Sometimes it does get very larpy on this subreddit. People want to bring back countries from entire millennia ago.
The Teutonic knights aren't returning to Latvia to form an authoritarian Christian state.
The ancient Saxons aren't going to summon the will of Woden to form a tribal Mercian state, naked, in the public woods near Birmingham where people go to smoke hash or walk their poodles.
The upcoming Iranian monarchy won't become the Sassanids and invade Syria and Turkey, only to be conquered entirely by North Macedonia by a ~~greek soldier~~ South Slavic Messiah.
Illyria isn't going to spring up and conquer all of the Balkans and Hungary under legendary horsemen.
Biggest one is Byzantium. Anyone here who supports ottoman restoration is shit on because people jizz themselves to the thought of the eastern Roman Empire popping back into existence somehow
I mean... Rome was around for many, many centuries and a lot of people never thought that many places would get their sovereignty back. Or that many things would come to pass. Now if someone was saying it in 2AD, they were way off and wouldn't live to see it, but it also wouldn't be wrong per se.
Didn't the formation of Belgium draw upon the ancient Belgae tribe?
And it wasn't commonly used as a term for the area again until the 19th century, when it was revived to form a new nation?
I think we often don't realise how recent this world of ours was constructed, and that it would be unrecognisable to someone living a few centuries ago. Also, how much of it is *constructed* specifically. What can be constructed can also be re-formed
I meant the revival of the actual states with their original or near-original. religions, cultures and governments. Belgium is only related to the Belgae through name. It's also been a common practice to name new states after the name of old Roman provinces or their associated names for the tribes e.g. Germania, Britannia. It's also important to note that some of these terms have persisted in church documents.
It's not larpy to do that unless you also want to adopt the original customs, languages and administration of the old state. I also doubt the old-naming practice will continue, considering these days people are more concerned with ethnicity and heritage. And now, reforming old states has connotations of fascism, e.g. Mussolini, for some people, and the advent of the UN and NATO has made the action difficult.
In an ideal world, some of these old powers would return. It's just right now in today's climate the chances are very very low. Of course, history can be stranger than fiction and it's possible some charismatic leader can bring an old nation or identity back, but future cases of this will be exceptionally rare.
Ah that's fair of course. I didn't realise people wanted to bring back the old kingdoms through copy and paste! I agree that goes too far. All wise people have to adapt to the world they live in in some sense.
I suppose I just want to push back on the idea that our current systems were inevitable in the modernist, teleological sense. All humans live in their own snapshot of time, and we can't see the future.
This was true for the revolutionaries of old, too. Those men at the tennis court mostly did not imagine overthrowing the king entirely, and they certainly didn't envision a Europe/world of republics.
I agree that the current climate is not favourable. But if the Enlightenment-era thinkers were able through writing to influence the world in a direction they (kinda) wanted, who's to say we can't do the same?
Yeah nothing lasts forever, there will be a new opportunity eventually. There's a common Sci-Fi trope about a civilisation in the far future discovering a civilisation of the ancient past and basically adopting their principles and culture as their own. It's an extreme example but it makes the point that we've known how things will change eventually. Dune is a good read. We won't live to see most of it, but we can start the first dominoes towards change. But right now Felipe isn't going to rule all of West Europe from Rome.
Keep an eye on Russia and Iran though.
In all honestly I'm pessimistic. I think most of the remaining monarchies will be gone by the end of the century. I think the UK and Japan will probably be the last ones to keep them but even they will probably become republics in upcoming decades. I hate being black pilled about it but that's how I feel.
I voted that monarchists are generally not realistic. This is understandable, as we often view our leaders in terms of an idealistic example that monarchs from the absolute to the constitutional are all supposed to present to their people. We are often ritualistic and dramatic owing to the majestic aspect that monarchy often involves, which makes some of us live in a different time where this was reality, rather than our own. We often, like the most absolutist monarchs of our histories, do not read the room at all and turn a blind eye towards serious problems involving monarchy. I don't think we are naïve, really; we know that much of the modern world does not see history in the broader sense that we often do and that we are considered an anachronism by many. We know what challenges are out there.
I don't think realism and naivete are opposites. I think we here on this sub are a knowledgeable and intelligent group, but we also fall prey to idealism. So we may not be realistic, but that doesn't mean we're naive.
