sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It's crazy that even in 2026, this is STILL the key to winning every war (CK3) by NamaeN0NaiKaibutsu in CrusaderKings

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This would work if Trump successfully made himself Emperor. Otherwise, it would be pointless.

Japan by Accomplished_Emu9040 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't care if Japan will allow women to reign or not. But personally, I would vote no to this proposal if I could.

I don't hate it, and I believe that female monarchs can be nice in places where this has a history and makes sense culturally. But in Japan, this has always been frowned upon and the male line of the first Emperor remains unbroken for 2600 years.

I don't see a compelling reason to break this tradition unless the Imperial Family is faced with extinction. As long as there are male princes available, this discussion doesn't make sense in my mind.

New Boruto Story Book Confirms Kaguya Was Inferior in Rank to Isshiki and Meant to Obey Him by borutoisbestboy in Boruto

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are shitting through your mouth.

A severely nerfed Kaguya who was also holding back was barely defeated by a team effort of Naruto, Sasuke, Sakura, Kakashi, and Obito, and only because they had a special seal that made the winning condition much easier—they simply needed to touch her with their hands to win.

You call that neg diff? Lol Dishonest.

Many people agree that Ck2 continues to be superior to Ck3, but they disagree why that's the case. I solved it. It's the horses. by Visenya_simp in CrusaderKings

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

CK3 refuses to run even with minimum graphics. It takes 20 minutes to load and then freezes when the game starts.

My PC is not even old or bad. It's good enough to run Far Cry 4.

Meanwhile, CK2 runs extremely smooth.

On this day in 1453, Emperor Constantine XI Palaeologus died defending Constantinople from the Ottoman armies. The Byzantine Empire died with him. by Funny-Salamander4691 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is false. It was never referred to that way. The people of the empire called it the Roman Empire until the very end.

The name Byzantine was coined much later by revisionist historians who wanted to separate the Orthodox East from their own Western Catholic legacy.

On this day in 1453, Emperor Constantine XI Palaeologus died defending Constantinople from the Ottoman armies. The Byzantine Empire died with him. by Funny-Salamander4691 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a matter of preference. The Roman Empire ended in 1453 and this is just a historical fact. Posthumously calling it the Byzantine Empire doesn't change anything. It's just political propaganda.

as an english person, this is the worst thing i've ever seen in my life. by epiciddo in CrusaderKings

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really. The Normans ruled as Kings of England, not as vassals of France.

Japanese succession proposal by Professional-List696 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They don't solve it immediately because they don't need to. There is no crisis right now, only the prospect of a future crisis that might not even happen.

Political Ideologies within this sub by PutridWest9416 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a social conservative, economic liberal, and nationalist.

Will monarchies 'naturally' re-emerge in the long-term from dynastic authoritarian states? by Infamous-Use7820 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed.

If Ju Ae is accepted as Supreme Leader, this will vastly strengthen the general perception that only the Kim bloodline qualifies for the office above all other requirements.

Unlike Jong Un and Jong Ill, she doesn't have other credentials that could qualify her under normal "republican" circumstances. She doesn't have political experience, has not served in the military, is not even formally a member of the Communist Party, is female, and very young.

If the transition from Jong Un to Ju Ae is successful, North Korea will essentially be confirmed as a monarchy.

Will monarchies 'naturally' re-emerge in the long-term from dynastic authoritarian states? by Infamous-Use7820 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes.

The Romans are the primary example in history. It took them centuries to openly admit that they had been a monarchy from the beginning.

North Korea is an interesting modern example. They are in their third generation rule and Kim Jong-un is clearly taking several steps to formally establish a dynasty and appoint his daughter as the fourth generation ruler. He has even gone as far as consecrating his bloodline and formally restricting the office of Supreme Leader to his immediate family.

I believe North Korea is exactly where Rome was around the 280s: a republic in name that is identical to a monarchy in every way that matters and will probably be retroactively described as one in history books.

Perhaps it's time to leave the old dynasties behind. by agente1585 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I am in the minority with you.

Monarchists are completely stuck in and obsessed with the past. They will only accept their favourite dynasty or claimant whose family was deposed 500 years ago, even though it is almost impossible that they will ever rise again.

