VictortheMonarch
Victor the Crusader
Which kings are you talking about? WWI was caused over an assassination and WWII was caused by a mentally unstable man.
A thread for the Civilized Discussion and Debate on Monarchy
- Thread starter VictortheMonarch
- Start date
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
Look, Monarchy is neat in theory, but there's a reason that when Fantasy settings want a "Good Monarchy" they either go with "This particular King/Queen is good" or "LITERAL DIVINE INTERVENTION" to make sure the Monarch is good.
Got any telepathic white horses from God to make sure the Monarch's a good person?
Got any telepathic white horses from God to make sure the Monarch's a good person?
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Seems to somewhat function in practice as well.
Sort of, but they also tended to not long lived compared to the Monarchies you're saying are long lived. The first Shogunate of Japan, the Muromachi period, officially lasted from 1336 to 1573; however, the Sengoku Jidai, the Warring States Period when the local warlords were constantly fighting each other for power and the Shogun was effectively neutered began in 1467. So that gives it barely 131 years of actual effective rule. Heck, the Warring States Period of Japan lasted longer, effectively ending in 1615. The subsequent Tokugawa Shogunate lasted from 1615 until 1868... so around 250 years, the same length of time of the present US' Republic. After that the Emperors ostensibly reclaimed power with the Meiji reformation, but the military leaders ended up with much of the power by the 1920s, but you technically have Imperial rule from about 1870 to 1945, about 75 years, before their idiot military managed to get Japan conquered by the US, and since then they've been effectively a Constitutional Democracy with a figurehead Emperor so 76 years.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Fixed that for you.
Monarch is not a monarchy. By that measure, democratic governments are overthrown once every four years. And many monarchies avoided civil wars by having elections.
Kingdom of Croatia for example lasted from 925. to 1918., or some 993 years. During this time, we changed dynasties like shirts: Trpimirović (845. - 1091.), Arpad (1091. - 1095., 1102. - 1307.), Anjou (1301. - 1395.), Luxembourg / Habsburg / Jagellon / Hunyadi rotation fest (1387. - 1526.), and finally Habsburgs (1527. - 1918.). And with maybe two or three exceptions, most of these did not end up in civil wars or armed overthrows.
World wars were caused by governments, not by monarchs. Some of the loudest calls for war were from France, which was a democracy, and wanted revenge for the defeat in Franco-Prussian war. Monarchs themselves in fact opposed the wars - yes, even Franz Joseph - but between the pressure from the governments and pressure from the populace, they had little choice.
No need. Rather than looking at fantasy, look at history: there were plenty of good monarchs without divine intervention. And in fantasy, divine intervention is not there to ensure that there is a good monarch, but rather to bless / confirm an already good monarch - this is a literaly tradition that is based in Christianity. Look at Lord of the Rings - Aragorn was a good monarch, and he did get divine blessing, but he wasn't installed by divine blessing; blessing happened after the fact.
One reason for this is also why monarchs were generally better than people today assume, and why they are arguably better than democratic governments: monarchs were blessed by God. Historians today focus on the rights stemming from this, such as suppression of rebellion: but in reality, there were also duties. Monarch that was annointed by God also had duties laid down upon him by God - and if he did not fulfill them, there was a basis for rebellion against the monarch in question.
Keep in mind that this is a medieval concept, and very different from the "divine right of kings" which appeared in modernity. Nevermind that today we have the "divine right of human rights", "divine right of Karl Marx", "divine right of COVID" and so on justifying literally anything our political class might come up with.
Last edited:
VictortheMonarch
Victor the Crusader
It also works in practice too. Look at the Arab nations for example, notice anything? Besides Egypt, the only stable nations are Monarchies! I'm talking Morrocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman... Monarchies are stable. Perhaps stop getting your information on monarchies from Isekai animes, and look at history...
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
Ah yes, the ones with actual history of being a single nation not defined by Europeans deciding which chunks they wanted for themselves...
And well... I wouldn't actually want to LIVE in any of those places tbh.
Stability is fine and all... but like... only my little brother being able to drive would be kind of a problem... And like, sure, England's Monarchy was stable for a good long time... but like, I wouldn't wanna live under Henry VIII personally, I dunno, maybe it's just a me thing, but stability isn't how I define "good", certainly not as my primary metric.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
No, once you get into "If a new dynasty began to rule it was the end of that monarchy," as @Aldarion pointed out, at that point you have to assume the US has rarely made it past 8 years. Indeed, one could make the argument that a change in dynasty, with largely the same politics and the primary change being "monarch has a different last name for the next few generations" is significantly less of a change in government than the US swapping from Republican to Democrat. And we don't say the US ended during the civil war (or that dreadful attempt at overthrowing the government on 1/6), hence having a period of internal war for power cannot fairly be taken as a sign the monarchy has passed away unless an entirely new government type is created in the process.
Quality of Life for the peasanty under monarchies also tends to be higher quality than many modern democracies. Monarchs have a strong interest in making sure their people are healthy and happy, because, again, genetic interest in a quality lasting kingdom, while democratic leaders have a strong interest in making sure their campaign donors are happy instead.
