Registered: 1511587299 Posts: 27
Reply with quote #1
I don't mean to sound silly here if any of it does sound so. But history shows many examples in which during the Monarchist period people who were introverted, non-competitive/aggressive in nature or emotionally sensitive were not seen as very unusual + treated better by society, from time to time they were even depicted in artwork or tales/stories? Famous artists/writers/composers/craftsmen arose from that demographic during that time.
It was said those people themselves were also hired to do artwork as well as designing projects from time to time by royalty or nobles. They could also support themselves via farm work or do occupations such as crafting/herbs/pottery for a living. History also shows that those kinds of people were happier and more prosperous under Monarchy than under the 'democratic era' where they were either thrown into factories in mass, or could not be employed at all? In the modern era or industrial whoever could/can step over others and were the most aggressive have/had the best chance of rising to the top. Whereas in Monarchy even if things were not 'equal', everything was set in stone and people generally weren't allowed to resort to that behavior. There were examples where the King put down those who tried, and protected 'the weak' from being trampled over in which case you have 'Ivan the terrible' that was known for stepping in to do so which earned him love/praise from subjects. Ivan using his right as King crushed the 'hyper-aggressive' natured people at the tip who were hurting society and put them straight back in line. If you think this is true what could be the reason?
Registered: 1148498020 Posts: 6,806
Reply with quote #2
I'm not sure, but one thing I would say is that I suspect one reason I'm drawn to monarchism so powerfully is that I tend to be the sort of person whose views, tastes, and preferences are not with the majority. So the idea of the majority getting their way has never been very appealing to me, since I'm unlikely to be part of it. I'd rather have a head of state no one chose than a head of state who others chose but I did not.