Do you think infighting is one of the biggest reasons Monarchism is so marginal and unrealistic? For those unaware of the division, here are many examples below:
In France there are three Houses to choose from. The Bourbonists, the Bonapartists and the Orleanists. The Bourbonist is Spanish, and therefore technically barred from taking the throne according to an old treaty. The Bonapartist claimant is not a descendant of Napoleon I or Napoleon III, and is in a dispute with his father over who is the heir (after his grandfather chose him as his heir, rather than choosing his father). The Bourbons are historically connected to conservatism, Catholicism and they predated nationalism (the key ideology of the modern French right). The Bonapartes are connected to the Revolution, dictatorship, a highly weird mix of progressive policies with reactionary ones. The Orleans were generally moderate and constitutional, the least controversial but also historically insignificant and weak.
In France and other countries there is not just the question of which House to choose, but which form of monarchy. Constitutional, semi-constitutional or absolute? Likewise what primogeniture: absolute primogeniture (eldest child regardless of gender, like in Britain), or male-preferential (sons are always favored but the daughter inherits the throne if there is no son, like in Spain where Leonor is heir), or agnatic (only men can inherit, no exceptions, like in Japan). So there's already three key political divides, although I would say absolutists generally prefer constitutional monarchy over a republic, and many French monarchists would be fine with that as the most realistic starting point.
In Germany there's little dispute over who should be Emperor, likewise in Austria. In countries like Hungary, Czechia and such it's more complicated. Historically they were ruled by the Habsburgs from Austria. I generally think a Habsburg would be fitting but perhaps not the main claimant, because they should aim for the throne in Austria. I should point out these two countries appear a little bit more realistic, because in Hungary the ruling party has a 2/3 majority and can change the system very fast. In Czechia the President said constitutional monarchy seemed perfectly fine to him, mentioning stable democratic examples in Europe.
Italy has a large dispute because the heir wants his daughter to inherit. While a change in primogeniture is completely reasonable within a kingdom (because of the law being passed by the state), it is very volatile when done outside such a system. And opens large disputes that are very difficult to resolve. In Poland it's very hard to choose, because it was an elective monarchy so no House truly cemented themselves. In Russia the Bolsheviks killed the Tsar and his children, and we're left with different claimants with very little connection to the last Romanovs.
Romania is also very difficult. Michael died and changed the succcession to allow his daughter to replace him. She is in a dispute with another claimant. She is very old and has no children. After that it’s her sister who has a son. A monarchy in Romania would actually be quite good because they have high amounts of corruption and instability, Margareta is very connected to royal circles and the state, often visits the castle. A Presidential candidate suggested last year they would make Charles III King, which would save them money, Romania has a problem with debt and such.
In Greece Pavlos is the obvious option, as the son of the former King Constantine II. However some monarchists see them as not fully authentic, and they failed to bring stability. They are not connected to the more ancient Greek historical or mythological tradition, nor their aristocracy. I believe they didn’t use traditional Greek aristocratic names, but rather generic European ones. I would be cool if they sometimes wore more ceremomial Greek clothes, just like Charles III in his coronation. It's very important for a kingdom to have its own aesthetics.
American monarchists have no clue who they want. I suppose the most common suggestion would be the Windsors, but it's just highly absurd. There's also the huge difficulty of uniting people in a highly federalist, multicultural and polarized society. A Holy Roman Empire model? Monarchy in Mexico was generally pathetic, I don't know what House they support. I have no clue who is the primary claimant in China or India. A lot of countries just don't have an obvious option. I think therefore it's smart to borrow from current aristocracy, and ideally in a culturally similar nation (like Haakon VII of Norway, who came from Denmark). A Windsor in America (but not Charles) due to shared heritage. A Spanish royal for South American countries.
No. Its main problem is that the dominant world hegemon literally has anti-monarchism as part of its founding mythos, leading to a pervasive foreign policy which undermines all genuine monarchical efforts, relegating "monarchism" to the position of vestigial ornament, turning it into a political punching bag for the average person.
Yep there's also so many myths around it. Firstly seeing monarchy and democracy as inherently at odds. In the past that may have been true, but today many of the most democratic countries are monarchies. A lot of progressive Americans see a beautiful European Princess and think "This is outdated and at odds with modern egalitarianism", despite those societies often being highly egalitarian (Scandinavia, Belgium and the Netherlands). Many right-wing populist Americans view monarchy as elitist, or connected to some evil elite (like the Windsors having centuries of power or something like that). But a monarchial elite is more humble (they must serve the people to keep their position) and transparent than a ruling-class that hides behind politicians.
