A thread for the Civilized Discussion and Debate on Monarchy

[VictortheMonarch]

Okay then, I am beginning this thread on the discussion of Monarchy as a whole. All views are allowed so long as we don't derail. So then, I will begin.

Personally I am a Monarchist, and as one I will defend my view point. Please do make your view obvious, between Monarchist, Monarchist Sympathizer, Neutral, Anti-Monarchist Sympathizer, and Anti-Monarchist.

As I see it there are many good points to Monarchy, such as how it is cheaper to have a monarch than a reoccurring Election, For instance, the Queen barely cost a dime for the British Government, and while yes they still do have elections, it doesn't cost nearly as much as the 6.5 billion USD it cost the United States Government each election.

There is also the fact there is more Stability in the nation. A monarchy goes through less tumultuous periods of changing leaders, as most monarchs live and reign 20-30 years. Not only that, but each one is raised from birth to lead in the modern monarchy. To be upstanding citizens. And while some of which do not do so, (Rama X, for example) most tend to stick to strict morals. Now tell me, who would you prefer, someone taught from birth to lead, or some old guy with Alzheimer's?

Monarchies tend to be more efficient. Instead of two-three days of debate over whether a certain measure can be put in place in a period where time is limited, a monarch can make that call, saving lives well before a elected body can.

While each of my points are good, there are some downsides.

Just because the lines of succession are outlined before they are needed does not guarantee the next ruler will be competent. Some rulers may not even wish to take over their assigned responsibilities. Being born into a specific position is very different than being specifically educated and pursuing a career that can lead an individual into a leadership position. We've seen that recently in the British Monarchy. A prince who didn't want anything to do with monarchy left suddenly after marrying and has since become a bed of controversy.

Although tyranny can form under any structure of government, it is easier to form within the structure of a monarchy. Many governments attempt to balance the powers of a monarchy between multiple groups, but a ruler that is determined to be cruel and unreasonable can dictate that all powers funnel through them. Sometimes referred to as a dictatorship, autocracy, or despotism, great harm can occur when it is present. Mao Zedong, in power for 34 years in China, is responsible for up to 75 million deaths.

While there is more, I will leave that to others to decide on.

 

[Cherico]

I generally dislike monarchies on the principle that its easier to kick out a bad president then a bad king but for all of monarchies faults it does have better results then communism.

This of course is not hard to do.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Another valuable aspect of monarchy is that succession is normally in the family. This might sound like an odd advantage, but most people try to build up their own situation in order to leave a better life for their children. A democratically elected leader has no inherent incentive to actually try to build the nation up vs. loot it for their (and their children's) personal benefit. A King does.

 

[Captain X]

I'm anti-monarchist as I do not believe in people being a "better" of others through something like accident of birth. I'm very much in favor of the limited government, constitutional republic that the United States is supposed to be, and a big believer in meritocracy. I also abhor double standards.

Incidentally, I recently watched a documentary about the 8th Air Force during WWII and there was a bit about how the crew of the Memphis Belle was visited by the King and other members of the Royal Family. Kind of had the thought that I would probably have been a bad one to be in that position given how I generally lack respect for monarchies.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Ironically, I think a traditional monarch is less predisposed to tyranny than many forms of government. Simply put, a monarch of old believes in God, a power much greater than himself, thus automatically does not believe himself all powerful. Alongside this more philosophical inhibition on delusions of grandeur, a King also has to keep his nobles happy or else he'll lose his throne.

A prime example of that is Richard III, thought a tyrant and murderer in his own time, who was effectively thrown under the bus at Bosworth by England's nobility. Being an overbearing, cruel, twat is a pretty good way to set off rebellions and disloyalty (cough, Bad King John, cough).

 

[VictortheMonarch]

I'm anti-monarchist as I do not believe in people being a "better" of others through something like accident of birth. I'm very much in favor of the limited government, constitutional republic that the United States is supposed to be, and a big believer in meritocracy. I also abhor double standards.