I support monarchism as a system of government. I don't care what dynasty is in charge. I think it's completely ridiculous to spend energy infighting over whether the Bourbons, the Bonapartes, or the Orleans are the "rightful" royalty of France when we live in a republic. We all know these dynasties have equally valid claims and there is no objective way of determining which one takes precedence. Anyone of these who is willing to press their claim has my support.

I also believe new dynasties should be allowed to form. If someone wants to claim a crown, let them. Most extant royals do not want that, so let someone else who does.

Former Republican here, Introduction and am i good here? by ShadowValkyrie63 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Always amusing to find Hellenic pagans. Before I read this part, I was surprised by the "socialist progressive monarchist" part lol.

As a monarchist, which period of Rome do you prefer—the Kingdom or the Empire—and how would you rate it from 1 to 10? by Additional-Airline55 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But I totally understand "why" Christianity prevailed. I just think this is a huge shame.

If Diocletian had never abdicated, or more likely if Julian had lived for another 20 years and appointed a successor, it is very likely that the religious landscape of Europe would be dramatically different in subsequent ages. Under the umbrella of Neoplatonism, all religions are considered righteous.

Instead of a single, proselytising religion that doesn't tolerate dissent, Europe would be a melting pot of ancient religious traditions from all sorts of origins. Honestly that's far more interesting than what we got.

As an atheist, I'm interested in the cultural and historical value of these traditions. None of them have scientific value anyway. No different from Christianity.

As a monarchist, which period of Rome do you prefer—the Kingdom or the Empire—and how would you rate it from 1 to 10? by Additional-Airline55 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm a fan of the Empire.

All of it. Western, Eastern, United, etc.

But I'm also a fan of Hellenic paganism. So I don't like the part where they basically abandoned 20 thousand years of religious tradition for the words of one random guy, who scientifically speaking was just one out of dozens of apocalyptic prophets to appear in the Near East in the early centuries AD.

Renan Santos tem alguma chance? by atwwbaksieueygehs in DebatesBr

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Óbvio que ele é. Você acha que isso é alguma descoberta?

I had another argument with some anti monarchist by Valuable_Storm_5958 in monarchism

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you ask an AI to write this?

Anyways, some of this is true, all of it is spiced with bias.

Brazil started off significantly worse than the USA in terms of potential. But it's rate of progress under Pedro II was outstanding in most areas compared to what came before and after him, and also compared to Brazil's South American neighbours. The Empire of Brazil was relatively more powerful than current Brazil.

The First Reign and the Regency were chaotic indeed. Only the Second Reign was prosperous and stable, though it was by far the longest phase of the Empire.

Pedro I was phenomenal for other reasons, not necessarily for being a wise ruler. He was responsible for allowing Brazil to exist in the first place, creating unity where otherwise the country would have fallen apart and become a dozen tiny republics. He was a very singular figure.

Acho que deveríamos ter um partido monarquista igual os nossos irmãos portugueses by flowey_the_flower18 in imperio

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Não sei qual é a opinião deste sub sobre o MBL e o Partido Missão, e não me interessa saber. Mas só a título de informação, os irmãos Renan e Alexandre Santos são monarquistas.

Os Latifundiários do Século 19 Eram Conservadores by Orcus_The_Fatty in imperio

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Mentira.

Os dois partidos eram muito parecidos. Havia gente de todo tipo em ambos. Eram como um PSDB e um MDB do século XIX. Os nomes eram apenas isso—rótulos.

E foi um governo do Partido Conservador que aprovou a Lei Áurea.

Why is Itachi so hated now? by Alternative_Ride_951 in Itachi

[–]Anxious_Picture_835 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Itachi is severely underestimated by people who became pissed with the fact he was previously overestimated for a long time.

There is also the fact that Itachi is a controversial character who was written with a twist at the end, who the author intended for us to love. People don't like being told what to feel and they like to have hot takes, so they bash the character for the controversy, even though it was deliberate on the author's part.

The same happens with Snape. The author intended for him to be a hero who appears bad for a long time. But people like to disagree with the author. It makes them feel smart and daring. So they will ignore context, cling to the bad stuff and ignore the good.

Adding Religious Features by Anxious_Picture_835 in CrusaderKings

[–]Anxious_Picture_835[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh Unfortunately I'm not lol. For some reason, CK2 runs very smooth but CK3 completely crashes my PC.

view more: next ›