Your English Medieval Peasant, f'rex, worked about eight hours a day... and only worked 150 days a year, had a ton of feast days, and had sex five times a day by some accounts. Adjusted for the lack of technology, since one can hardly fault the middle ages for lacking internet or COVID vaccines, life was pretty danged good, while somehow each new advance in automation, robotics, and other "labor-saving" devices has forced people in modern times to work even more hours.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
Ah yes, and that was totes worth needing to do the same thing as your dad...
Look, for all that some people think peasents had it pretty good, I like the fact that my family has been able and allowed to move past what we started as.
Like, here's a question, does a farmer work more or less than a medieval peasent farmer?
Somehow, I have the odd suspicion that the answer is "less".
Comparing "Seasonal Farm Work" to "Continuous Office Work" is comparing apples to oranges.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
The modern farmer works more, and modern office workers certainly don't get around 90 rest days, 52 church days, and 38 holidays a year, along with an afternoon nap, mandatory frequent refreshment breaks, and several meals during the workday. And yes, the two aren't entirely comparable, for one thing, the serf can't be fired and kicked off his plot of land because the landlord is having a bad day, unlike the modern office worker living paycheck to paycheck. They had many more rights and stability, along with greater social mobility than modern workers do.
As for moving past what your family started as...
Huh, the country with the lowest elasticity, and hence highest social mobility, is a monarchy. The number two position is also held by a monarchy. Even in the medieval period things were not remotely as stratified as you may have been led to believe by Dungeons and Dragons history, there was quite significant amounts of upward and downward mobility, by all accounts as much or more than the modern extremely stratified society. Americans tend to dramatically overestimate how much social mobility they really have.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
Ah yes, Denmark and Norway, so famous for still having royalty that does anything...
Oh wait, they both have Royalty the same way the Brit's do, so, technically yes... but the last time the British Queen tried to actually DO anything it got blocked by the courts, or did you miss the bit where Boris Johnson was stuck with a government that couldn't get anything done because Parliament didn't want to have another election and when he tried to get the Queen to break the deadlock the Courts said she couldn't despite that being basically the only actual power the Queen theoretically still has.
As for the US, I pretty consistently find myself wondering, is that the whole country or is the whole being dragged down by specific parts, the way the US crime rate is miniscule outside of certain locations, but those locations are so violent they drag the rest of the country down. Pretty much any time stuff like that gets brought up and I do more research I find that, yup, most of the country is doing great but there's some segment of the population that is massively behind the rest.
There's nothing magic about a Monarchy.
Oh wait, they both have Royalty the same way the Brit's do, so, technically yes... but the last time the British Queen tried to actually DO anything it got blocked by the courts, or did you miss the bit where Boris Johnson was stuck with a government that couldn't get anything done because Parliament didn't want to have another election and when he tried to get the Queen to break the deadlock the Courts said she couldn't despite that being basically the only actual power the Queen theoretically still has.
As for the US, I pretty consistently find myself wondering, is that the whole country or is the whole being dragged down by specific parts, the way the US crime rate is miniscule outside of certain locations, but those locations are so violent they drag the rest of the country down. Pretty much any time stuff like that gets brought up and I do more research I find that, yup, most of the country is doing great but there's some segment of the population that is massively behind the rest.
There's nothing magic about a Monarchy.
guess which party runs those places holding the rest of the country back.....
That's just laughable.
He can't? Since when? Oh wait...that's right. They just got dead when the nobility wanted them gone.
adjust for higher technology levels.
Most of the gains we have are because of new tech.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Did... did you seriously just try to make claims about Denmark based on things done in the UK? The UK is the one with the worst social mobility on the list, for a reason. You're doing this weird thing where you presume the monarch must some kind of absolute autocrat (which is a wholly different type of government) rather than a system where there's (depending on the type) a parliament, constitution, various houses of lords/commons, and various other governmental groups and multiple checks on the Monarch's power. Nobody is calling for unfettered power, the fact that the monarch is relatively limited in power by a great many factors is a feature, not proof that a government is not a monarchy.
And there you go again, arguing by simile, since some other data on an entirely different subject once was bad, you don't accept this data either. So convenient and easy that you take the simple option and don't provide so much as a bit of research yourself, too. Fortunately one of us actually bases their ideas on fact, so have at it:
By minuscule area, we can see you really mean "around 3/4ths of the entire nation."
No, they didn't. Such events were staggeringly rare. Again, quit getting your ideas on how the middle ages worked from Netflix originals. There's a reason most of the people who are advocating monarchy here are history buffs who know how it really worked, and a large percentage of the arguments against are pop-culture drivel like this.
So what constrains the power of the Monarchy?
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
I think you forgot something. 
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Most typically a constitution and/or a parliament/congress/whatever elected body. Sometimes it's balanced against nobility or a powerful religious institution. Often it's a mix and match between those. There's a fair range of options.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
I'm amused by your lack of counter example.
When's the last time a Danish or Norwegian Monarch did something relevant.