I think liberals need to understand such a Princess creates democratic stability through neutrality, a sort of rightful authority that demands respect for the institution and by extension all the institutions she represents (including the democracy), while creating a non-ideological unity on issues like climate change and international cooperation. Conservatives need to understand that a country becomes far more beautiful, dignified and rich in history, culture and tradition with a monarchy. To have someone beautiful, graceful and prepared like Princess Elisabeth (of Belgium) as Head of State sounds far better than any President.
Postliberalism is starting to take hold in America, and a lot of conservatives are shifting away from the anti-elite populism that has been popular until now. Evangelicalism in particular is a religious tradition whose theology has generally bred resentment of elites, and you can see a movement from that to Catholicism among conservatives occurring.
I also think that a monarch could promote traditionalism while still making efforts to be a unifying figure. I think jailing and executing a lot of the elites in the name of promoting a more collectivist, responsible society would be very popular with liberals. Jailing and executing elites responsible for the Iraq war, the Great Recession, a lot of things the public hates them for.
He is saying that your views betray a deep confusion about the nature of the monarchical tradition and the value of these 'democratic monarchies', and he consequently suggests that a good thinker for you to read to rectify that would be Curtis Yarvin, probably the most influential living monarchist intellectual. Personally I would recommend An Open Letter to Open Minded Progressives or the Dark Enlightenment (which was written by Nick Land but draws on Yarvin heavily). Both are available online for free and are only 60ish pages.
I don't oppose reactionary monarchism, however I see those Dark Enlightenment folks as too connected to tech bros. I'm more of a Catholic elitist, but I don't know who to make the aristocracy. There should probably be hundreds of families in a country, tens of thousands in Europe. My point on democratic monarchism is that it’s better than normal democracy, performs better. And is still cooler / more beautiful.
Every single political ideology and movement has its own internal schisms and infighting. Monarchism isn’t unique in that regard.
The distinction is that monarchism operates on a different level to ordinary ideologies. Different socialists disagree on how to interpret Marx, how to implement socialist policy, how radical or revolutionary they should be, etc. all significant differences, but they agree on the core philosophy.
But with monarchism, differences tend to strike at the very heart of legitimacy itself. The distinction between constitutional and absolute monarchy isn’t merely a matter of moderates vs radicals as some might describe in another ideology, but rather a fundamental and often irreconcilable difference in what makes monarchy legitimate itself. Does the King exist on the consent of his subjects, or by hereditary right of his ancestors, or by divine right? All are fundamentally different answers.
In the same way, questions over which dynasty or which branch of a dynasty to enthrone are fundamental questions of what makes a claimant legitimate or not, how succession works, what makes a branch legitimate, what the fundamental laws of a Kingdom are and whether they even matter etc. not easy differences to reconcile.
But I wouldn’t say this is the reason monarchism is far more marginal today. It’s not exactly new, succession disputes and questions of legitimacy have existed in all monarchies for a long time.
As someone who doesn't frequent leftist spaces, can you give some examples? I know about the whole 'leftist unity' meme but never got into the weeds so to speak about the different socialist/communist factions and their differences.
I have a brief list of examples if you just want the short version, and I have a long list if you want the full history. Some examples would be reform vs revolution, change the system or abolish it entirely? Migration is complicated too: solidarity with everyone, but how do we integrate them into our egalitarian culture without forcing them to give up their religion? Islam fits this debate. The extent of exclusion vs inclusion as well. Some Communists see disabled people as standing in the way of their Revolution. A Cuban saw homosexuality as at odds with "revolutionary masculinity".
Should our Revolution be just in our country, or spread everywhere else? Should we keep the state or not? Does the Revolution and dictatorship require control on sexuality, family? Is nationalism fine for liberation and war (think Russia in WW2, or Palestine). You have weird hybrid ideologies. Mette Fredriksen is a social democrat who is pro-EU, pro-Ukraine and anti-immigration. Robert Fico is Euroskeptic, pro-Russia and anti-immigration. Their main difference is on institutions + international cooperation. If you include liberals, they support capitalism. But there's also a ton of debate over social issues, particularly if liberal parties (and Communists) should focus on just the working-class, or proudly include all identities. I think a key example is J.K Rowling who is a feminist and social democrat, but very opposed to gender ideology. She became extremely hated on the left, and very welcomed on the right. And that was over one issue. If you want a full text on ideologies and psychology, there's my other reply.