Incidentally, I recently watched a documentary about the 8th Air Force during WWII and there was a bit about how the crew of the Memphis Belle was visited by the King and other members of the Royal Family. Kind of had the thought that I would probably have been a bad one to be in that position given how I generally lack respect for monarchies.

And you can still have limited government with democracy. Infact, it could even help push it along, as a monarchy doesn't have to be absolute. Personally I don't believe the Monarch is better than anyone, and should be subject to removal of power by the people if they end up turning tyrannical. There is typically three types of Monarchies. Absolute Monarchy, where the monarch holds full power, Semi-Constitutional Monarchy, where the monarch holds a decent enough power, similar to the President of the US, and the Constitutional Monarchy, where the Monarch has limited to no power. each of these can still have democracy going on within their system, though most of us monarchist tend to stray away from Absolute Monarchy.

 

[Aldarion]

If you want a REALLY LONG overview of my thoughts, read this:

Argument for Monarchy

This started from posts by Libertus, but with expansion and commentary. Tyrannical nature of democracy Democracy is a self-destructive political system for several reasons. Democracy formalizes pol…

fantasycore.home.blog

But in short, I think traditional monarchy is by far the best system of government, for many reasons:

1. In monarchy, there is an authority figure. This means that there is a sense of personal responsibility which is lacking in a democracy, republic, oligarchy and other systems with multiple authority figures. Democracy doesn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work: distributed responsibility means no responsibility.
2. While democracy may be better in short term, in long term it is far worse than monarchy. Elected politicians do not see or care for anything beyond the next elections, and populace is much the same. This means that both are easily bought by the plutocrats: who likewise do not see beyond their bank accounts.
3. Monarchy helps unify the society as monarch serves as a symbol of the nation (or nations); he is a focal point for loyalties of various groups. This in turn means that there is less need for authoritharian, oppressive government as unity is achieved through common emotional investment (same reason why nationalism is required for democracy).
4. Democracy by its nature promotes the ideal of equality - all humans are equal etc. But this is basically Communism lite, and prevents acknowledging inherent differences of human beings. Equality is only possible within authoritharian, tyrannical system, a.k.a. Communism.
5. In democracy, there is less resistance to abuse of power, because everybody can join the gang (political party). In a monarchy, you have different circles which keep each other in check. And because opportunities for joining such a circle were far fewer, tolerance for abuses of power by any single circle was also far lower.
6. In democracy, all political parties are members of the same social class, and thus their differences are mostly for a show. In a monarchy, the plebs, minor nobility, major nobility and the Church all had genuinely different interests, creating a system of competition.
7. Democracy promotes the idea of group responsibility, with an individual protected by anonymity and numbers. Monarchy promotes the idea of personal, individual responsibility.
8. Elected politicians are professional psychopaths. They have to be, or they would never get elected. A monarch might happen to be a psycho, but an elected official is almost guaranteed to be one.
9. Freedom means subsidiarity, and that is much easier to achieve in a monarchy than in a bureocratic state such as basically any modern democracy. Centralization meanwhile leads to tyranny and genocides, as shown by Communism, Nazism and so on.
10. Politicians require money to get elected, which means that they get into cahoots with big business. And big business wants big, intrusive state in order to stamp out the competition. Consequently, elections do not matter anyway, and are just a waste of money.
11. Voters are said to "make decisions", but a) that is a lie, and b) they are not given information necessary for that anyway. And even if they were, power is held by whoever counts the votes anway. Voting is nothing but a tool to legitimize tyranny.
12. Democracy is inherently based on socialist beliefs: that all humans are equal, and that humans can be improved. This means that while it may work for a short period, in the long term it is a road to disaster.
13. Pressure of regular voting means that elected politicians have no interest in the future beyond the next elections. Monarch meanwhile hopes to pass the state to a successor, and can thus be expected to take far better care of it than elected officials will. Regular elections also serve to psychologically condition the people towards the instant gratification.

