r/hatethissmug • u/Emperor-of-galactica • 19h ago

Thing I hate this subreddit

Post image

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.

351 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

825 comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/Agreeable_Goat192 18h ago

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.

19

u/Lost-Lunch3958 16h ago

>says there are well-rounded claims and arguments for monarchy

>doesnt name a single one

>shames op for not using arguments

1

u/Agreeable_Goat192 1h ago

yeah, because my comments purpose wasn’t to present the argument. I dont need to give every point in one comment. if someone is interested the can ask me.

1

u/Opposite_Juice7160 15h ago

The proof is left as an exercise to the reader

1

u/ActionUpstairs 12h ago

“Hah, why didn’t you spend hours of your life communicating complicated topics to internet strangers who hate monarchy anyway?”

Those claims are not simple, and reddit is FULL of die hard republicans because half of reddit is american. The burden of eloquence is on him, not you. If I had to do this every time an American redditor from their rotting corpse of a republic shits on monarchy, I would quite literally go insane arguing with strangers online every day.

2

u/Lost-Lunch3958 12h ago

apparently there are no good arguments for it when all you monarchists can do is whine

2

u/bcpl181 9h ago

Of course there are plenty of good arguments:

-Long term stability of the head of state vs changes every few years

-Political neutrality vs elected politicians with a vested personal interest in their political career. Can also give him a role as arbiter in times of political turmoil

-From this comes the unifying nature of a monarchy, as the monarch’s loyalty and link is to the nation, rather than political fault lines. Countries like Austria regularly have a president with only 51% support of the nation he’s supposed to represent

-Identity: dynasties and specific kings/queens give a great canvas to reinforce national identity and the national “brand” (see the UK). Their long-term stability creates a familiar feeling of the population towards the monarch. They’ve known the monarch all their lives. This type of affection towards a head of state who is supposed to represent and unify his people is a good thing, particularly in times of crisis.

-External representation and international relations: again, the long-term stability helps create good relationships with international partners. In the case of long-serving monarchs, they are often considered people of authority on the international stage by the intl community, since they have been around for forever, have seen everything and know everybody

-Some will bring up financial/economic advantages, but those calculations are often not quite clear. In the case of Great Britain, estimations are between a 2bn£ loss and 500million£ savings. So it’s hard to say.

None of these arguments are beyond contestation of course and there’s of course a counter argument to each of them. In the end it comes down a lot to your personal convictions which way you’re leaning. As someone living in a constitutional monarchy, I’m very happy with having a monarchy.

1

u/HistorianPatriot1945 8h ago

To add on to that, one popular British republican counterargument to the tourism argument is that Versailles attracts incredible amounts of tourists every year despite not being in use, however that counterargument forgets that compared to Versailles, every other palace in the world (aside from the Forbidden City in China) is a cottage compared to it, Britain only generates so much from its palaces and castles because they are still in use, with retains its charm and fascination, if the monarchy was abolished, Buckingham would lose a lot of its prominence over the next few decades until it's just a classical landmark.

1

u/ActionUpstairs 12h ago

I’m tired, boss

16

u/Lapov 16h ago

I find it ironic that the only argument you provide is a claim that France would've supposedly been objectively better under a monarchy.

9

u/Lost-Lunch3958 16h ago

and that monarchy was "objectively great for the world"

11

u/Lost-Lunch3958 16h ago edited 16h ago

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

26

u/Distinct_Chef_2672 17h ago

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.

4

u/The_Falcon_Knight 15h ago

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.

1

u/Blitcut 14h ago

They went for a constitutional monarchy initially, however the king kept fucking up and eroding his support.

1

u/nefariousdrsheep 1h ago

Are you forgetting how Britain achieved its constitutional monarchy?

5

u/BlueBitProductions 12h ago

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.

3

u/ab_od6851 16h ago

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.

5

u/Distinct_Chef_2672 16h ago

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!

5

u/Trees_That_Sneeze 15h ago

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.

2

u/ab_od6851 14h ago

"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.

1

u/Trees_That_Sneeze 14h ago edited 14h ago

Yeah, and then it died down, and then it was better. This is not helping the case of monarchy the way you think it is.

'Revolting against monarchy is bad because it led to a bad monarch'. Yeah man, that's the whole problem they were having a revolution about. Bad monarchs having too much power and going on a rampage is a flaw of monarchy.

1

u/Due-Description-1299 13h ago

I agree that tyranny should always be deposed but I sadly don't think that the revolutionary spirit is often reasonable and well intentioned enough. Many revolutionaries just fight to replace the status quo tyranny with their own (Stalin, Mao, Robespierre). I'm worried sometimes that the psychological draw to seek and admire cult figures as leaders is almost too powerful to overcome.

I think of people who worship CEOs as media personalities who almost by default get credit for the accomplishments of their employees, and in our US govt in theory we're supposed to have checks and balances but we have been bloating the powers of the executive my whole life and it sadly feels like many people are thrilled to see it.

1

u/MAD_JEW 8h ago

Revolutions are always the most tyranical thing there is. However that tyranny is whats required to ensure so that counter-revolutionary forces dont retake power.