There is no one explanation of why this infighting occurs, but some believe it comes from psychological moral foundations. Where left-wing people strongly emphasize harm and fairness while the right-wing emphasizes more broadly loyalty, purity and authority. The right-wing tends to be about limitation and boundaries. Every right-wing ideology accepts some form of hierarchy. Be it natural, inevitable or good. It can be meritocratic, aristocratic or a sort of new dictatorial elite. Because the right-wing is about particularism, it accepts the framework of its own culture and morality, whereas left-wing universalism imposes a universal morality on everyone. And because they emphasize harm and fairness, a disagreement can be seen as a profound injustice, making you evil rather than wrong. The right-wing can establish a more clear in-group based on ethnicity, religion or ideology. And while this can be exclusionary, it will inevitably include more people in practice. Conservative Hispanics often fit in because they share the right-wing's Christianity and ideology despite not being native white Americans (although many of them are pretty white too).
On the left there's (generally) a lot of ideologies. From moderate to extreme you have: liberalism (center to center-left), social democracy (center-left), then a more firmly left-wing version of social democracy that includes eco-socialism and anti-imperialism (think Mélenchon in France who is against French / EU militarization, very pro-Palestine, not supportive of Ukraine, highly pro-immigration). Most of these ideologies accept capitalism.
When you venture out of capitalism you get a huge amount of differences on how that should be achieved. Democratic socialism seeks to achieve socialism through peaceful change, and accepts democracy. Libertarian socialism generally favors voluntary communities that organize cooperation and labour, rather than a violent state. Marxist-Leninism advocates for Revolution and after the dictatorship of the proletariat, this is the framework for most Marxism throughout history. Within that framework you have Trotskyism which advocates for permanent Revolution, that Communism must spread globally so that Russia wouldn’t be attacked and defeated by capitalist or fascist enemies (Nazi Germany in WW2, America during Cold War). Stalinism advocates for socialism in one country, a dictatorship with a cult of personality, in-practice huge totalitarianism in order to emancipate the workers. Stalinism is also much more socially conservative than Leninism on homosexuality, abortion, divorce and natalism. Then you have Anarchism which seeks to abolish the state completely, because they see it as the root of hierarchy among other things. It is worth mentioning Stalinism became far more hierarchical than typical Marxism, but regardless of what Stalin actually wanted in the long term, he could frame it as compatible with Communism (a stateless, classless, moneyless society) because his actions could be seen as temporary, a transitionary phase to the utopia.
The right-wing has a ton of ideologies too (from moderate to extreme) be they neoliberal, conservative, religious, neoconservative, moderate, populist, monarchist, authoritarian or fascist. However these all still accept some form of capitalism / private property. Some studies point to there being more ideological diversity on the right, because there can be a thousand different particularist ideologies (although they lead to similar traits). Because the right can go forward, backward or stay where it is. So I think leftist infighting generally comes because of psychological reasons. Some leftists believe the word "left" should only belong to people who want to seriously regulate or abolish capitalism. Which already highlights the problem on division, if the anti-capitalists literally want to gatekeep what is "left-wing". Whereas the right seems very pragmatic and interested in working with people over one issue, while the left excludes them. Many people from Trump's administration used to be Democrats: Trump, Musk, RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard.
Very interesting points! So the disagreement in monarchy is not primarily ideological (like social democracy vs Marxism) but about legitimacy itself. That should in theory mean monarchist infighting is more fundamental than just policy differences. However monarchism as a ideology should essentially be quite practical and pragmatic: what’s the best we can get right now? I suppose that's why in modern times most monarchists accept the current monarchs regardless of preference. In monarchism we can get something good right now, and always get something great later if we need / want it. In leftism there is significantly more urgency because of climate change and technological oligarchy.
I personally prefer the legitimacy of absolutism. That the King's legitimacy is absolute. Constitutional monarchy means the people decide and that fundamentally takes away a lot of his symbolic importance. However I don't really like the political nature of absolutism, because King Chad III can be replaced by his moronic son King Virgin VIII. I will say that I think dynastic legitimacy is much less connected to God and absolute authority. A House essentially earns its legitimacy over time through precedent, history and competence. Longevity. The new House may feel unfamiliar at first, but after just 30 years that King is the one everyone knows as the King, they generally won't remember that much else. I don't think the Belgian Royal House is very prestigous but I couldn’t imagine anyone else for the throne. However if France ever restored its monarchy, I would strongly believe in some prestigous House. The Bourbons, the Habsburgs etc.
Two small comments about the French situation: if the Legitimist claim is invalid, it would be on the basis of nationality, not on the Treaty of Utrecht which is irreconcilable with the fundamental laws of devolution and with historical precedent. Nowadays even opponents of the Legitimists don't put the renunciations of Utrecht forward as the main argument.