In my opinion
Monachist in this reddit
Are not really for the institution of a monarchy
Its more that they like the history of habsburg windors pahlavi's and german emperors french kings
And so they support the idea
This is what my conclusion after being a long time member of this reddit
I think this too. The institution of monarchy is more of an afterthought, it's a convenient thing to attach a whole bunch of often traditionalist/reactionary/conservative thoughts to.
Yes i agree
While monarchism can go with all ideologies
Because its a form of governance
I believe a monarch whichever family it is the best form of governance because in the ideal scenario it represent the majority its have an interest in being stable and a interest to improve because it stays in the family also it have an incentive to treat the minority well enough
An additional perk is when a dynasty survive long enough it become mystical or surreal and a cultural thing
The monarch being a symbol of the nation's history and as a source of stability is definitely the most appealing aspect of it to me. Monarchs tend to be stable and unifying figures, especially when they don't have power to do or be much else like in constitutional monarchies.
In my personal view
I like it when a monarch have power
Like morocco or jordan
Where the king sets goals for the government to achieve
But he doesn't actually run the government
You see the problem with a monarch who doesn't do anything wil always have scandals even if its nothing
Because thats the only thing they do we can't actually say this is a good monarch because ....
As someone who life in the Netherlands
With a constitutional monarch the king can never please his people there is always talk like he doesn't do anything and get so much money or yeah he can go on holiday but we can't
But the moroccan king
No one give a fuck if he go on holiday or do stupid things why? Because his policies are good we can judge him on his achievements
We can't judge the dutch king
I’m the first to admit I’m very naive and have unrealistic desires for the world. But I firmly believe that it is never worth compromising on one’s ideals if one wholly and truly believes in them from the bottom of their heart, which I do. That’s why I advocate things that to most seem totally unbelievable
Wasn't there a poll a while back that showed that most people on here are below 20 years old? I think a lot of people on the sub will come out of this community with an appreciation for the institution of monarchy even in the modern world, but I doubt they'll stick to being le based tradcath absolutists, which I think are the number 1 source of absolutely (pun intended) naive and unrealistic expectations and ideas of what a monarchy should look like today.
I don't believe naive, but certainly unrealistic, many ideologies and even "fanbases" or should I say tribes, are usually unrealistic.
However that isn't always a problem (just look at commies) even though commies believe in a purely utopian and impossible society they still have great power and managed to make their ideology known everywhere.
To not look stupid we just have to study more and fact check some stuff, but dreaming is not forbidden
Not a problem but could be easily solved
Monarchist as in on this subreddit specifically, very naïve. I would say in general when they're primarily online then they still stay pretty generally naïve but due to the wider array of individuals there's more people I run into that have serious considerations of reality and whether or not I disagree with them I might respect their logic.
One of the most unrealistic things I see from monarchists are the ones who want The British EMpire back. They want the United States to become a colony of the UK again and desire for the United States to swear fealty to the British monarchy. Like come on guys that's never going to happen in a million years. The USA was founded on republican principles and Americans are independent people. Instating a monarchy is very very very unlikely to happen and even if it did it would have to be a home grown monarchy. Americans would never accept a foreign monarch. A domestic monarchy okay there is a very very very slim chance the USA will ever become a monarchy period but at least an American Monarchy has some kind of statistical chance of happening.
Same with other countries. Why does anyone seriously think India would go back under the British crown? That's never going to happen. Then we have people who only think Absolute Catholic Theocratic monarchies are legit monarchies and ignore monarchies that practice other religions.
Most monarchists here are crazed hard core Catholics who hate Henry VIII, others are left wingers who are pro Liberal but claim to be monarchists, others just actually want an absolute monarchy like me
As a Scottish republican i think you all have the critical think skills and backbone of a paralysed toddler.
Do you really think that people born into wealth grew up in wealth and die in wealth have the ability to understand the plight of the people?
My friends and family are struggling hard with finances while the biggest financial struggle “His royal majesty” has to deal with is heating his several palaces.
If you think someone like that is fit to run a country that’s going into recession, you are beyond naive. You are willingly ignorant at best and purposefully vitriolic towards the poor at worst.
Wow, how’d you figure that out? Do you want a medal? Of course I’m an anarchist. How do you look at the state of the world and think “oh yeah we should be *more* power to the rich”
Let’s not talk about this Anarchist to Monarchist. Let’s talk about this Socialist to Capitalist.
Why do you think it’s a good idea to concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy?
I do not consider it a good idea to concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy, I'm not an absolutist; I still believe in democracy.
But I've simply accepted the fact that there will always will be some sort of upper class with wealth who have power, and I'm not bothered by it. I believe in conmon because of various reasons, not because they may or may not be wealthy.
