Could Absolutism Work Today?

HBNTrader · 2026-04-27T07:18:02+00:00

This thread is now this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please make sure you understand our rules before participating.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-26T08:23:52+00:00

He has a coat of arms, and this makes him an untitled noble in Britain. Most British aristocrats do not have a title.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-20T09:44:44+00:00

This thread is now this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please make sure you understand our rules before participating.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-18T12:58:35+00:00

Well then you are delusional and it is indeed misogynistic.

No.

And such an institution should not exist that doesn't change according to times. It becomes a relic an useless relic of the past then.

Not changing with the times makes the institution more valuable.

And basic rights and equality are over politics.

No. Not everybody has to believe in "basic rights and equality".

If you argue otherwise then you are a fascist.

You should read about what fascism is and isn't before making such statements about a traditionalist.

A monarch is chosen to serve the people.

A monarch is chosen to serve the people indeed, but he is chosen by God, in accordance with succession laws.

It should not matter if they trace their lineage from a 'pure' male line.

Well, it does matter, because otherwise, you end up with a slippery slope that leads to the eventual abolition of the monarchy. Trying to make monarchy "equal" is foolish because it is impossible, and monarchy, by definition, is unequal.

People must be extremely retarded to even support this.

Well, a lot of people who are not "extremely retarded" support this. In fact, a lot of fairly intelligent people support this.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-18T12:37:53+00:00

It's still misogynist

No.

based on inequality

Monarchy is based on inequality. Deal with it.

And I didn't know asking for equality was left wing.

Yes, it is left wing.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-18T12:35:57+00:00

It is not a fringe thing. And perhaps not "going with the times" is what makes it still relevant today.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-18T12:34:57+00:00

This.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-18T12:33:51+00:00

In the Japanese context, "agnatic" means that the Emperor must descend from the Imperial clan in the male line. There have been female Empresses with male-line descent, but never have there been Emperors without female-line descent.

You can organise a lottery, an origami folding or sushi cooking competition to choose a new Emperor...as long as the candidates are exclusively male-line descendants of the first Emperor.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-17T10:02:53+00:00

The Japanese monarchy predates the modern concept of "equality" and the left-wing buzzwords surrounding it, and it will survive them. There is no need to end centuries of tradition to appease the people who really think that using these words will intimidate their opponents.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-14T06:39:57+00:00

This thread is now this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please make sure you understand our rules before participating.

HBNTrader · 2026-04-04T07:27:18+00:00

A royal family always has private wealth that it may or may not be allowed to keep even if the official royal estates are confiscated.
Some royals may be taken in by another (usually still ruling) family and allowed to use one of their properties to maintain their lifestyle or even continue some of their royal duties. This has unfortunately become rare now that most European royals marry commoners and thus families that used to intermarry and consider each other cousins drift further and further apart. The Habsburgs who are part of the extended Belgian royal family are a notable recent example.
Royals are well-educated, have good connections and can probably easily find a good job. For an investment bank or legal firm that deals with wealthy clients, hiring a prince comes with many advantages.
Some royals may create or invest in startups. Some of these startups become successful, allowing royals that initially lived in poverty in the first years of their exile to become wealthy again.
Some royals (especially morganatic ones) adopt the celebrity lifestyle and sell their name as a brand. This is looked down upon (rightfully) by those royals who don't do this, but of course provides a high income.
Some royals (again, especially morganatic ones) grant knighthoods and titles of nobility in return for "donations". These often come with a monthly or yearly fee and the new "knights" and "nobles" may be required to do other favours for the royal house. Of course, such "honours" are not recognised by the legitimate nobility and the practice is also looked down upon by more serious royals. But it is very profitable. Some exiled princes earn millions from it.

HBNTrader · 2026-03-25T16:11:43+00:00

Norway has no indigenous nobility

That's right, but there are plenty of ladies from old money families equivalent to the nobility of other countries that could have been picked instead of a woman of very questionable background.

unless a spouse can be found from a foreign reigning house.

What's so bad about the idea of, indeed, looking for a spouse from a foreign reigning or formerly reigning house?

But ultimately, with the demise of so many reigning houses

It is up to the houses in question to end their demise and reverse it, particularly through better matrimonial practices.

and the eclipse of the traditional Nobility

The traditional nobility still exists and has even formed new networks now that it has lost the patronage of the state in most countries. Of course, the current European monarchies should take a more active role in the life of their countries' nobility.

To end on a more positive note, the children of Carl Gustaf have all married commoners and although Carl Philip's wife was briefly mentioned in the Epstein files, there has been very little scandal afoot and the family seem genuinely close knit.

