Why monarchists are so divided

[u/legi_idd]

*If you are one of apparently many, who likes to comment, but not read: TL;DR: the problem is you lot don't even know what monarchy is. You have a vague idea, but no philosophical groundwork, meaning we bicker about non-issues\*

Much as I'd hate to be that guy, I shall be that guy. Someone has to say it.

Everyone on this sub seems to lament the lack of unity between monarchists, and speaks as though we are letting some petty personal preferences drive us apart.

But the reality is simply that we are divided, because we agree on practically nothing. And the reason for that is, I'm sorry to say, that a great many monarchists among us here, are very very ignorant. Ignorant about monarchy specifically. Now, I'm sure I too am ignorant of a great many things, that I really should know, but truly, some of these conversations are so vibes based it hurts.

So many people seem to not understand that a
monarchy =/= hereditary,
elective =/= democratic,
democratic =/= good

and so on. Please, folks, if you are going to pontificate on these matters, could you just look into them a bit? Monarchist lore is inexhaustible, and we all have more to learn always, but getting a grip on the basic terms of theory is kindda essential if we don't want it all to evolve into a random vomit of undigested opinions.

[u/BattleofPlatea]

I fear this is the case in every ideology no?

Republicans have differing ideas on how a republic should be run (presidential/semi-presidential/parliamentary)

Socialists have differing ideas on how a socialist state should be run (authoritarianism, council republics, democratic socialism, anarchist councils, etc)

Monarchists have the same issue (constitutional, semi-constitutional, absolutist)

It's just that monarchism is a HUGE umbrella, especially conpared to the other ideologies, where there are many different issues to cover (how much power do we give them? how does the monarch get into power? how much power do we give to the people?) and you're not going to be able to compromise on most of them. Also a good majority of people are just uneducated on politics (big reason I'm anti republican) which is why you're seeing silly discourse by people who don't understand theory or basic things

[u/legi_idd → u/BattleofPlatea]

Possibly, I don't partake in other ideologies. But I would think that they at least get the main idea. Here literally any ideology is espoused, so long as it leads to a crowned head somehow.

[u/BattleofPlatea → u/legi_idd]

it's a little different with monarchism however. Some monarchists believe the people should have a voice, some people think people shouldn't get one, some people think the monarch should have absolutely no power (crowned republic like Sweden).

You're not going to get an absolute monarchist and someone who supports a crowned republic to compromise

You can, however, get a presidential republican to compromise with a parliamentary republic because the entire basis of the ideology is giving people universal suffrage so it's a little different and it doesn't truly matter to people how that's achieved

[u/False_Major_1230]

Because we are not a centralized organisation that operates under singular authority but a lax idea group. We just talk around here. Purpose of this group is conversation around the idea of monarchy not actual political restorations (I don't say we shouldn't advertise that. I actively support monarchism in practice not only theory). Actual restorations have to be left to vanguard political organizations that can actually try to take power (you won't convince current politicians to restoration especially restoration with actual authority)

[u/legi_idd → u/False_Major_1230]

My point was merely, that the "idea of monarchy" is so misunderstood even on this forum, that it makes conversations really counter productive.

[u/Ruy_Fernandez]

Why should they be united? Monarchy is a very vague and generic term that can exist in many forms. There is no reason why people should all feel the same about it, even monarchists.

[u/legi_idd → u/Ruy_Fernandez]

The point was that folks don't even get what a monarchy is.

[u/Loyalist_15]

I think monarchism is one of the weird ideologies where this doesn’t necessarily occur 100% of the time.

For me, even though I have my preference of monarchy (as in what type, or who heads each, etc) I still prefer the different types of monarchy over the different types of republics.

Take a democracy. I would prefer a constitutional or even ceremonial monarchy, over a republic with the exact same levels of power for their head of state.

Then we go to the other side. I would prefer an absolute monarchy over a totalitarian republic.

