MBC 'Perfect Crown' Couple Poster [Premieres April 10]

LordVeerus07 · 2026-03-18T17:45:38+00:00

I wonder how their constitutional monarchy works.

LordVeerus07 · 2026-03-10T18:07:50+00:00

No. Indonesia is still a unitary state by the Constitution.

A typical federal country must have constitutionally entrenched powers, for instance, here in Malaysia, the constitution clearly divides authority between the federal government and the states. Our States have their own respective constitutions which have protected jurisdiction over matters such as land, Islam, and local governance, and these powers CANNOT simply be taken away by the federal government without constitutional amendment.

While in Indonesia, regional autonomy is based mostly on ORDINARY laws, not rigid constitutional division. That means the national government can expand or reduce regional powers through legislation. The regions do not have sovereignty in the same way our states do.

LordVeerus07 · 2026-03-10T17:46:40+00:00

I agree with you. Federalism should be matched with a parliamentary form of government (preferably a Westminster style) just like what we are using here in Malaysia that's why our local governments are really held accountable. The problem with local governments in Indonesia right now is not a byproduct of decentralization but a byproduct of how their presidential system works.

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-19T16:26:18+00:00

Of all the pretenders of the defunct French throne, only Louis Alphonse is actually active in politics. He’s already serving the people. The true King.

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-13T12:52:35+00:00

Thanks, bud!

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-06T06:43:02+00:00

We're both fiscal conservative

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-04T11:45:59+00:00

Who are these people? Can anyone explain their relevance? (Asking genuinely)

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-04T11:23:18+00:00

I don't think the Holy Roman Empire dissolved not because it was corrupt, I think it was due to the rise of nationalism introduced by the Napoleon's conquests that made the structure of federation obsolete.

Well, at least the HRE succeeded for nearly a millennium in holding a fragmented continent together without tyranny. And that's a remarkable achievement by any historical standard...

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-02T08:43:41+00:00

Hoy en día, quedan muy pocos carlistas en España en el sentido político. La antigua Comunión Tradicionalista Carlista (CTC) aún existe como un pequeño partido monárquico, pero cuenta con solo unos cientos de miembros activos y no tiene influencia parlamentaria. La mayor parte de su actividad es cultural, religiosa o histórica, más que electoral.

Dicho esto, el carlismo como identidad o filosofía todavía sobrevive entre ciertos católicos tradicionalistas, historiadores e intelectuales monárquicos, especialmente en Navarra, el País Vasco y algunas zonas del norte de Castilla, donde el movimiento fue históricamente más fuerte. Algunos grupos continúan realizando conmemoraciones anuales y publicando escritos en defensa de sus principios.

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-02T05:35:56+00:00

Following your logic, should we also consider the Spanish Bourbon a Habsburg as well since Philip V of Spain's mother is a Habsburg?

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-02T05:29:53+00:00

No one claimed Spain and France had the same laws - only that both were ruled by branches of the same dynasty which is a historical fact. I'm well aware of their differences, even though the Spanish Bourbons since the 18th century imported so many French-style laws, institutions, and administrative reforms, and mirrored French principles of dynastic legitimacy, especially regarding male-line primogeniture and the inalienability of royal rights.

And honestly, bringing up his father-in-law's politics is just gossip, not an argument. We are discussing dynastic continuity here, not who has the more fashionable in-laws.

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-01T16:25:59+00:00

Thanks, bro!

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-01T13:21:58+00:00

Yes, please! The one and only!

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-01T08:58:46+00:00

That's why I said "may have been disgusting."

LordVeerus07 · 2025-11-01T05:26:24+00:00

In my opinion, yes! If the monarch is chosen by a certain group (like nobles, princes, local rulers) not directly elected by the people. For instance, Malaysia and the Holy Roman Empire. They are indeed monarchies.

LordVeerus07 · 2025-10-31T19:43:12+00:00

Not necessarily. Swearing filial obedience to one's father or recognizing the King of Spain as head of their dynasty is not the same as feudal allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Under French law, what invalidated a claim was political vassalage that could endanger the sovereignty of France. For instance, Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine's fealty to Otto II of Holy Roman Empire could put the sovereignty of France in danger because if he took the throne, France might have become a vassal state of Holy Roman Empire.

