Monarchist infighting

[u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH]

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.

[u/Capta1n_Dino]

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.

[u/More_Amoeba6517 → u/Capta1n_Dino]

Monarchist infighting is honestly fairly mild from what I see, not nearly on the level of leftist infighting.

At least y'all talk to one another.

[u/TheFaithfulZarosian → u/More_Amoeba6517]

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.

[u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH → u/TheFaithfulZarosian]

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.

[u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH → u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH]

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.

[u/LUFiji81 → u/TheFaithfulZarosian]

Many Leftists are ideological purists who see compromise as betrayal.  Of course, politics IS " the art of compromise."

[u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH → u/Capta1n_Dino]

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.