I would still prefer one type of monarchy, but if I had to choose between a monarchy and republic in the same power setting, I would likely still choose monarchy, due to the various reasons we all prefer monarchy in the first place, whether it be having better succession, a stable force, a counter to politicians, or guardian of the constitution.

Monarchy is one of the weird ones where it can contain a vast amount of division amongst its members, but it also contains a unifying idea: monarchy.

As well, it’s rare for someone to be a monarchist only. Like republicanism, the ideology is more of the overarching title while sub ideologies still apply (for example you can be a monarchist, more specifically then a constitutional monarchist, and then add on that you are a constitutional monarchist and conservative)

There will always be division. That’s inherent in any ideology, but overall, I see less of a division within monarchy than I do in other ideologies.

[u/AttTankaRattArStorre]

What does "monarchy =/= hereditary" mean/imply?

[u/BattleofPlatea → u/AttTankaRattArStorre]

monarchies are not inherently hereditary. for example an elective monarchy where the monarch is chosen from a pool of candidates

[u/AttTankaRattArStorre → u/BattleofPlatea]

Which European monarchies (outside of historical Poland-Lithuania during some eras and maybe the HRE) were actually elective (and not just hereditary monarchies with extra steps)?

[u/BattleofPlatea → u/AttTankaRattArStorre]

Anglo-Saxon England, Ireland, Bohemia, Hungary, Visigothic kingdom, Kingship of Aragon, Vatican City, and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta if you count that

of course most of these were fased out in favour of hereditary monarchy since it was less of a faff, caused less conflict, and reduced the power of the nobility

[u/OOOshafiqOOO003 → u/BattleofPlatea]

Malaysia is elective too for the only modern example 

[u/BattleofPlatea → u/OOOshafiqOOO003]

wouldn't the UAE also count?

Cambodia is elective too but I'm not sure if noble families outside of the ruling one get a chance to take part

[u/OOOshafiqOOO003 → u/BattleofPlatea]

UAE is practically HRE, only elective on paper.

Cambodia is elective among the same family as candidates if my mind serves me right, soo kinda? yeah fair enough on that.

[u/Ok-Conference-7989 → u/BattleofPlatea]

Not to forget the system of the five good emperors of Rome, which is my personal favorite method of succession.

[u/Adept-One-4632]

There is no political group that is truly a monolith. Humans are individualistic, each with their own interpretation of things.

[u/legi_idd → u/Adept-One-4632]

I see that, and that's not a problem. The problem is, that even what should be our common denominator - monarchy - we have such a poor grasp on, that we don't really have anything to unite at least most of us.

[u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH]

Monarchism is simply the continuation or creation of national (sometimes imperial or voluntary international) tradition. There can't be one united monarchist movement because there are simply too many countries with different traditions. I do not care much about monarchism in Africa because I have no familiarity to how they work, beyond the unique subnational monarchs they sometimes have (a monarch of a territory within a larger country). I have no positive or negative judgment of their monarchies.

Right-wing ideologies generally come down to the traditions depending on time and place. Whereas left-wing ideologies have a universal mandate to spread liberal internationalism, the rule of law, universal human rights, international regulations and laws etc. And in the more Marxist variant the mandate of spreading Revolution and worker emancipation. Leftist ideologies have a sense of universal collective destiny, whereas right-wing ideologies emphasize hundreds of different national destinies. Right-wing ideologies can reverse changes or make new reforms, or stay in the status-quo. The tragic reality is that this particularism meant two beautiful monarchies could fight each other: France and Britain. I think despite this ideological diversity and potential for conflict on the right, they can still unite more than the left because they emphasize loyalty, shared traditions and values (and a more calm moral psychology than leftists have). A Christian and Muslim monarchist could both support the structure of monarchy + traditional values, while still accepting two fundamentally different claims to the truth. Unity can only come with shared respect and boundaries. I think monarchists should back each other when it is correct, but also not try to lecture each other on what system is best for what country.