So you just “accept” all the suffering that wealth generation causes? All the thousands of families ruined in the name of profit you just “accept”? People are sent over oceans to fight wars they’ve been lied to about and you just “accept” that?
In my opinion, in a perfect world, monarchy is the best form of government. Also in my opinion, in my country (US), there is no way for there to be a monarchy in my lifetime. There's likely no way for one to occur this century. It would take a cataclysmic event followed by multiple generations of peoples and governments for a proper monarchical society to emerge in what is currently the United States. When Washington set the precedence of the Presidency being a temporarily held office, as well as the constitutional convention explicitly barring nobility, and subsequently the legislature amending the constitution to put term limits on the executive office, paired with the American's quasi-religious regard for the constitution, the founding fathers did a superb job in preventing a monarchy from occurring in the definitional sense. So, whereas many of you around the world who live in what are currently republics, the history of your countries span back millennia, often with longstanding traditions of monarchy, there is a far greater chance the restore them there. The identity of my country would entirely seize to exist for monarchy to be established. Thus, I think that generally American monarchists are probably not very realistic.
I think many people here,like a user said before, have a sort of facsination for the Monarchy for its history like the history of the Holy Roman Empire, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain. Which is good if you are going to take the institutions and mecanism of power. But if the argument is Just "the superficial part" like ornaments, paintings, etc. Well, thats weak.
For example, I viewed many photos of the Italian Royal Family. Yeah, but if we read the history of the Kingdom of Italy, we will see that it was a very convulsive country where magnicides or politic violence was very common.
Sometimes it does get very larpy on this subreddit. People want to bring back countries from entire millennia ago. The Teutonic knights aren't returning to Latvia to form an authoritarian Christian state. The ancient Saxons aren't going to summon the will of Woden to form a tribal Mercian state, naked, in the public woods near Birmingham where people go to smoke hash or walk their poodles. The upcoming Iranian monarchy won't become the Sassanids and invade Syria and Turkey, only to be conquered entirely by North Macedonia by a ~~greek soldier~~ South Slavic Messiah. Illyria isn't going to spring up and conquer all of the Balkans and Hungary under legendary horsemen.
Biggest one is Byzantium. Anyone here who supports ottoman restoration is shit on because people jizz themselves to the thought of the eastern Roman Empire popping back into existence somehow
A man can dream, ok?
Why not the Western one?
Technically Illyria ended 1918. Just saying
Please elaborate.
The Habsburgs held the title Kings of Illyria, and since they also held a large part of Illyria itself you could argue it still extisted in some way.
*Danzig
I mean... Rome was around for many, many centuries and a lot of people never thought that many places would get their sovereignty back. Or that many things would come to pass. Now if someone was saying it in 2AD, they were way off and wouldn't live to see it, but it also wouldn't be wrong per se.
Didn't the formation of Belgium draw upon the ancient Belgae tribe? And it wasn't commonly used as a term for the area again until the 19th century, when it was revived to form a new nation? I think we often don't realise how recent this world of ours was constructed, and that it would be unrecognisable to someone living a few centuries ago. Also, how much of it is *constructed* specifically. What can be constructed can also be re-formed
I meant the revival of the actual states with their original or near-original. religions, cultures and governments. Belgium is only related to the Belgae through name. It's also been a common practice to name new states after the name of old Roman provinces or their associated names for the tribes e.g. Germania, Britannia. It's also important to note that some of these terms have persisted in church documents. It's not larpy to do that unless you also want to adopt the original customs, languages and administration of the old state. I also doubt the old-naming practice will continue, considering these days people are more concerned with ethnicity and heritage. And now, reforming old states has connotations of fascism, e.g. Mussolini, for some people, and the advent of the UN and NATO has made the action difficult. In an ideal world, some of these old powers would return. It's just right now in today's climate the chances are very very low. Of course, history can be stranger than fiction and it's possible some charismatic leader can bring an old nation or identity back, but future cases of this will be exceptionally rare.
Ah that's fair of course. I didn't realise people wanted to bring back the old kingdoms through copy and paste! I agree that goes too far. All wise people have to adapt to the world they live in in some sense. I suppose I just want to push back on the idea that our current systems were inevitable in the modernist, teleological sense. All humans live in their own snapshot of time, and we can't see the future. This was true for the revolutionaries of old, too. Those men at the tennis court mostly did not imagine overthrowing the king entirely, and they certainly didn't envision a Europe/world of republics. I agree that the current climate is not favourable. But if the Enlightenment-era thinkers were able through writing to influence the world in a direction they (kinda) wanted, who's to say we can't do the same?