 

[ATP]

I am monarchist - but not :
1."enlingtened" 18th century despots,which rule paved way for revolution.
2.Not toothless 20th century,too - it means oligarchy,which led to revolution,too.
3.Not liberal 19th century - it led to revolution,too.

What we need is medieval style monarch which real power ruling over free people and free provinces,which have their own rights.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

I am monarchist - but not :
1."enlingtened" 18th century despots,which rule paved way for revolution.
2.Not toothless 20th century,too - it means oligarchy,which led to revolution,too.
3.Not liberal 19th century - it led to revolution,too.

What we need is medieval style monarch which real power ruling over free people and free provinces,which have their own rights.

I feel as if that's going rather far, seeing as most people would revolt at the hint of that.

 

[ATP]

I feel as if that's going rather far, seeing as most people would revolt at the hint of that.

They would revolt,becouse their ruler would not opress them? if you mean antifa thugs,they would flee as quick as king let his subject kill those who disturb peace.And send royal guards after people who fund antifa.

 

[LordsFire]

Okay then, I am beginning this thread on the discussion of Monarchy as a whole. All views are allowed so long as we don't derail. So then, I will begin.

Personally I am a Monarchist, and as one I will defend my view point. Please do make your view obvious, between Monarchist, Monarchist Sympathizer, Neutral, Anti-Monarchist Sympathizer, and Anti-Monarchist.

As I see it there are many good points to Monarchy, such as how it is cheaper to have a monarch than a reoccurring Election, For instance, the Queen barely cost a dime for the British Government, and while yes they still do have elections, it doesn't cost nearly as much as the 6.5 billion USD it cost the United States Government each election.

There is also the fact there is more Stability in the nation. A monarchy goes through less tumultuous periods of changing leaders, as most monarchs live and reign 20-30 years. Not only that, but each one is raised from birth to lead in the modern monarchy. To be upstanding citizens. And while some of which do not do so, (Rama X, for example) most tend to stick to strict morals. Now tell me, who would you prefer, someone taught from birth to lead, or some old guy with Alzheimer's?

Monarchies tend to be more efficient. Instead of two-three days of debate over whether a certain measure can be put in place in a period where time is limited, a monarch can make that call, saving lives well before a elected body can.

While each of my points are good, there are some downsides.

Just because the lines of succession are outlined before they are needed does not guarantee the next ruler will be competent. Some rulers may not even wish to take over their assigned responsibilities. Being born into a specific position is very different than being specifically educated and pursuing a career that can lead an individual into a leadership position. We've seen that recently in the British Monarchy. A prince who didn't want anything to do with monarchy left suddenly after marrying and has since become a bed of controversy.

Although tyranny can form under any structure of government, it is easier to form within the structure of a monarchy. Many governments attempt to balance the powers of a monarchy between multiple groups, but a ruler that is determined to be cruel and unreasonable can dictate that all powers funnel through them. Sometimes referred to as a dictatorship, autocracy, or despotism, great harm can occur when it is present. Mao Zedong, in power for 34 years in China, is responsible for up to 75 million deaths.

While there is more, I will leave that to others to decide on.

This doesn't address three of the largest problems with monarchy:

1. Stratification of society. Monarchy almost always requires a feudal system as a part of it, and you end up with people who are taught at the least implicitly, and often explicitly, that they have a 'station' in society which they cannot rise above. Some people are just born better or worse than others, and that's all there is to it. Only monarchies at their very best can avoid this problem, and that generally doesn't last for long even when it does happen.

2. The only path to gaining political power is either dynastic marriage, or violence. You either marry into royalty, or you overthrow them in a bloody coup. Any nation of size with a monarchy generally also has a noble class between them and the commoners, which means that you also have that being necessary for gaining lower levels of power.

3. Accountability. The problems that we are suffering in this modern age of bloated Democratic Republics, is largely due to a lack of accountability. This is happening because the system is not working as it is supposed to, because the institutions are corrupted on almost every level. In a monarchy? There is almost zero accountability by default. If a noble is treating his subjects horribly, the only check on his power is either the king, or a peasant's rebellion. If you have a large enough nation, that noble might be accountable to a higher-ranked noble, then the king, but that isn't much better.

