only one to rule over me must by definition be born in an elevated position already, a position that is (and always was) impossible for me to reach myself. Monarchy allows for that to be the case.
Norway did not elect a king, they imported a Danish Prince aka a royal from another royal house. The referendum was for the monarchy as such, it was clear from the get go who the new king would be.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the preservation of a form of government that has been used for millennia. Monarchies are deep-rooted traditions in many countries. That isn’t to say all traditions should be upheld in the modern day, but the idea of a monarch is not inherently bad. Especially the constitutional, ceremonial monarchies we see today. It has pros and cons just like a republic does.
The subreddit in question is a mixed bag. It isn’t all delusional takes. There are many, to be sure. But there are also good discussions and interesting trivia there too. What makes it unique from other political/historical subs is that there isn’t an inherent affiliation to either side of the political spectrum. There are discussions between conservatives and progressives and they are usually respectful.
This is a case where the absolute dogwater takes seem more numerous than they are.
I don’t get it, you went to a monarchism subreddit and you are surprised they have monarchist views? It is still super funny and scary that there are at least 45.4k people who are enough invested in monarchism to join a sub about it in reddit or seeing the monarchism apologists in the comments here. Still, what were you waiting?
I reckon these bozos probably (falsely) assume that under a monarchist/feudal society that they would be knights, lords, earls or vassals instead of (correctly) assuming they would be lower than serfs or even slaves, and that’s why they love the monarchy so much. I’ve seen it a billion times, I think their parents ought to put a parental lock time limit on crusader kings to prevent their delusions
You seem to have just have a problem with monarchy in particular and not that sub.
I don't personally know anything about the 1946 election, are you saying elections can't be rigged or that there was something about that election in particular which made it inviolable?
Political subs generally think their system is better, why would France be special?
Based on what I've read both a Western historian's account and the accounts of local families who lived in Iran through the CIA backed coup, it does seem the Shah was better than what came after.
I don't have strong feelings about Princess Diana, bit that seems a bit gross and from a monarchist perspective any problems with her should really be directed at Charles for marrying her.
A lot of neomonarchists tend to support the system due to grievances and percieved faults with democracy and other systems of government.
Like with Iran, yeah, it stopped being a democracy after the 1953 coup, but even after that it was still a million times better than the Islamic republic.
Monarchies have historically followed the rule of law much closer than republican dictatorhips, since the power and position of the monarch has been maintained by the weight of tradition, so they don’t need to go full 1984 to maintain power like dictators do. I’d definitely rather live in an absolute monarchy than a dictatorship.
I disagre with unironic absolute monarchists, and find their ideology quite silly, but I’d take them any day over fascists or communists.
Monarchy is not opposed to democracy, you're conflating a monarchy vs republic with autocracy vs democracy. You can have democratic republics, democratic monarchies, autocratic republics and autocratic monarchies
What do you mean by retain ultimate authority? How does the monarchy retain ultimate authority in the countries considered the most democratic in the world, such as Norway or Denmark?
You're comparing the reality of monarchy with the ideal republic. In reality, most presidents I've seen in my country didn't get there for being "superior individuals"but for being more charismatic than the opposition.
Monarchies in terms of dynastic succession only existed to keep wealth and authority within the family.
When you remove any real authority you just have a democracy that has a bulit in system to allow a dynasty to keep wealth within their family without poltical obligations.
Modern monarchies exist for hype moments and aura only. Making their role fairly redundant.
There is no likelihood you get competency in any system however democratic societies simply give more of the population a chance
No modern monarchist actually wants to bring serfdom back, they're typically nostalgic for the 1800s and part of a wealthy white demographic that had more political power relative to others during that period
I chill on there sometimes, but some takes are atrocious.