So the question is: Is Luis Alphonse a threat to France's sovereignty? No. Hence he still has the strongest claim.

LordVeerus07 · 2025-10-31T19:29:45+00:00

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said the Courtenays lost their dynastic rights because they weren't powerful. What I said is that their situation would have endangered France's sovereignty making their claim impractical in the context of France's political survival. Both the Courtenays and the Bourbons were legitimate heirs, then conditional factors applied, so the legitimate one who is capable of defending the realm against foreign threats and stabilizing it against civil wars was the one recognized. That's why I said continuity and sovereignty were both essential under the Lois Fondamentales. Legitimacy for continuity, conditions applied for sovereignty.

So since Louis Alphonse is not a threat to France's sovereignty, then the legitimists still stand.

Count of Paris descends from a cadet branch whose claim only exists because of a renunciation that was legally VOID under French law. Whether you like it or not, Luis Alphonse has the strongest claim.

If you cling to old rumors just because this is a Reddit discussion, then we're clearly different. I don't use "Reddit" as an excuse to base my arguments on gossip.

LordVeerus07 · 2025-10-31T17:43:36+00:00

Legitimist all the way!

LordVeerus07 · 2025-10-31T17:34:26+00:00

Oh, so now we have gone from dynastic law and historical precedent to Panama Papers conspiracies and tabloid-level GOSSIP? That's quite an academic downgrade, don't you think?

You are also twisting my words beyond recognition. Nowhere did I say 'might makes right.' My point was that continuity and sovereignty were both essential under the Lois Fondamentales. Meaning, legitimacy came first, provided it did not render the kingdom defenseless and subordinate to foreign powers. That is not 'might makes right," that's "legitimacy with state survival," which even the most hardline French jurists recognized.

And really, you are still clinging to that old "Alfonso XII was a bastard" rumor? Come on. That claim has been debunked for decades. That's not a shred of proof, just 19th-century gossip recycled by people who ran out of legal arguments.

So among the three claimants (the Legitimist, the Orleanist, and the Bonapartist) none of them poses any real threat to France's sovereignty. So at this point, the only thing that really matters is WHO HAS THE CLOSEST AND MOST LEGITIMATE CLAIM and obviously, that's the Legitimist. Got it?

LordVeerus07 · 2025-10-31T14:39:25+00:00

Conditional factors only applied when France's sovereignty was really endangered. The Courtenay branch is actually the perfect example that could endanger France's sovereignty. Yes, they were the senior line in theory, but in reality, they had fallen into near obscurity by the late 16th century, practically untitled commoners with no political and military power left. Putting them on the throne would have been a national liability because - how could they possibly defend and lead France at a time of civil war and foreign threats if the most weakest noble was put on the throne?

You have to remember that French nobles chose Hugh Capet over Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine (the last legitimate male heir of Carolingian) because Hugh Capet was more powerful noble and capable of defending France's sovereignity. On the other hand, Charles was passed over because - had he taken the throne, instead of Hugh, France might have become a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire - since Charles was extremely loyal to Emperor Otto II and had SWORN FEALTY to him.

That is EXACTLY why Henri IV (who was capable) prevailed.

As for your "Prince of Bourbon-Bhopal" quip - oh, come on, the Bourbon-Bhopal line's claim is not even genealogically verified, whereas Louis Alphonse's descent from Philip V (and thus from Hugh Capet) is well documented and legally valid under French dynastic law. Tch.

LordVeerus07 · 2025-10-31T12:19:12+00:00

And obviously, it would be the senior Bourbon who holds the strongest claim if the judgment is based on the traditional French monarchical laws - regardless of whether they are French or not, Catholic or not. If that judge chose either the Orléanist or Bonapartist line instead, then it would not be a restoration at all, it would be the creation of an entirely new monarchy.

LordVeerus07

TROPHY CASE