Monarchists of The Sietch, What kind of Monarchist Are You? What are your reasons for supporting a Monarchy?

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The purpose of this thread is to start a discussion about the idea of monarchism and its various strains.

I consider myself a Catholic Monarchist. I favor mostly free-market economics while not minding some form of Bismarckian "state-socialism" for the poor and elderly. I generally favor the Catholic concept of Distributionism. I generally favor Absolutism, but I can accept Constitutional ones, Semi-Constitutional ones, and Semi-Absolute ones. Just because I favor Absolutism doesn't mean I'm not opposed to compromise and other forms of monarchy, nor am I opposed to there being a Bill of Rights. Though I really dislike Crowned Republics since the monarchy is reduced to a glorified figurehead/rubber stamp for legitimacy giving you in practice, non of the benefits of monarchy and all the disadvantages of Republicanism (ie the Queen can't do anything while Parliament bickers). Plus not every decision should be made according to the popular will, the problem now is that if the monarch deems it necessary to act as a check on popular sovereignty as per his Constitutional Power and Royal Prerogative, the Assembly would just write out his powers like they did to the Grand Duke of Luxembourg. While I'm a Catholic Monarchist, I don't advocate for theocracies, nor the persecution, or marginalization of other religious groups. I actually thing they should be respected by the monarchy with the role of the Monarch as an actual leader who governs as the First Servant of the State of the People while leaving the general people free to pursue whatever lifestyle they wish (so long as it doesn't go passed the bounds of established traditions and into what would be considered moral degeneracy). I guess this makes me leaning somewhere between Bonapartism and Frederick II style Prussian Enlightened Absolutism.

What do you guys think? If you are Republicans I'd like to hear your views as well.

 

[Cherico]

I generally dislike monarchies.

I think the critical flaw with monarchy is that while yes the original founder is quite likely a skilled person that doesn't mean his children wont be complete idiots, and its a lot easier to toss a bad leader out with an election then it is to wait for him to die. That said I'm not out to destroy what monarchies currently exist because some thing much worse could easily take their place and have in the past.

I prefer republics consiutional ones with strong rule of law, written in rights, and checks and balances to keep anyone from going mad with power.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

My question for monarchists is who is going to be the monarch and family? The current existing monarchs who wine and dine with the likes of Soros or Hollywood scumbags like Epstein?

Another issue with Monarchy aside from the one mentioned by @Cherico above is personal relationship problems become matters of state.

 

[Deleted member]

Monarchy is something I support because it is a reflection of the divine order in the Cosmos, painted onto the Material world; a shadow of God's infinite potential. In reflecting the divine order, Monarchy naturally sees each class and group of people ordered by custom and tradition into the roles that they are meant for, and working holistically as part of a single society. In short, a monarchist society is naturally holistic and integralist, and therefore promotes a healthy alliance of the orders of society, instead of modern ideological class warfare. Having a combination of elected positions to represent the interests of the different classes, hereditary elites, and a professional class as well as a born and bred aristocracy collectively makes the best constitution.

However, in viewing the development of Republics over time, it's also clear that many areas of the world have established long Republican traditions. I do not oppose these traditions nor think that they are inappropriate for the places they were founded. For example, in the United States, electoral government dates to the 1000s and the formation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, which directly influenced the United States Constitution. The Aztecs, too, in fact elected their Tlatoani or "Speaker", as we now know. The Americas are, as some said in the 19th century, the home of Republics. I have nothing against Republican traditions, strongly founded in Virtue, which exist ab antiquo as part of the cultural expression of a particular area and climate; however, for most of the world, Monarchy is the de facto healthy form of government. One should also be aware that while a Republic may be more glorious in the short-term, it is hard to maintain a Republic of Virtue, and its dissipation and decline is inevitable and natural, because the maintenance of a Republic is hard and requires considerable effort in the cultivation of morality from its citizens.

Because of that belief, I can assure you that despite being philosophically a monarchist, there are very few people--and basically all of them are in the military or veterans--who are more committed to loyalty to the constitution of the United States than I am. However, in Afro-Eurasia, I think our policy of the past 100 years of breaking down monarchies and building up imitation Republics in lands not fertile to them has been a bankrupt fantasy which brought the world many ills and hardships.

And while dissolute second sons may hob-nob with the like of the modern elites in the context of the Atlantic alliance, in countries like Brasil, a different wind is blowing.