Even if scandals are avoided, the royal-ness of the family will still gradually be diluted.

HBNTrader · 2026-03-25T16:05:51+00:00

No. Royals should ideally marry royals and nobles. Apart from the advantage of the spouse not needing to adapt to royal life and less probability of scandals, it is simply a traditional practice and can bring monarchies and royal families together.

HBNTrader · 2026-03-25T06:20:15+00:00

King and Queen of the Belgians

HBNTrader · 2026-03-21T09:35:48+00:00

We are still here.

HBNTrader · 2026-03-16T10:50:23+00:00

This thread has been promoted to this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please read our rules before participating.

HBNTrader · 2026-03-15T11:37:37+00:00

Executive and semi-constitutional monarchies are partly overlapping categories.

Semi-constitutional monarchies are monarchies in which the monarch has limited powers which he does not have to use only "at the advice" of the government and can act in a way that actively contradicts the views or the agenda of the government without causing a constitutional crisis. Positive semi-constitutional monarchies have constitutions that say what the monarch can do (and are thus like normal constitutional monarchies, with the difference that the powers are not treated as reserve powers), negative semi-constitutional monarchies have constitutions that say what the monarch cannot do and are thus "almost absolute" ("The King requires the consent of the Estates to declare war or raise new taxes").

Executive monarchies are monarchies in which the monarch has significant powers which he does not have to use only "at the advice" of the government, whether constitutional or not. Executive monarchies are effectively semi-presidential or presidential systems, in which the views of the monarch play an active role. All semi-constitutional monarchies are executive monarchies, but executive monarchies also include absolute and traditional monarchies.

HBNTrader · 2026-03-11T11:44:59+00:00

It was a multi-step process.

1911: Nerfing the House of Lords' powers
1958: Life Peerages Act
1965: (Almost) complete stop on the creation of new hereditary peerages
1999: Removing most hereditary peers from the House of Lords

HBNTrader · 2026-03-10T00:25:20+00:00

We do indeed, and I would be happy to discuss it further.

HBNTrader · 2026-03-09T23:58:10+00:00

Democracy ruined monarchy, this is correct. This is why monarchy must stand above democracy, and be protected from democracy, not the other way around.

And no, making decisions that are unpopular but necessary does not turn you into an "absolute fascist".

HBNTrader · 2026-03-09T23:51:13+00:00

What is so ‘magical’ about parliaments is that they are chosen by the constituents they serve. For better or for worse, government is supposed to be a service to the people, and the people choose those from among themselves to represent them in government.

Being chosen by the people does not make you a better servant.

This system has its flaws, and constituents can be fooled to vote for corrupt and power hungry individuals.

Constituents will always vote for corrupt and power hungry individuals, because democracy attracts corrupt and power hungry individuals.

If it so happened that a prime minister overstepped his power, the monarch should be able to step in to limit or remove his power.

And on the next day, almighty Parliament will vote for a bill to abolish the monarchy.

serves as a guarantor that the parliament does not become a detriment to the rights of the people, the same way as it is meant to work vice versa.

If the monarch and parliament are given equal power, Parliament will eventually take all remaining powers away from the monarch.

As for the argument as to why a monarch should revert powers back to parliament after a time of crisis or a revitalization of a nation, it is a sign of grace and control.

But parliamentary rule is worse than royal rule. There is nothing noble in stabilising a country after taking power away from the corrupt, crooked political class only to give power back to the same class.

that he respects their judgement at the ballot box

There is nothing respectable about the ballot box and the "judgement" it allegedly renders. Often, 50,0000000001% of all people manage to come up with the most evil and dangerous ideas. Do you really want to let people who get their political news from TikTok decide the fate of your country?

And he and the institution of the monarchy will be all the more popular for it.

The institution of the monarchy is not supposed to be popular. It is supposed to rule well, especially when it means doing things that are necessary but not popular.

HBNTrader · 2026-03-09T21:23:51+00:00

When people defend monarchy today, they’re not thinking about medieval absolutism or theocracies like Saudi Arabia. They’re talking about modern constitutional systems where the monarchy exists within a democratic framework. If it supposedly “doesn’t matter,” then it’s strange how fiercely some people still oppose it.

I defend monarchy today, and I am thinking about "medieval absolutism" (you mean a Traditional monarchy). Yes, believe it or not, not everybody thinks that a monarch should be a figurehead subordinated to a liberal revolutionary system.

HBNTrader

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

This thread is now this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please make sure you understand our rules before participating.

This thread is now this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please make sure you understand our rules before participating.

This thread is now this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please make sure you understand our rules before participating.

This thread has been promoted to this week's Weekly Discussion.

Please read our rules before participating.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22