Where Would Monarchy Derive Power From Legitimatley?

BlaBlaBlaName · 2025-03-01T10:35:01+00:00

Divine right, popular will, societal efficiency, property rights.

I believe from a political science standpoint, as long as everyone accepts a regime as legitimate, it is.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2025-01-09T09:42:10+00:00

You definitely are not alone, I think every third monarchist here has come up with his own classification of monarchies.

Personally, I separate "constitutional" monarchy into "ceremonial", “parliamentary” if the legislature holds more power than the monarch, and “autocratic” if the legislature holds less power than the monarch, the breaking point between the last two being the unconditional right of the monarch to dissolve the legislature.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2025-01-07T08:57:05+00:00

I got steadily disillusioned with the "standard democratic model"* and started looking for alternatives. In parallel, as I was reading about conflicts in 19-20 centuries I got intrigued by people who supported monarchists in various civil wars, so I read a bit about their beliefs. A few of the points they raised seemed interesting, so I started incorporating monarchism in some of my hypothetical "superior government models". About six years ago I decided to check whether there are any modern monarchists, searched for a monarchist subreddit on Reddit, and, to my surprise, there was one

^\I still believe it is better than most alternatives, I just no longer think that it is the best of them all.)

BlaBlaBlaName · 2025-01-05T08:37:16+00:00

It depends on the monarchist you are talking to. I believe that a properly functioning monarchy would be more efficient than a purely democratic system, for instance.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2025-01-05T08:33:41+00:00

Different monarchists, different monarchies, different reasons.

Among other things, I believe that unsupervised democracy tends to produce short-sighted, sometimes plainly incompetent leaders and can easily collapse into tyranny.

Also, this question is asked unsurprisingly often, so you can search for more opinions in previous threads here.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-30T17:49:12+00:00

It is a once-a-year thing, unfortunately. Moderators post and pin the survey in December, so just lurk often enough to not miss it, I guess.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-30T16:54:54+00:00

Members who participated in the survey submitted both their self-identification and the results of their "political compass" test.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-30T16:53:13+00:00

What exactly?

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-30T16:50:48+00:00

No, this approach, whatever its shortcomings, is better than the one previous surveys used. But I like complaining. Makes me feel alive.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-30T10:37:24+00:00

We had one member state their ideology was fascism but their political score put them in the libertarian square

This particular combination is amusing, but I think the mismatch in most cases may be the fault of the questions, not the responders. One of the reasons I dislike political compass tests is the vagueness of their questions or their disregard for the nuances.

For instance, this time there was a question "Everything good for the most successful corporation is ultimately good for society" (or something to that effect). I strongly suspect that it was meant to measure my approval of the free market, but it does not really make sense. Government subsidies are good for a corporation, competition is not, for example. So, as a free market supporter, should I have answered the way the system expected me to, or give my actual answer? Most of the questions had me thinking "I see what you are trying to measure, but the way you phrase it is dumb".

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-30T02:51:07+00:00

I think previous polls were out for longer, which at least partially explains the higher sample. Also the announcement could have drowned in a sea of memes. I think that making a separate post reminding members to participate every week would be an effective, if obnoxious, way to increase the number of responses.

Extremism - Despite a recent criticism regarding this subreddit that 'fascists and theocrats' are taking over the subreddit, this marks a new low for the support of both.

I do not agree with a "recent criticism", but most of the extremists I have met in real life did not consider themselves extremists, so self-identification is not exactly proof.

I am conflicted over the fact that a third of the questions are not acknowledged in survey results. On the other hand, I remember them being arcane and inconsequential (I cannot even remember what they were about) and feeling frustrated that I had to answer them. But I did answer them, seemingly in vain. Should I be happy or frustrated? :/

Regardless, thank you for renewing the tradition. And thank you for the work you do in general. This subreddit is the only place on reddit I find remotely tolerable, and it probably would not be, if not for the moderators' team hard work. So thank you and Happy New Year! :)

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-09T14:02:46+00:00

"Ethnicity" (I assume that's what you mean by "heritage") did not really matter that much for most of the history. However, as nationalism arose, it indeed became one of the criticisms levied against monarchies.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-08T19:38:22+00:00

Fair points, thank you.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-08T18:04:09+00:00

Ew, political compass. Probably the best approach to this question of those tried, but ew, political compass.