Even with the level of corruption we have IRL, the immediate accountability of being up for re-election is providing at least some brake on corruption. Joe Manchin knows that if he votes for the Build Back Better budget nonsense, his constituency in West Virginia will throw him out of office, and that's keeping the damn thing from passing. In a monarchy, if the king wants something, then unless people are willing to resist via force, he's going to get it.


Something resembling a Constitutional Monarchy like Great Britain of the first half of the 20th century could be reasonably functional, I think, but it'd have the same lifespan limit on 'good times' and 'good years' that Democratic Republics has, as history has demonstrated.

 

[Aldarion]

1. Stratification of society. Monarchy almost always requires a feudal system as a part of it, and you end up with people who are taught at the least implicitly, and often explicitly, that they have a 'station' in society which they cannot rise above. Some people are just born better or worse than others, and that's all there is to it. Only monarchies at their very best can avoid this problem, and that generally doesn't last for long even when it does happen.

1) Stratification of society is not something you can avoid. Some will always be closer to the centre of power than others. This is true for democracies as well as for monarchies.
2) What you are describing applies specifically to feudal society. But monarchy is not necessarily feudal, and feudal society does not need to be a monarchy. There were feudal republics as well, and majority of monarchies were not feudal.
3) We have many examples of monarchies, even feudal ones, that did not subscribe to the "station in society you cannot rise above". Feudalism was far cry from a caste system, and non-feudal monarchies had even more pronounced social mobility.

2. The only path to gaining political power is either dynastic marriage, or violence. You either marry into royalty, or you overthrow them in a bloody coup. Any nation of size with a monarchy generally also has a noble class between them and the commoners, which means that you also have that being necessary for gaining lower levels of power.

First, this somewhat applies only to hereditary monarchies, and is not exactly true even in that context. Roman Empire had slaves or peasants becoming emprors (Diocletian, Galerius, Basil I), Kingdom of Hungary elected their kings, and even hereditary monarchies could have regents and similar.

Second, monarch being hereditary is not necessarily a bad thing, as I have explained before: because kingdom itself is familial heritage, they are emotionally as well as practically invested in its well-being. Same reason why capitalism works and socialism doesn't.

Third, noble class exists in democracies as well. The only difference is that they are not out in the open. Between the monarchy and the democracy, it is the latter that is built upon a lie. In a feudal monarchy you have a class whose political power is built upon wealth and who produly tout that fact out in the open. In a democracy you have a class whose political power is built upon wealth but who pretend that decision-makers represent the people and that their bad decisions are a consequence of people electing badly instead of politicians having been bought.

3. Accountability. The problems that we are suffering in this modern age of bloated Democratic Republics, is largely due to a lack of accountability. This is happening because the system is not working as it is supposed to, because the institutions are corrupted on almost every level. In a monarchy? There is almost zero accountability by default. If a noble is treating his subjects horribly, the only check on his power is either the king, or a peasant's rebellion. If you have a large enough nation, that noble might be accountable to a higher-ranked noble, then the king, but that isn't much better.

If we are to judge by the results, Hungarian kings and Habsburg emperors were far more accountable to the people than modern "democratically"-"elected" politicians are...

Austria-Hungary Was the Last Good Time for Croatia

Communists and other Leftists like to attack Austria-Hungary, and this is true in Croatia as well. Here, the myth of the Austria-Hungary as a “prison of the nations” still survives. But…

politicalreactionary.wordpress.com

Also, you are assuming that a democratic system can work as it is supposed to.

As far as accountability goes, you are forgetting numerous checks and balances inherent in any, but especially feudal, monarchy - an internal version of the European system of balance of power. If a noble is treating his subjects horribly, there are several problems he faces:

1. Subjects appealing to the king - and the system of balance of power means that king is likely to take their side rather than that of a noble.
2. Subjects appealing to another noble who might profit from it.
3. Subjects simply leaving - a variant of "voting with their feet".
4. And finally, armed resistance.