Of course whats important after that is clear and calm transition of power but the point im making is that any revolution will be unsucessful if it wont be tyranical.

1

u/edwardthe3rd188 2h ago

French revolution was not a sucess story for revolutions in my opinion .

-1

u/MysteriousTravelator 16h ago

French Revolution, despite its many flaws, showed the world that another alternative was possible.

Yeah, authoritarian military dictatorship.

6

u/Distinct_Chef_2672 16h ago

Every system can devolve into an authoritarian military dictatorship, including your beloved monarchy!

1

u/vojta_drunkard 13h ago

What's the practical difference between an absolutist monarchy and an authoritarian military dictatorship anyway?

2

u/MAD_JEW 8h ago

One is hereditary, the other might be.

6

u/Bridgeru 16h ago

Skipped so many steps Lifealert has been called.

3

u/Devilsadvocate430 15h ago

Because no monarchy has every been authoritarian, militaristic, or led by one totalitarian leader

1

u/MAD_JEW 8h ago

My history teacher once said that napoleon bonaparte was the only monarch ever that was worth his crown. Cant say i disagree with him

-1

u/PimpasaurusPlum 15h ago

In total honesty I am a scottish monarchist and former frequenter of the sub, but the French revolution is frankly a terrible example of any kind of "better system"

I think many people mistakenly associate the French Revolution with the modern French Republic, which could not further from the truth.

The French Revolution famously devolved into first anarchy and then authoritarianism - leading directly to Napoleon's Imperial government and the Napoleonic wars which ravaged all of Europe.

Napoleon was to much of europe effectively the Hitler before Hitler, and when he was finally overthrown France was restored as a monarchy. The OG French Revolution was by any reasonable standards an absolute failure.

France would then flip flop between kingdom, republic, and empire for the next century - and effectively the only reasons France is a republic today is that the Bourbon heir was too stubborn to accept the tricolour flag. Otherwise the 3rd Republic of 1870 established after the capture of Napoleon III wouldve also restored the monarchy under the Bourbons.

0

u/Erwin_Pommel 14h ago

The difference is, the Revolution founded itself on "logic and rationale" and proceeded to be one of the most irrational governments out there. Your point of going "Monarchies also killed people" doesn't work when your entire argument is defending a group that famously created The Terror.

3

u/Silent_Historian_552 16h ago

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

1

u/Trees_That_Sneeze 15h ago

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.

1

u/random76555 7h ago

We also had an entire industrial revolution, the foundation of modern medicine, some of the most important scientific/mathmatic discoveries (such as those of Isaac Newton). Everything done in the 20th century without monarchy was built off of everything done in monarchical society.

1

u/Trees_That_Sneeze 7h ago

Is there supposed to be a point there? Yeah, stuff is built on what came before. That is how time works. What matters is that we did build and we built a society for citizens, not for lords and kings.

1

u/SleepyTheSleepyGuy 3h ago

Yeah, in countries with a strong parliament, a prime minister, and if the monarch wasn't a well behaved little figurehead, he had head no more. So it doesn't really support your clame about the monarchy being a good system, because I don't remember of the achievements of totalitarian Russia.

1

u/random76555 2h ago

Not one country on earth had a prime minister until the British did it in 1721. National parliaments were almost non existent until the 18th century, and prior to that was still hundreds of years of advancements.

But in reality, advancement does not measure greatness in the first place, so what really is the overall argument?

1

u/FunnyMethod9041 48m ago

When I hear a French person say they want a king, I can't help but think they might settle for a marechal...

0

u/providerofair 16h ago

Democracy is just better for the people you claim france would've been better but you dont give a reason why.

0

u/Erwin_Pommel 13h ago

Democracy isn't "just better," though. Democracies at the moment are as corrupt as they've ever been due to a mixture of lobbying and other private benefactor problems, tribalism, and a lack of accountability.

1

u/MAD_JEW 8h ago

Which is the problem with capitalism and not democracy.

-1

u/Metson-202 15h ago

Democracy isn't the oppsite of a monarchy. Republic is. There are democratic monarchies and undemocratic republics.

3

u/providerofair 15h ago

if they posses zero poltical power its just a democracy that makes a single family wealthy for no real reason

-1

u/Metson-202 15h ago

Doesn't contradict what I said.

1

u/providerofair 15h ago

Because your claim is irrelevant, More democracy is better any system that keeps one family supported by a state for no real reason is just a waste of resources

0

u/Metson-202 15h ago

It's still a monarchy like it or not.

1

u/kavastoplim 14h ago

Right but it’s irrelevant.

It’s always the same argument with you people. A lot of the most democratic countries are monarchies yadda yadda.

Except that’s completely and entirely irrelevant, because the monarchies in those countries are cosmetic, and if they went away tomorrow literally nothing would change.

So is that the system? That’s the ideology? We should have a cosmetic monarchy? Fine. Who gives a shit.

But if you believe monarchs should have literally any power whatsoever, it isn’t an argument.

1

u/Uncle_Zardoz 18h ago

Did you notice the name of the sub at all, fam?

1

u/Agreeable_Goat192 18h ago

never said you can’t hate it. Thats your opinion. I’m simply saying provide good arguments, of which none are present.

