/monarchy/ - Monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8000

Files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

Captcha
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.



8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

(8.41 KB 196x257 Unknown-6.jpeg)
Succession? Peasant 05/03/2020 (Sun) 02:22:54 No. 139

I normally post on /fascist/, but christian nature of this board is starting to pull me over. Anyway, that's not the point here. My biggest concern about monarchism is succession and how best to prevent shitty successors like Commodus from happening. How would you make sure that nothing like that would happen?

There used to be a lot of discussions regarding the specifics of succession law here, and I imagine that might be what you're looking for.
(184.93 KB 694x900 DX774EKVoAA6WP5.jpg)
>>139
>monarchism
This is /monarchy/, not r/monarchism.
We say monarchy here
>how best to prevent shitty successors like Commodus from happening
Commodus gets his reputation in part because Romans disliked royalism and hereditary succession for the time, and Commodus is epitome of why. But there were other instances besides Commodus where Roman Emperors favored their own son, like the Byzantine with instances of Emperors making their sons as co-emperors like a loophole.
I only say that because a large bunch of people dislike hereditary succession. Imo, it's part of the idea and always has been an expectation that a royal monarch will favor his own offspring as heir since ancient times.
>My biggest concern about monarchism is succession
Another /fascist/ anon really has a dislike for hereditary succession, but for your case I'll tell you that plenty of other people on this board and throughout favor electoral monarchy and other forms of succession. It's not always the standard of primogeniture.
>How would you make sure that nothing like that would happen?
In truth, if you want a monarchy that is really a monarchy in a sense, there will always be a little bit of the tyrannical side as you call it. I have always felt that the fear of tyranny should not outweigh the good of monarchy, but this will undeniably happen when a monarch is in charge.
Rome from the Julio-Claudian gets that bad reputation for wild monarchs. But those are also some of my favorite imperial monarchs.
>prevent
Instances where the monarch is mentally ill or obviously unfit calls for a regency, or they are disqualified. Child royals live with regents taking the role, and sometimes their parent oversees it.
There's also the absolutist solution–if the order of succession and law lead to someone who the monarch doesn't want for the throne–the monarch could choose someone else. I had this conversation before, but a noteworthy example of this is kind of thing is Kim Jong Il choosing Kim Jong Un instead of Kim Jong-nam.

I know where this conversation always goes, so
>>139
Good, well-established succession law helps mitigate problems like that. If you know multiple generations in advance who will be the next king, that person will be raised from birth to be a king. The problem that Rome had which led to Commodus was the problem of electoral succession. If the successor is chosen by the current emperor, there's a lot of uncertainty in who the successor is in-between the new emperor getting crowned and him choosing his successor. Every year spent without deciding on a successor is a year spent not preparing said successor for the throne; the heir when finally chosen is not someone born to rule but a fully-fledged adult, ambitious and set in his ways. Further, the very fact that there's a selection process encourages sooth-sayers and flatterers to rise to the top and seek the Emperor's favor. This also encourages wars of succession when there's ambiguity over who "should have" been chosen, or between the children of the Emperor and whoever is chosen. That latter one especially is what you saw plague Rome after the end of the Pax Romana. The 12 "good emperors" were all childless up to Marcus Aurelius, which helped mitigate that tension. Aurelius didn't, and he was the last good emperor.
>>139
Read Spengler.
>>152
Why?
>>145 If you have a weak ruler, won't his designated heir be the target of every assassination attempt by his subjects?
>>139 But that's the whole point and best part about monarchism, it enables a bloodline to survive and stay in power no matter how shitty it gets. Being a parasite is the highest virtue in monachism.
(1.18 MB 1522x1100 13 Pandemic2.png)
>>1068 Prince Charles seems to be doing fine. >>1069 >Being a parasite is the highest virtue in monachism. Monarchy? No, petty royalists.
>>1072 >Prince Charles seems to be doing fine. The British Crown is largely defunct though.
>>1083 >The British Crown is largely defunct though That's the point.
>>145 > that person will be raised from birth to be a king Preparing them from birth doesn't necessarily fix a shitty personality. There have been a number of rulers who were weak even though they were prepared from birth.
>>139 >How would you make sure that nothing like that would happen? a good shiv to the jugular in the middle of the night, tell the people the king returned to his home planet but left his best buddy and his advisors to run the show until he comes back
>>1145 >murder the King Then you get Nero.
>>1150 or Catherine the Great
http://gablog.cdh.ucla.edu/2018/04/the-temporality-of-sovereignty/ >Let’s take the most extreme example, a completely non-hereditary autocracy in which, therefore, the pool of possible replacements for the sovereign includes the entire population. The autocrat himself must choose his successor, because only a sovereign decision can effect the transfer of power—we can’t even accept a method of choosing a successor since, however seemingly impersonal and objective the method, it will always be open to interpretation, “exception” and therefore power struggles. The sovereign, then, must choose a successor from the moment he enters office, and be explicit and public in either sticking with that choice or changing it. (With every “must,” the automatic question must arise: or else what? Let’s say the sovereign is ambiguous about his successor—then what? Then he’s not doing his job—so, what are the consequences of that? We’ll get to it.) Enormous social resources and energy would have to be directed towards ensuring the sovereign has a large pool of qualified successors, and in providing means for narrowing it down considerably: it might be good to have 10,000 qualified candidates, but the sovereign should only have to choose from amongst, say, 100. “Academies” in ruling would be established, with extremely rigorous entry requirements. Schools specializing in various aspects of rule—military academies, schools that provide students with advanced knowledge of political history and theory, perhaps practical, scout-style academies that give students experience in governing on a local level, under supervised conditions. One would have to excel in one academy to be admitted to the next—the candidates would be vetted all along the line, from their childhoods up.
(54.97 KB 406x473 01010101.jpg)
>>1150 >>1185 /monarchy/ would be a better place if we had more pro-Nero Romanboos. I wish.
>>1186 Wouldn't this be similar to having a super-computer run through data on all citizens in a nation and select whatever one meets the best criteria. So if something would to happen to the monarch, or the next eligible in line, the computer would be constantly updating the candidates.
bastard feudalism


Quick Reply
Extra
Delete
Report

no cookies?