Even with the level of corruption we have IRL, the immediate accountability of being up for re-election is providing at least some brake on corruption. Joe Manchin knows that if he votes for the Build Back Better budget nonsense, his constituency in West Virginia will throw him out of office, and that's keeping the damn thing from passing. In a monarchy, if the king wants something, then unless people are willing to resist via force, he's going to get it.

No it doesn't. Because if you are corrupt in the right way, you will land yourself a far more profitable job/position after being kicked out of the office. Add to this the fact that politicians have only eight years to steal and cheat enough money to last them a lifetime, and you end up with a class of exceptionally short-sighted professional thieves.

In a monarchy, if king wants something, he will have to get it by a large number of interest groups willing to openly oppose him (nobility / large capital owners / moneyed interests, military, church, smaller political units such as cities, dukedoms etc.). In a democracy, there is only one type of interest groups - moneyed interests - and they are well hidden behind a veneer of voting legitimacy.

 

[Terthna]

Another valuable aspect of monarchy is that succession is normally in the family. This might sound like an odd advantage, but most people try to build up their own situation in order to leave a better life for their children. A democratically elected leader has no inherent incentive to actually try to build the nation up vs. loot it for their (and their children's) personal benefit. A King does.

Theoretically. Unfortunately in practice, it rarely worked out that way; which ultimately resulted in the rise of Communism. Then of course there was the incentive Kings had to loot other nations, which caused the World Wars.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Theoretically. Unfortunately in practice, it rarely worked out that way; which ultimately resulted in the rise of Communism. Then of course there was the incentive Kings had to loot other nations, which caused the World Wars.

You've got a bit of survivor bias going on there, though. All governments fall, like everything else, if you extend the timeline long enough. The fact that monarchies have failed in the past is less important than considering how long they lasted and how well they did during their run.

The Tsars in Russia ruled for nearly four hundred years. The Monarchs of England for over a thousand. Japan's Emperors are still technically ruling after twenty-five hundred years but given they don't really hold much power beyond the ceremonial, we can reasonably say they made it at least two thousand. Cambodia's had a single continuous monarchy since 68 AD. Morocco's had a continuous monarchy for about thirteen hundred years.

Meanwhile, the US is currently the oldest democracy in the world and is showing severe strain at a mere two and a half centuries. Australia's a hundred and twenty and similarly showing some big problems. The top ten longest-lasting democracies include countries less than a century old. The top ten longest-lasting monarchies, not so much.

The guy who died of an overdose at 14 years old and the guy who lived a healthy, happy life and died at 95 surrounded by his 80 great-grandchildren... both died. That doesn't mean their lifestyles were equal.

 

[LordsFire]

You've got a bit of survivor bias going on there, though. All governments fall, like everything else, if you extend the timeline long enough. The fact that monarchies have failed in the past is less important than considering how long they lasted and how well they did during their run.

The Tsars in Russia ruled for nearly four hundred years. The Monarchs of England for over a thousand. Japan's Emperors are still technically ruling after twenty-five hundred years but given they don't really hold much power beyond the ceremonial, we can reasonably say they made it at least two thousand. Cambodia's had a single continuous monarchy since 68 AD. Morocco's had a continuous monarchy for about thirteen hundred years.

Meanwhile, the US is currently the oldest democracy in the world and is showing severe strain at a mere two and a half centuries. Australia's a hundred and twenty and similarly showing some big problems. The top ten longest-lasting democracies include countries less than a century old. The top ten longest-lasting monarchies, not so much.

The guy who died of an overdose at 14 years old and the guy who lived a healthy, happy life and died at 95 surrounded by his 80 great-grandchildren... both died. That doesn't mean their lifestyles were equal.

What is accomplished in that time also matters. The USA in ~250 years has done more to advance human civilization than any other nation except fr perhaps the British Empire, and the Empire rose to its heights when there was a balance between the crown, commons, and lords, IE a hybrid of Republic and Monarchy.