Yeah nothing lasts forever, there will be a new opportunity eventually. There's a common Sci-Fi trope about a civilisation in the far future discovering a civilisation of the ancient past and basically adopting their principles and culture as their own. It's an extreme example but it makes the point that we've known how things will change eventually. Dune is a good read. We won't live to see most of it, but we can start the first dominoes towards change. But right now Felipe isn't going to rule all of West Europe from Rome. Keep an eye on Russia and Iran though.
I have to laugh at most of y’all saying monarchists are realistic cause the arguments I’ve seen in this sub are crazy 💀
But you don't get it this random country will bring back the Roman Empire!!! 
It definetly varies a lot. I've seen some very naive/unrealistic takes, and some pretty pessimistic takes on this subreddit
In all honestly I'm pessimistic. I think most of the remaining monarchies will be gone by the end of the century. I think the UK and Japan will probably be the last ones to keep them but even they will probably become republics in upcoming decades. I hate being black pilled about it but that's how I feel.
Scandinavia has very high support for the monarchies, I'd say they will last longer than the UK.
I voted that monarchists are generally not realistic. This is understandable, as we often view our leaders in terms of an idealistic example that monarchs from the absolute to the constitutional are all supposed to present to their people. We are often ritualistic and dramatic owing to the majestic aspect that monarchy often involves, which makes some of us live in a different time where this was reality, rather than our own. We often, like the most absolutist monarchs of our histories, do not read the room at all and turn a blind eye towards serious problems involving monarchy. I don't think we are naïve, really; we know that much of the modern world does not see history in the broader sense that we often do and that we are considered an anachronism by many. We know what challenges are out there.
I don't think realism and naivete are opposites. I think we here on this sub are a knowledgeable and intelligent group, but we also fall prey to idealism. So we may not be realistic, but that doesn't mean we're naive.
In my opinion Monachist in this reddit Are not really for the institution of a monarchy Its more that they like the history of habsburg windors pahlavi's and german emperors french kings And so they support the idea This is what my conclusion after being a long time member of this reddit
I think this too. The institution of monarchy is more of an afterthought, it's a convenient thing to attach a whole bunch of often traditionalist/reactionary/conservative thoughts to.
Yes i agree While monarchism can go with all ideologies Because its a form of governance I believe a monarch whichever family it is the best form of governance because in the ideal scenario it represent the majority its have an interest in being stable and a interest to improve because it stays in the family also it have an incentive to treat the minority well enough An additional perk is when a dynasty survive long enough it become mystical or surreal and a cultural thing
The monarch being a symbol of the nation's history and as a source of stability is definitely the most appealing aspect of it to me. Monarchs tend to be stable and unifying figures, especially when they don't have power to do or be much else like in constitutional monarchies.
In my personal view I like it when a monarch have power Like morocco or jordan Where the king sets goals for the government to achieve But he doesn't actually run the government You see the problem with a monarch who doesn't do anything wil always have scandals even if its nothing Because thats the only thing they do we can't actually say this is a good monarch because .... As someone who life in the Netherlands With a constitutional monarch the king can never please his people there is always talk like he doesn't do anything and get so much money or yeah he can go on holiday but we can't But the moroccan king No one give a fuck if he go on holiday or do stupid things why? Because his policies are good we can judge him on his achievements We can't judge the dutch king
I’m the first to admit I’m very naive and have unrealistic desires for the world. But I firmly believe that it is never worth compromising on one’s ideals if one wholly and truly believes in them from the bottom of their heart, which I do. That’s why I advocate things that to most seem totally unbelievable
Depends on the monarchist. The homophobic sexist theocrats (not naming names) are hyper naive and frankly delusional.
Wasn't there a poll a while back that showed that most people on here are below 20 years old? I think a lot of people on the sub will come out of this community with an appreciation for the institution of monarchy even in the modern world, but I doubt they'll stick to being le based tradcath absolutists, which I think are the number 1 source of absolutely (pun intended) naive and unrealistic expectations and ideas of what a monarchy should look like today.
A link to that poll?
I don't believe naive, but certainly unrealistic, many ideologies and even "fanbases" or should I say tribes, are usually unrealistic. However that isn't always a problem (just look at commies) even though commies believe in a purely utopian and impossible society they still have great power and managed to make their ideology known everywhere. To not look stupid we just have to study more and fact check some stuff, but dreaming is not forbidden Not a problem but could be easily solved
I'm here for the tiaras.