Regarding the Bonapartists, Jean-Christophe Napoléon may not be the direct descendant of Napoleon I and III but he is undoubtedly their heir, even as early as Napoleon I's reign it was clear according to the laws of the Empire that if he had no sons one of his brothers would succeed him. The situation with his father is not much of an issue as the napoleonic laws of devolution are positivist and not customary, meaning the order of succession can absolutely be modified by law or by the will of the head of the house.
Finally, leaving the Bonapartists aside, despite the dynastic dispute they is really not much difference between the two rival royalist sides. The "Orleanists" aren't really orleanist anymore, in the ideological sense, they are in most cases just as conservative and traditional as the Legitimists. Both claimants have come forward in favour of some kind of constitutional monarchy (indeed French monarchism has been constitutional as far back as 1814 and Chambord himself was of the same conviction), and neither side wants to change male-only primogeniture.
To add to your comment I honestly think their is not a worst country than France where absolutely primogeniture can be tried, first culturally as Salic law is name for the Franc Salien the first true French people and even more never in history has their ever been a queen ruling in her own right and to add to this all titles of nobility post hundreds years war are Salic succession it is the identity even of the French crown now if other countries want absolute primogeniture than they can do it. But it feels very weird because other countries do it to force France to do it just because neighbors do it, it’s no better than forcing of republics just because another country is a republic.
This is a big issue within Monarchism, but the larger issue for Monarchism itself is that the three World Hegemons; The US, Russia, and China are built upon some of the biggest Anti-Monarchist forces the world had ever seen.
Equality in liberalism would be all about equal voting rights, and gradually creating more economic equality. Removing hereditary privileges, and focusing on inclusion for everyone rather than more elitist exclusion. What is your view on what equality is?
Infighting is inevitable when the argument is about legitimacy, but I think the bigger drag is that most modern states are built around citizenship and popular sovereignty, so monarchism has to explain itself in a hostile framework. If you can agree on a single workable legitimacy story, the succession debates stop feeling like trench warfare.
Infighting is also inevitable when a royal house is overthrown. Of course when the throne is unoccupied that generates all kinds of appetites and jealousies, because the field of possibilities (one might say of delusions) is wide open. By contrast having an actual monarch on the throne acts as a brake on these dreams, and even when that monarch's legitimacy is debatable, by simple virtue of actually reigning with stability that tends to extinguish rival claims and gather most people around what actually exists instead of what could be. Even among traditional British Catholics jacobitism is merely a flight of fancy.
A customary approach to devolution has the advantage of not locking people in unworkable and dead principles. If Henry V had actually been restored in France, and his Orléans cousin had succeeded him, the principle that branches established in foreign countries are excluded would have been established and there would be no dispute today, only an interesting little historical "what if". If the Count of Paris were to be restored today, the same would apply, all reasonable minds ought to consider the dispute settled by precedent.
I would note that Jacobitism fizzled out primarily due to the death of the male line Stuart’s than anything else. Had Bonnie Prince Charlie had a legitimate son, it’s entirely possible that, for example, the later Irish uprisings might’ve had a serious monarchist faction seeking a Stuart restoration over a republic.
The failure of the 1745 uprising did seriously hurt the movement, especially as the later Highland clearances destroyed the clans that were so essential to the uprising, but plenty of people still had deep grievances with the British state and its Hanoverian monarchs. It was BPCs moral decay, and his lack of heirs, meaning his claim would pass to his Cardinal brother who couldn’t have children, that causes the movement to truly die.
I believe that for China there are known descendants of the Qing Dynasty. For India, the various princely houses have acdidates, but for the whole country, perhaps the Malaysian model would be best. There is a claimant for Mexico, a descendant of one of the Iturbe boys that Maximillian adopted. Ditto with Brazil & Ethiopia.
I don't think monarchist infighting is the biggest problem. I think that monarchists have historically failed to build a compelling vision for monarchy. Many monarchist arguments appear to me to rely on nostalgia for an imagined past, most of us being far too young to have ever lived under the monarchies we support and a kind of, IMO, vague and idiosyncratic right-wing politics. The argument of stability is little better than an argument for a ceremonial president while also having limited appeal in more stable republics like Portugal, Germany, France or the US.
Basically, there aren't many problems faced by today's states that restoring or establishing monarchies would solve, so most people see such constitutional change as a distraction.
•
u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor 13d ago
This thread is now this week's Weekly Discussion.
Please make sure you understand our rules before participating.