The stability issue is a very real problem, but do not ignore the strengths as well.

 

[Cherico]

What is accomplished in that time also matters. The USA in ~250 years has done more to advance human civilization than any other nation except fr perhaps the British Empire, and the Empire rose to its heights when there was a balance between the crown, commons, and lords, IE a hybrid of Republic and Monarchy.

The stability issue is a very real problem, but do not ignore the strengths as well.

The Roman republic was bad ass

 

[Terthna]

You've got a bit of survivor bias going on there, though. All governments fall, like everything else, if you extend the timeline long enough. The fact that monarchies have failed in the past is less important than considering how long they lasted and how well they did during their run.

The Tsars in Russia ruled for nearly four hundred years. The Monarchs of England for over a thousand. Japan's Emperors are still technically ruling after twenty-five hundred years but given they don't really hold much power beyond the ceremonial, we can reasonably say they made it at least two thousand. Cambodia's had a single continuous monarchy since 68 AD. Morocco's had a continuous monarchy for about thirteen hundred years.

Meanwhile, the US is currently the oldest democracy in the world and is showing severe strain at a mere two and a half centuries. Australia's a hundred and twenty and similarly showing some big problems. The top ten longest-lasting democracies include countries less than a century old. The top ten longest-lasting monarchies, not so much.

The guy who died of an overdose at 14 years old and the guy who lived a healthy, happy life and died at 95 surrounded by his 80 great-grandchildren... both died. That doesn't mean their lifestyles were equal.

You're making a big mistake in assuming that all monarchies were unbroken lines from beginning to end. In reality, Monarchs and their governments failed and were overthrown constantly, just to be replaced by new Monarchs. If you look at the history, the vast majority barely lasted a few centuries at best (and more often, less than a generation), before some sort of violent struggle for power occurred.

 

[S'task]

Japan's Emperors are still technically ruling after twenty-five hundred years but given they don't really hold much power beyond the ceremonial, we can reasonably say they made it at least two thousand.

No, no you really can't.

The "Emperors" of Japan have been pretty much ceremonial since 1158 AD with the rise of the Kamakura Shogunate. Given the Emperors gained uncontested power around 538 AD, that means the "monarchy" of Japan made it only about 620 years before being displaced by military dictatorships... which pretty much continued to be the status quo in Japan until after the American occupation was concluded with only a handful of brief times the Emperors had actual political power... but every time they were usurped by their military leaders until the US conquered them.

 

[Bear Ribs]

What is accomplished in that time also matters. The USA in ~250 years has done more to advance human civilization than any other nation except fr perhaps the British Empire, and the Empire rose to its heights when there was a balance between the crown, commons, and lords, IE a hybrid of Republic and Monarchy.

The stability issue is a very real problem, but do not ignore the strengths as well.

Granted, and I think nobody's going to argue that pure monarchy is superior to constitutional monarchy, or a more balanced hybrid system as you say.

"More advances" is a difficult proposition as well. Firstly because you need to establish that these advances resulted from Democracy itself rather than other conditions, and secondly because it's very easy for people to remember the advances in their own lifetimes and have the past all blur together. Many people who haven't investigated in-depth think there was a "dark ages" where technology declined when in reality, a medieval can point to which part of the middle ages and early modern period a knight came from due to continuous advancements in weapons and armor across the years, with similar advances (such as the moldboard plow) in civilian technology.

One can look at the nearly-forgotten Islamic Golden Age and see the invention of surgery (and most modern medicine), paper mills, and tremendous advances in agriculture, astronomy, the development and codification of the scientific method, and nearly every science advancing at a rapid pace. Was that less than what the US has done? The US certainly wouldn't have come up with what it did without the scientific method!

You're making a big mistake in assuming that all monarchies were unbroken lines from beginning to end. In reality, Monarchs and their governments failed and were overthrown constantly, just to be replaced by new Monarchs. If you look at the history, the vast majority barely lasted a few centuries at best (and more often, less than a generation), before some sort of violent struggle for power occurred.