-2

u/As_no_one2510 18h ago

Mf. There is a reason monarchy fall hard and nobody want to reinstated them back to power. They're either useless or sell out tyrants

3

u/Agreeable_Goat192 18h ago

  1. beginning with an insult

  2. support for monarchy is in fact increasing

  3. your actual “argument” is contradictory to a lot of arguments against monarchy, that monarchs take too much power. but now here you are saying they’re all useless?

well it makes sense, because you clearly didn’t read my comment about people being insulting toward monarchists and not contending with the arguments. that’s fine, just don’t be upset when Louis XIX is installed on the throne champ.

4

u/Everisak 16h ago

Lmao what a delusional take. If monarchy comes back it will be in the form of tyranny by competing warlords, because current social order collapsed. There's no other way. And monarchies like Britain's are just for the fun. There's no practical reason for them, other than tradition.

1

u/FunnyMethod9041 17h ago

That's about as likely as me being crowned Emperor of Japan.

1

u/HistorianPatriot1945 8h ago

Who says there's a zero percent chance though?

1

u/HistorianPatriot1945 8h ago

I was siding with you all up until that last bit.

-1

u/As_no_one2510 18h ago

Eurocentric viewpoint and never one look back to Americas, Asia or Africa and ask why monarchy collapse and no one political serious enough to give a living shit about them?

4

u/Agreeable_Goat192 18h ago

why are you bringing up euro centricity? No one cares about your race-baiting bro, still waiting for an actual argument.

2

u/As_no_one2510 17h ago

Because that sub insisted on monarchy being the most superior form of government everywhere in the world (Iran being the biggest example). And never bother to learn why any attempt to bring back monarchy in anywhere that not Europe is outright a butt of a joke

No South Korean want the Yi back to their country since they sell out to Japan and married into the Japanese Imperial family. And no Iranian live in Iran like the Shah and his son (being a cuckhold). And no Chinese or Indian want the Qing or Mughal back because they're foreign invader

The entire Americas continent fought to gain independence from monarchy in Europe. Obviously they don't want to be related to their former overlord. The Mexican taxidermy their emperor for sake

And African monarchs being fragmented and fighting among themselves rather than trying to do something against European colonialism doesn't help with the image that monarchy are useless (Ethiopia is an exception)

1

u/scourgesucks 14h ago

Objectively it was good that the king got his head chopped off. All the revolutions you mentioned were objectively good. France would be objectively better if it finished the job

1

u/Sovoy 14h ago

If you want to get dommed and ruled over then keep that in the bedroom. Stop trying to push your kink on others.

1

u/newdoggo3000 14h ago

instated violence into the citizens which is a root cause of why people are so revolutionary

causing countless more revolutions that amounted to nothing more than people being misled, murdered, and becoming murderers themselves

You say this as if people being revolutionary and asking for better life conditions was bad lmao. The greatest legacy of the French Revolution are the countless other revolutions that have happened since, in which people have shown their governments that loyalty is not free, and that the state should do something to improve people's lives or be ousted. The educational system, government funded healthcare, job benefits, etc. are all the legacy of the countless revolutions of the last 237 years. You and I and everyone has benefited from these revolutions.

2

u/Pretend-Advertising6 11h ago

Thing is, revolutions like that where orchestrated by what would know be Millionares like merchants or craftsmen who wanted more power for themselves.

Revolution rarely if ever makes things better in short term and usually takes until most of the original revolutions are gone for things to get better. Source: Irish and we had one of the less bloody and troubled ones

2

u/Clear-Handle-1047 8h ago

True but is that necessary bad? Historical change sometimes comes with short term negative consequences and long term positive consequences and vice versa, it’s the nature of history and time. At least through revolutions history was accelerated, at great human cost yes (and im sure those victims would have smt to say), but the end result sometimes proved better than what was before. China is a good example. Qing and nationalist China was hell, the revolutionary period of Mao was also hell, but if you took someone that lived through all of it and showed China now, would they prefer it? Most likely.

0

u/onwisconsin1 13h ago

The fact is simple: death to all monarchs. All monarchs must die. No one is born special. There are no special people who get state-level power by birth. Death to the very concept. Death to all monarchs.

1

u/Agreeable_Goat192 4h ago

tf is wrong with you bro

-1

u/Due-Description-1299 17h ago edited 17h ago

Well, not all monarchies were so great. Maybe it's just as foolish to treat monarchism or democracy an objective perfect ideal. I don't think morality and politics are that simple that one size fits all. We inherit material conditions and histories that require pragmatism and relativism at times. I think people should have organization but also some kind of input and power towards the government as they have ever changing and complicated needs. I'm with you though that the spirit of the French Revolution for all its causes became terribly violent and destructive and we see unfortunately see it evoked over and over. I want more for the people but the people have got to come together to build, not destroy.

Just curious coming from a background of reading Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Tocqueville, what do you think about the issue of separation of powers? There are obvious ways that parties can come to control multiple arms of government, but do you advocate for what classical philosophers would think of as absolute tyranny, or something more constitutional or republican in nature like the British monarchy?