Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
CuriousAboutMonarchy

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #1 
As a noob I don't fully understand some parts of Monarchy. Some of these may be FAQs, if they are I apologize. I have looked through a few threads now and gotten an idea of what people here believe, so now I'd like to get some clarification.

What constitutes "legitimacy" for a Monarch? I noticed there are rules about questioning the legitimiacy of the 10 ruling Monarchs of Europe. What makes them legitimate, is it by simple reason of their titles? What if they fail in their duties?

If Royalty is all about blood lines, what makes it any different from Racialism? It seems like many here wish to distance themselves from such thinking, but ultimately Monarchy particularly Hereditary Monarchy seems to value Royal blood and character above others.

I've seen people discussing Fuedalism and the concept of owning people/serfs as superior to what we have now. The current way is definitely no good, but it seems to be taking a giant leap of faith to say putting people back into serfdom is better. Aside from Fuedalism, what kind of economy would a modern Monarchy build?

Based on my basic knowledge of Monarchy it seems like there was a lack of social mobility in Monarchist systems. A peasant was born a peasant, and his kids were, and their kids etc. It seems like such a system locks out good minds from climbing up to say the level of a noble. Was this generally the case? And if so, why?







EDIT:

Another question: Is the "Divine Right of Kings" still generally accepted among Monarchists today? Was it always the general consensus about Monarchs, or did it begin at a certain time in history?
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousAboutMonarchy
As a noob I don't fully understand some parts of Monarchy. Some of these may be FAQs, if they are I apologize. I have looked through a few threads now and gotten an idea of what people here believe, so now I'd like to get some clarification.

What constitutes "legitimacy" for a Monarch? I noticed there are rules about questioning the legitimiacy of the 10 ruling Monarchs of Europe. What makes them legitimate, is it by simple reason of their titles? What if they fail in their duties?

If Royalty is all about blood lines, what makes it any different from Racialism? It seems like many here wish to distance themselves from such thinking, but ultimately Monarchy particularly Hereditary Monarchy seems to value Royal blood and character above others.

I've seen people discussing Fuedalism and the concept of owning people/serfs as superior to what we have now. The current way is definitely no good, but it seems to be taking a giant leap of faith to say putting people back into serfdom is better. Aside from Fuedalism, what kind of economy would a modern Monarchy build?

Based on my basic knowledge of Monarchy it seems like there was a lack of social mobility in Monarchist systems. A peasant was born a peasant, and his kids were, and their kids etc. It seems like such a system locks out good minds from climbing up to say the level of a noble. Was this generally the case? And if so, why?







EDIT:

Another question: Is the "Divine Right of Kings" still generally accepted among Monarchists today? Was it always the general consensus about Monarchs, or did it begin at a certain time in history?

I support a figurehead monarchy. The king shall reign, but he shall not rule. A monarchy is a living link to the past. The king embodies the history and the traditions of his nation. That's why the king ought to be descended from an ancient royal dynasty. The king can be a non-partisan head of state, because he isn't elected. All current European monarchs are figureheads, except the sovereign princes of Liechtenstein and Monaco.
Despite being descended from German nobility, I'm strongly opposed to feudalism. I'm a democrat. I support democratically elected legislative assemblies. All legislative assemblies of current European monarchies except the British House of Lords are democratically elected.
I support tuition-free university education, because academically talented young people from poor families ought to be able to obtain a university education.
I'm a socialist. I support state control of the economy, but I don't support abolition of private enterprise. Public utilities, oil, natural gas, mining and banks ought to be nationalized.
The rules of the forum ban questioning the legitimacy of the current European monarchs, because opposing the current European monarchies aids republicanism.
Some monarchists are strict legitimists. Many monarchists are opposed to Napoleon, because they are loyal to the Bourbons, the royal dynasty of France, which was overthrown by the French Revolution. Many monarchists refuse to accept anybody but Maria Vladimirovna, a claimant to the Russian throne, becoming Tsar of Russia, if the Russian monarchy is restored, because Maria Vladimirovna has the strongest claim to the Russian throne according to the Pauline Laws, the pre-revolutionary law of succession to the Russian throne.
I don't support strict legitimism. I support restoration of the Russian monarchy, but I'm willing to accept any descendant of Rurik, the founder of the first Russian state, being elected Tsar of Russia. I admire Napoleon. Napoleon is the greatest French hero ever.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 529
Reply with quote  #3 
The prohibition about discussing the legitimacy of current reigning monarchs is a practical one. It keeps every thread from erupting into a fight between, say, Jacobites and supporters of the house of Windsor. The practical reality is that the current noble houses are reigning, and pushing to depose them with someone else based on a legitimacy argument will more likely lead to just getting rid of the royals altogether.

The other thing is that for practical reality one has to accept that if you look far back enough, someone illigitimately usurped power from someone else, therefore no one is truly legitimate. The two outlying cases are possibly Japan and Ethiopia, who's royal lines date back before recorded history. Ultimately, one has to accept that after some generations of peaceful transition, a line becomes legitimate.

Divine rite of Kings is still theologically valid on some traditions. I believe Anglicanism is one; someone else can confirm or correct me. My own, Roman Catholicism, does not support that theology; ours states that all legitimate authority ultimately comes from God.

Any economic order can exist within monarchy. You could have an economically libertarian monarchy, a corporatist monarchy, etc. I am partial to distributism, myself, but not the strains of thought that would go so far to destroy great estates.

Monarchical systems do limit social mobility. The different specific systems differ in degree. I see this as a good thing. Ambition to gain power can lead man to strife. Likewise, having authority and it's obligations thrust on an otherwise timid man who would not seek to rule can be good for his soul.

Even if I was an unbeliever, I would still accept heredity as being able to pick better leaders than democratic election from a game theoretical model. Democracy will only allow those who desire power and are willing to work hard, and ultimately do some pretty dishonest things to gain it. It all but guarantees a virtuous man can never rule. Heredity, though, can by pure random chance, even if only occasionally, put a just man on the throne.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 529
Reply with quote  #4 
Also, there are non hereditary systems of succession. For instance, the Roman Catholic papacy, and the Holy Roman Empire - both systems whereby the monarch is elected by elite and titled men.

Different traditions have their own laws of succession which define what makes a monarch legitimate. Even if with some the laws may not be written down but are understood through tradition. And this, too, is good. The system becomes part of a people and it's culture. And what works well in one culture may not work in another.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.