I don't presume they're unbroken, I presume that if the same government continued on, there's continuity of government. Otherwise, I'd have to presume the US ended in 2021 and it's a new nation due to violence and change of leadership under circumstances some on the boards would debate the legitimacy of.

No, no you really can't.

The "Emperors" of Japan have been pretty much ceremonial since 1158 AD with the rise of the Kamakura Shogunate. Given the Emperors gained uncontested power around 538 AD, that means the "monarchy" of Japan made it only about 620 years before being displaced by military dictatorships... which pretty much continued to be the status quo in Japan until after the American occupation was concluded with only a handful of brief times the Emperors had actual political power... but every time they were usurped by their military leaders until the US conquered them.

Well that's fair. I retract my statement. but the Shoguns were also largely hereditary monarchs as well...

 

[VictortheMonarch]

This doesn't address three of the largest problems with monarchy:

1. Stratification of society. Monarchy almost always requires a feudal system as a part of it, and you end up with people who are taught at the least implicitly, and often explicitly, that they have a 'station' in society which they cannot rise above. Some people are just born better or worse than others, and that's all there is to it. Only monarchies at their very best can avoid this problem, and that generally doesn't last for long even when it does happen.

2. The only path to gaining political power is either dynastic marriage, or violence. You either marry into royalty, or you overthrow them in a bloody coup. Any nation of size with a monarchy generally also has a noble class between them and the commoners, which means that you also have that being necessary for gaining lower levels of power.

3. Accountability. The problems that we are suffering in this modern age of bloated Democratic Republics, is largely due to a lack of accountability. This is happening because the system is not working as it is supposed to, because the institutions are corrupted on almost every level. In a monarchy? There is almost zero accountability by default. If a noble is treating his subjects horribly, the only check on his power is either the king, or a peasant's rebellion. If you have a large enough nation, that noble might be accountable to a higher-ranked noble, then the king, but that isn't much better.

Even with the level of corruption we have IRL, the immediate accountability of being up for re-election is providing at least some brake on corruption. Joe Manchin knows that if he votes for the Build Back Better budget nonsense, his constituency in West Virginia will throw him out of office, and that's keeping the damn thing from passing. In a monarchy, if the king wants something, then unless people are willing to resist via force, he's going to get it.


Something resembling a Constitutional Monarchy like Great Britain of the first half of the 20th century could be reasonably functional, I think, but it'd have the same lifespan limit on 'good times' and 'good years' that Democratic Republics has, as history has demonstrated.

Modern monarchies typically don't have a functioning noble class. The only one I can think of as having a 'Feudal' style would be Saudi Arabia, but even then it's rather limited. Monarchies have moved away from it a very long time ago. Hell, if a former gangster in GB can become a 'noblemen' then anyone can. That's really quite narrowminded to say that all monarchies enforce social class, as most tend to be a Meritocracy.

Political power can be gained in the same ways of a Republic. For instance if things were the same as you say it is, then political parties such as the Tory's would have never existed. While yes, some monarchs are biased against some political factions, typically they don't lean to either side, for instance, the Scandinavian monarchies have practically never sided with one single faction. Instead, they maneuvered around them all to better their nation, and they have stayed as the most beloved people in their nation from the very inception of their kingdoms.

Yes, there are typically some standings, but noble titles are, at least in the modern monarchy, handed out based on merit. For instance, Bobby Cummines, a gangster in london who later on was given a OBE based on his merit. You can earn anything, as long as you put your back into it.

the nobility class do not in any way hold power over the working class, in a modern, civilized monarchy, the nobility only have power if they go into politics, and if they do then they don't have the power to go willy nilly and get someone arrested because they didn't like what they said. The only one who has subjects is the Monarch, and even then he/she has good enough reason not to treat them like shit.

That is why I didn't list any of those things, as they're pretty much solved already. Feudal Monarchist are a very fringe ideology in monarchism, like those Anarcho-primitivist.