Monarchist as in on this subreddit specifically, very naïve. I would say in general when they're primarily online then they still stay pretty generally naïve but due to the wider array of individuals there's more people I run into that have serious considerations of reality and whether or not I disagree with them I might respect their logic.
One of the most unrealistic things I see from monarchists are the ones who want The British EMpire back. They want the United States to become a colony of the UK again and desire for the United States to swear fealty to the British monarchy. Like come on guys that's never going to happen in a million years. The USA was founded on republican principles and Americans are independent people. Instating a monarchy is very very very unlikely to happen and even if it did it would have to be a home grown monarchy. Americans would never accept a foreign monarch. A domestic monarchy okay there is a very very very slim chance the USA will ever become a monarchy period but at least an American Monarchy has some kind of statistical chance of happening. Same with other countries. Why does anyone seriously think India would go back under the British crown? That's never going to happen. Then we have people who only think Absolute Catholic Theocratic monarchies are legit monarchies and ignore monarchies that practice other religions.
Most monarchists here are crazed hard core Catholics who hate Henry VIII, others are left wingers who are pro Liberal but claim to be monarchists, others just actually want an absolute monarchy like me
I also want an absolute monarchy
Based
I’m not a Catholic :(
There are moments on this sub when things can get very weird
I’ve heard the Princess Royal answer a similar question as to whether she and her parents were optimists or realists
As a Scottish republican i think you all have the critical think skills and backbone of a paralysed toddler. Do you really think that people born into wealth grew up in wealth and die in wealth have the ability to understand the plight of the people? My friends and family are struggling hard with finances while the biggest financial struggle “His royal majesty” has to deal with is heating his several palaces. If you think someone like that is fit to run a country that’s going into recession, you are beyond naive. You are willingly ignorant at best and purposefully vitriolic towards the poor at worst.
Isn't this the case for any government?
Yes🏴
Ah you're an anarchist then
Wow, how’d you figure that out? Do you want a medal? Of course I’m an anarchist. How do you look at the state of the world and think “oh yeah we should be *more* power to the rich”
Well I've learned not to enter arguments with extremists such as yourself; good day and good luck with your political endeavours
Let’s not talk about this Anarchist to Monarchist. Let’s talk about this Socialist to Capitalist. Why do you think it’s a good idea to concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy?
I do not consider it a good idea to concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy, I'm not an absolutist; I still believe in democracy. But I've simply accepted the fact that there will always will be some sort of upper class with wealth who have power, and I'm not bothered by it. I believe in conmon because of various reasons, not because they may or may not be wealthy.
So you just “accept” all the suffering that wealth generation causes? All the thousands of families ruined in the name of profit you just “accept”? People are sent over oceans to fight wars they’ve been lied to about and you just “accept” that?
Not everyone can live in some unicorn rainbow utopia where everyone can do whatever they want and be free and healthy forever. TLDR; Yep.
We learn something new every day.
In my opinion, in a perfect world, monarchy is the best form of government. Also in my opinion, in my country (US), there is no way for there to be a monarchy in my lifetime. There's likely no way for one to occur this century. It would take a cataclysmic event followed by multiple generations of peoples and governments for a proper monarchical society to emerge in what is currently the United States. When Washington set the precedence of the Presidency being a temporarily held office, as well as the constitutional convention explicitly barring nobility, and subsequently the legislature amending the constitution to put term limits on the executive office, paired with the American's quasi-religious regard for the constitution, the founding fathers did a superb job in preventing a monarchy from occurring in the definitional sense. So, whereas many of you around the world who live in what are currently republics, the history of your countries span back millennia, often with longstanding traditions of monarchy, there is a far greater chance the restore them there. The identity of my country would entirely seize to exist for monarchy to be established. Thus, I think that generally American monarchists are probably not very realistic.
I think many people here,like a user said before, have a sort of facsination for the Monarchy for its history like the history of the Holy Roman Empire, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain. Which is good if you are going to take the institutions and mecanism of power. But if the argument is Just "the superficial part" like ornaments, paintings, etc. Well, thats weak. For example, I viewed many photos of the Italian Royal Family. Yeah, but if we read the history of the Kingdom of Italy, we will see that it was a very convulsive country where magnicides or politic violence was very common.
Monarchists are generally naive and not realistic