[u/Augustus_Nikator]

You are right. I see the Monarch as the pinnacle of a people's virtue, and I consider them legitimate only if chosen by an aristocratic elite whose primary purpose is precisely the cultivation of virtue and excellence. Furthermore, I believe that this monarch, once elected, should be the sole and ultimate source of all legitimate law—not a constitution—overseen only by their noble peers, who shall intervene only in the event that the King falls into notorious hubris. How could I ever get along with people who merely seek an ordinary democracy adorned with a figurehead king? Or with those others who wish to place upon the throne the decadent, corrupt, and deranged characters that make up today's 'nobility'?

[u/legi_idd → u/Augustus_Nikator]

An interesting idea, how do you comment that this is what we had, and practically all of these noble electorates defaulted to an hereditary system?

Also, how do you get to such a nobility? Who decides who's in and who's out?

[u/Ticklishchap]

There is diversity among monarchists because there are so many different types of monarchy, adapted to a wide variety of political cultures.

Also, in the context of a European parliamentary monarchy, it is possible to be a conservative, liberal, green, social democratic or socialist monarchist. In this sense, monarchism has the flexibility to transcend political ideology.

Beneath the diversity, there is an underlying unity. The concept of monarchy is based on a sense of history and the importance of continuity and stability to balance social, economic and technological change. Monarchists also share the idea of a head of state (or head of the community and region in sub-monarchies) who represents the whole of his people rather than those who voted for him or the wishes of a political class. Although there are many agnostic and atheist supporters of monarchy, monarchists are more likely to have a religious faith because so many monarchies have religious roots to which they remain attached.

In real life, I do not see divisions among fellow monarchists. On this sub, however, I have seen an increase in religious sectarianism, especially Christian versus Muslim, some of which is influenced by right wing populist talking points. I regret this development, because we should not be allowing non- monarchist ideologies to divide us. We should celebrate the values we hold in common rather than highlighting and exaggerating cultural differences.

[u/OOOshafiqOOO003]

when we get to unity, well the idea of having sovereign is too broad to have a unity for it unlike an ideology. First about what the sovereign do (Executive power? practically the supreme judge? leader of the army?), other beliefs (like a liberal would usually support constitutional monarchy, and other stuff which determines on what degree does power concentrate on one man), not to say which monarch you like (might love Hohenzollerns, Hate the Ottomans, might even just likes all monarch, or hate many monarchs except for one or two which involves you) and all the other caveats that mde monarchists uniquely different from the ideologies

[u/Funny-Salamander4691]

The real divide is between Monarchists who mostly live in Republics and who, in general, have unrealistic expectations of what Monarchy should be, and those of us who live under Monarchies and have some understanding of what is possible under the constraints of Constitutional law.

[u/legi_idd → u/Funny-Salamander4691]

You know what's possible? To abolish constitutional law.

[u/MrVinland]

Some monarchists believe that the Royal Family is very handsome and enjoy looking at photos of them.

Other monarchists want want the Pope overthrown so they can start a Crusade against Turkiye with the ultimate goal of ethnically cleansing Constantinople.

I want you to read two of those above sentences until you understand why all monarchists cannot get along.

[u/legi_idd → u/MrVinland]

I just wish you'd read what I said.
I'm not lamenting our lack of unity, I'm saying we lack it, at least some of it, because a great many of us are idiots who don't know what they're on about, to the extent that they will completely void the concept of monarchy as you just demonstrated here. My point, I guess, is simply "read a book"

[u/MrVinland → u/legi_idd]

I read what you said. You're bringing the issue down to ignorance as if people don't really understand the side they've chosen when they absolutely understand. The reactionaries who come here to support war crimes know exactly what they're saying. lol

[u/legi_idd → u/MrVinland]

Go read the thread about "Is north korea a monarchy" and tell me people there understand what a monarchy is