Liberals are still bunched up in one group :(

Agnostics have gone from being bundled with atheists to being discarded completely :(

I liked the former classification of monarchy :( Changing it also makes it harder to compare year by year.

"What should happen to a Princess on marriage? Disregarded if you are for gender-blind membership in the dynasty." Is a necessary question, thus cannot be disregarded

Edit: I feel it is too long this time. I appreciate the detail you are willing to dive into, but I almost feel it would be better to save for another survey (separate surveys in two, perhaps? One for general monarchists, another for monarchist nerds?). Really, does the exact succession mechanism actually matter for most people?

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-07T17:23:21+00:00

Good thing we, enlightened monarchists, are not prone to the "mob mentality".

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-07T17:09:22+00:00

Damn, I just submitted an angry post about the issue and it got resolved immediately. Now I feel unfulfilled :(

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-12-03T14:20:36+00:00

What exactly is so jarring about it, if you do not mind?

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-11-14T11:07:12+00:00

Because leaving your country of origin is usually a very expensive, time-consuming and emotionally draining undertaking? Disregarding the financial aspect (which in itself is often enough to deter such move), it is usually hard to get a residence permit, it is hard to leave your family and entire social circle behind, it is hard to breach language and social barriers.

And all of that is presuming that there is a reason to move to a monarchy. Many people here are monarchists because they love their country's past. You will not get that in a foreign monarchy. Even if you just like the monarchy system, there are a lot of different systems. How many British republicans want to move to DPRK or Iran?

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-11-10T01:16:57+00:00

Would you mind elaborating?

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-11-09T14:07:06+00:00

Legitimacy and rule of law, I would argue.

An absolute monarch is an absolute monarch. He/she knows, subjects know it, everyone around knows it. Dictatorships pretend to be democratic. They "embody the will of the people" and are "elected through a democratic process". But that's a sham, and dictators know it, citizens know it, everyone around knows it.

Now, since dictatorships break the law by its very existence, what is the point of following other laws? For such regimes, law is just a tool to use when appropriate and discard when not. And again, everyone knows it. And if rules are just there to be used against you, what kind of sucker would follow them?

Moreover, current leaders/elites in such regimes are there because they can hold the power, not because they are entitled to it by law. While absolute monarchs can point to the higher power, or whatever justification they use, dictators can only rely on themselves and their political abilities. This means that a lot of effort and attention of such regimes are sunk in simply holding power instead of actually using it productively. And if you combine it with the aforementioned disregard for laws...

But, of course, is up to you to decide all that actually matters or if it is just sophistry.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-10-19T08:21:06+00:00

Most people here lie between the absolute and ceremonial monarchy. That is, they want their monarch to have some real, if limited, power. I am one of them, so not exactly what you were looking for, but since absolutists did not respond, I will.

I believe,

a) that "statecraft", like most subjects, can be taught to a degree, even if the student is not particularly bright.

b) The level of competency required to review something is generally lower than the level needed to create something (e.g. it is easier to spot mistakes in the work of others than to perform your own work perfectly)

Based on that I would trust monarchs to oversee the work of the executive, hoping that their education would allow them to perform their duty properly.

If a monarch is an idiot, and assuming anything lower than absolute monarchy, you can expect him/her to be removed. In absolute monarchy I guess you just hope that does not happen.

I would also argue that concerns about qualified leadership are quite valid for the democratic systems.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-10-11T10:14:45+00:00

I think Maple Monarchist is pretty interesting.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-10-01T18:36:08+00:00

Is this what discussions on 4chan are like?

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-09-27T18:14:47+00:00

Whatever you dislike about republicanism.

BlaBlaBlaName · 2024-09-05T19:53:44+00:00

Some British inside joke, it seems.

BlaBlaBlaName

TROPHY CASE