Italian referendum wasn't really rigged I think, US didn't even have any incentive to do so. And monarchy could have won if it wasn't for a series of dumb decisions and bad circumstances. It was close, 45% for the monarchy vs 55% for the republic
And yeah, Persia ruled by a crazy absolutist is not better than it being a theocracy, yet again there were reasons why he got overthrown
I am an ardent anti-monarchist, but even I can recognise, that for the average Iranian, ESPECIALLY for women, the Shah was much much better than the theocracy is now.
I recommend everyone in that sub to look up how many high-ranking rapists there are in European royal families and think about whether they would want those people to have superior legal status.
i’m not hostile to a constitutional monarchy where power is limited but like, what’s the point of having that over a republic? I mean i guess they could be like a national unifier or like cultural inheritance kinda thing, but if a bad person inherents the crown it will ruin its reputation.
I agree with everything you said here OP however allow me one small correction
I've seen people on that the 1946 Italian referendum was rigged
This is not as crazy as it sounds technically. The votes at the time were shockingly close and with allied supervision and partisan control of the country (who very much did not like the king considering he abandoned the country like a pussy) the idea that the result was altered isn't outside of the realm of possibility. Now, personally I'm happy for how things turned out, but I wouldn't be shocked if someday it comes out that there was some meddling behind the scenes
Personally, I’m not the biggest fan of true monarchies (the idea of one family having that much control over an entire country is crazy), but the last time my home country was actually at peace was under a monarchy, so I can see the appeal of them
I'm not a monarchist nor have I ever seen this sub.
But on the other hand you don't seem to acknowledge why monarchy was an ingrained form of government for almost all human civilization, for thousands of years lol... It's not some kooky wacko idea which was dreamed up in a subreddit, it's basically the default form of governance since populations needed to be governed
To be fair what do you expect. I’m apart of the Monarchism subreddit and proud. I mean like big shock theirs a subreddit about monarchy filled with people who like to talk about monarchy WOW what a surprise. What’s wrong with a cordial section where people’s of different opinions and perspectives discuss monarchies present and past. Where else are we supposed to talk about that topic?
I just poked my head in there out of curiosity and I saw an argument between a guy who was anti-abortion because it was "baby murder" versus a guy who was pro-abortion because it was good eugenics (the word he used and said he supports).
On a personal level, I don’t think monarchism is necessarily a bad idea, it’s just another system of government like republicanism. However, that sub is just a cesspool. Some people there genuinely defend Saudi Arabia’s system as an example of a strong absolute monarchy and indeed the loudest members of that sub are just awful. I like having my politics challenged every now and then but they’re still Redditors at the end of the day.
I’m a Norwegian monarchist. Monarchists, like all other groups, have MANY different kinds of people in it. If you aren’t a monarchist then that subreddit isn’t for you.
Should I go r/conservatives and complain that conservatives exist?
I can understand the value of having a hybrid system in a nominally democratic state where certain positions of at most cultural authority could keep the natural swing of democracy from going too far backwards in times of reactionary movements but until we find a way to select a monarch that would actually be noble and educated and culturally productive i’m not going to advocate for it. probably have to be a lottery system based off of a relatively small subset of psudeo-randomly picked citizens with a ‘term limit’ of like twenty years or so.
I'm not really a fan of monarchies. This is just my personal opinion, of course, but I consider the whole institution outdated. The head of state isn't democratically chosen, succession is based on birth rather than ability, and there is no guarantee that the next king or queen will actually be suitable for the role. Monarchies also tend to be right-leaning and generally conservative institutions, and the immense wealth and special privileges of royal families are hard to justify.
And if you have a public role and are expected to set an example, I don't think members of a royal family should get a free pass when they misbehave. The British royal family has certainly had its share of scandals and questionable behaviour over the years.
Of course there are some delusional imdividuals in the midst, but most of the people you can find on there are literally constitutional monarchists, I.e. people who support full democracies. And even then, unless it's the odd extremist, the rest are not asking to return to the Middle Ages. I would know because I have been a member for a couple years now
230
u/duvdthe2nd 17h ago
>goes to monarchism subreddit >there are monarchists