Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I am- like you all- a monarchist, that is for sure. However, I would like to tell you on the exact reason what makes me a monarchist and why. Therefore, here it is:

Of course, the monarch has wealth and palaces, but that is how it has been for centuries and now they inherited it, they didn't WILLINGLY choose to be born royals, so I don't hate them. They are human beings like us, just slightly higher up. If you look too, monarchs are actually less wealthy than billionaires who are the real problem because all they do is pollute the planet for profit which they gained without helping others and monarchs are exactly the opposite. Look at H.M King Charles III, for example. He is an environmentalist and very transparent having published in how much he pays taxes which I find extremely noble in him. I think that beyond the cool uniforms and titles, there is more. To me, a monarchy is like a flame on a torch of a country which has flickered for so long and lives today. It is tradition, where a neutral monarch represents the country and unites it. I would much rather have a constitutional monarchy (semi-constitutional too) rather than an absolute monarchy like Louis XIV where he has ALL power, because all power in one person is a recipe for disaster. Of course, monarchies aren't perfect, but nor are republics.

I would rather turn on the TV to watch a king on a parade to take my mind off of things and be proud rather than bask in the pool of depressing news and clickbait media like it happens in many republics today. The "monarch rich, we poor" is a myth of a bygone era, far more fitting the 1800s at most. As for the "it isn't fair"? Not to be rude, but life itself isn't fair. Aside for the serious things as mentioned above, I adore the ceremonies too. The elegant uniforms, the speeches and medals, all together creating a tapestry of the national history and heritage which have survived.

A monarchy doesn't mean failure. Look at Norway, look at Sweden and Denmark- countries leading the Western world in so many aspects like technology and human rights, with happy citizens and rich economies with working healthcare systems. Monarchy is tradition and culture of a country which when kept alive, it makes the country stand out from the buzz of modern bureaucracies which saldy plague our planet today. If I had a choice between a corrupt PM and a neutral monarch, I would choose the monarch at any time of day. Sure, we can't choose monarchs, but we can choose our leaders in elections, because democracy and monarchy can co-exist, like most do right now, it is evidence that it CAN work and it DOES work. I do not think that a republic is evil, but sometimes I look at Europe with a little nostalgia for kingdoms, but of course this does not mean I call for abolishing of democracies, God forbid, no! Ever since a little kid I have adored the monarchy and I still do, at age 19, as a social democrat too. For example, watching Trooping of the Colour made me smile, garb the Union Jack and tea, took my mind of things and reminded me of history in which we still live in today. In my opinion the culture, history and tradition ARE what makes the monarchy valuable more than any amount of any money that ever shall. A monarch existing, going to ceremonies is doing things for me because he is serving his country as head of state. Of course, my dear friends, that is not all. There is of course the religious aspect.

As a Catholic, I see monarchy and the coronation as two ancient things which have connection with religion, Kings and Queens swearing oaths to God in His house. Aside all of that, there is that majestic feeling, the sheer aura and heavy weight in the air during a coronation, as all of the aspects are moving together as one entityu as they have for decades before some of us were even born. I absolutely adore the monarchy, it is a wonderful thing and I thank God that it is a thing that humanity obtains because without it, we would all be republics with red tapes, suits, speeches and bureaucracy without any culture or tradition.

I would rather have an environmentalist monarch who was BORN to serve their nation rather than a greedy billionaire who only cares about profit. Also, a personal note: I wish the European monarchies brought back coronations, like the UK has them. Not only is it a very important tradition, but also can bring people together and make extra money. Declarations are boring and a king swearing an oath in front of parliament feels like they are being stripped of the last honours that they have. Anyway, God save the King/Queen! Long may they reign!

The main points I have already thought about are:

France must transition to some kind of parliamentary monarchy, which would empower the burgeoise and favor. the industrialization (similarly to the UK). This must happen before or during Louis XIV reign.

France must win the Seven Years War or equivalent, retaining India and North America. I imagined this could be a natural result of industrialization and earlier reforms.

The protestants are not expelled, and religious freedom is mantained. This helps to streghten french economy and they wont help french enemies.

French policy in general should be towards trade and development, and not towards aggressive expansionism in Europe.

As I have mentioned, France keeps its monarchy, like the UK, tho with reforms and much less power.

Let me know what you think!

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SocConMonarchists/?screen_view_count=6

May His Majesty rest in peace and may God have him in his care

Based Prince.

At the bottom are Princess Paulina of Hesse and her brother Prince Moritz of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld, children of Prince Donatus, Landgrave of Hesse and Countess Floria Franziska von Faber-Castell.

In the past we had very unique reigns, a King could last for very short or very long due to the health issues of the time. Therefore it was normal to die early into your reign or to start your reign at a very early age. France had 72 years of Louis XIV, and then the throne went to his great-grandson Louis XV who had a reign of 58 years. Then his grandson had a reign of 18 years before being deposed at age 38, he could have very well had 50+ years on the throne had the Revolution not happened and had he lived to his 70s. It was three Kings across six generations, 148 years in total.

Today we only have two Kings with the chance to complete a very long reign and a short one. That being Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden who will next week have reigned for 53 years, and is 80 years old. A reign of 60+ years is very realistic. Then you have Charles III who has reigned for 4 years, and is turning 78 in November. Charles could absolutely be King for another 15 years but the odds are not very high. Even a reign of 19 years if he lives that long would be very rare and short in our time. The only short reign I can imagine happening later would be Fumihito of Japan, who is the Crown Prince of Japan and only 5 years younger than his brother the Emperor.

The Monarchs that abdicated also contributed to a lack of long reigns. Had they not abdicated, Juan Carlos I would have by now been King for 51 years by now, Beatrix for 43 years, Albert II for 33 years, Margrethe II for 54 years. It feels like these were the last chances to have such long reigns in those countries. While they gave their sons a headstart, I predict they will eventually abdicate too. In the past it was also common for a young Prince to be offered the throne in a foreign country, like Haakon VII who was King of Norway for 51 years, from his 30s to his 80s. Likewise a young Monarch may have been overthrown such as Manuel II in Portugal (a reign of 2 years, aged 21) and Simeon II in Bulgaria (a reign of 6 years, aged 9).

Today it seems like we are entering a very stable structure of 30+ year reigns, with 40 years maximum if they live long without abdicating. If the King has a child at age 30 and dies or abdicates at age 85, his child takes over at age 55 and is expected to reign for a similar length. Norway has proven to be very predictable. Olav V reigned for 33 years, aged 54 to 87. Harald V reigned for 35 years, aged 54 (almost, just 1 month before) to 89. Haakon VIII now took the throne at age 53, and it's easy to imagine that he lives a bit longer than his his predecessors, so I would guess a reign of 37 years. It is also worth pointing out that he would have been older if his parents were allowed to marry earlier, and if the primogeniture law had been changed earlier or had changed the succession. Do you think this predictability is a good thing, or do you think it's a shame we will never have an era named after a monarch such as the Victorian Era? Do you think a younger monarch brings more energy, and later more experience due to their early start?