Monarchism

While i have literally zero idea as to who any of these monarchs could be, would a system like this work for the country, and others like it? It would certainly give more representation for the different ethnic groups, if they all had their own monarchs.

The current r/monarchism wiki is very old and needs significant changes. As part of that, I would like to include a variety of reasons for and against the three main forms of monarchism: ceremonial, semi-constitutional and absolute.

For the purpose of keeping everything in one place, this discussion is only about ceremonial monarchies - share your opinions on the other two for later.

Even if you are not a ceremonial monarchist, please share any arguments you have on the follow:

• Arguments for ceremonial monarchism
• Arguments against ceremonial monarchism
• Is ceremonial monarchism any better than a republic?
• What is the definition of ceremonial monarchism?
• How would a ceremonial monarchy be structured? What would its form of government be?

Standard rules of engament apply.

There have been numerous debates over deciding the future of monarchies through referendums. I though providing some evidence might help people come to their own opinions. Therefore, I have complied some data on previous monarchy referendums.

In total, there have been 30 referendums on the future of the monarchy.

9 of these were conducted in circumstances that cannot be considered democratic, were rigged, or there are significant suspicions they were rigged. Therefore, I will not count these as they don't really matter.

Therefore, that leaves a total of 21 actually democratic referendums.

16 of these were carried out in a monarchy; 8 of which retained the monarchy and 8 abolished the monarchy.

5 of these were carried out in a republic; 2 of which restored the monarch and 3 retained the republic

Overall, there seems to be a relatively even split between success for monarchism and success for republicanism.

The sample size for referendums carried out in a republic is quite small, so I would avoid putting too much faith in the numbers.

p.s. This is specifically about referendums, and does not include any other democratic methods on deciding the future of monarchism.

Hello everyone! I'm with another question as what it seems to be a "series of questions" 😅 as to who's the rightful claimant/head.

This time, who is the rightful claimant to the defunct throne of Brazil?

is it the Vassouras or the Petropolis branch?

Let's make this into a healthy and scholarly discussion, who, in your informed opinion, is the rightful head of the House of Savoy or claimant to the defunct throne of Italy?

Think about it- if an ancient Roman were transported to the modern day, he would have no problem recognizing people like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jin Ping, Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi, and Nicolas Maduro as “Imperator” of their respective countries.

There was no official post for the Emperors of the Principate; they moved around in government from consul to pontifex Maximus to censor et cetera. Even so, all recognized their authority. Today, the title most often taken by an “Emperor” is President.

Emperors universally either controlled or had the support of the military- once that was lost their government went with it. See Nero or Hosni Mubarak.

There was/are nominal separations of powers (think the Senate or the people’s congress of China) and rule of law, but the de facto reality of rule by decree was/is understood.

Methods of popular control are likewise identical. Ancient Romans and modern Kazakhs, Chinese, Rwandans, and Egyptians have signed a social contract with their Emperor where the body politic gives up political freedoms in exchange for generous social handouts, economic development and/or political prestige. How is the Invasion of Ukraine any different from the Dacian Wars in a political context?

Corruption and nepotism in both ancient and modern “empires” (in the sense that they are ruled by an Imperator) is rife, and completely imbedded within government and society.

Lastly, and most importantly, the method by which power is transferred is identical. Emperors in both ancient and modern times select a favored successor, who often times is not a blood relative, grooming them for power before the final transfer after the Emperor’s death/retirement.

It is my firm belief that if things remain the course over the next few centuries, then countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Egypt, and Venezuela will revert to overt monarchism. Rome hated the idea of a king (no matter the political reality) for 800 years after all. Despotism will become more visible, and new symbols of power analogous to the crown and scepter will emerge.

The r/monarchism sub ought to be more popular, because soon three quarters of the world’s population will be living under its preferred system…

Casa Loma (Spanish for Hill House) is a manor home located in the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Canada.

The Oak Room (formerly the Napoleon Drawing Room) was the formal ball room. It is now a dining hall for the restaurant located in the Casa Loma museum. The manor home itself was constructed by Major General Sir Henry Pellatt, CVO, Honorary Colonel of The Queen’s Own Rifles, a Canadian militia unit.

Sir Henry was a monarchist and a fan of the Windsors. He had the Windsor Suites build in his home, wishing that the Royal Family would one day visit and stay in his home. They never did and any prospects of them doing so in future are near 0 as the home is a museum owned by the City of Toronto.

I have seen a particular quote attributed to Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, but I can't find a source for where he said it. Anyone have any idea?

“The higher a person’s position in society the more he should help others without ever reminding them of his position.”

Donald Trump’s imposition of massive tariffs on Canada and his continued demands for annexation has shattered the illusion that the US is a reliable economic or military ally, not just in Canada but throughout the entire world. It proves that integrating economically with the US and relying upon American goodwill for one’s economic fortunes is a folly, and that trade diversification is an absolute must.

This opens up a brilliant opportunity for the Commonwealth Realms. Now, more than ever, the idea of CANZUK; an EU-style free trade, free movement and mutual defence pact between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand seems absolutely vital. But it doesn’t need to, and shouldn’t, end with CANZUK. All 15 Commonwealth Realms should band together in this time and form a bond of association and cooperation.

This should be done in a 2-speed fashion. The big CANZUK 4, being by far the most economically prosperous and populous (excluding Papua New Guinea) realms should form a zone of full free trade and full free movement. Together with this the remaining 11 realms, being economically weaker and at risk of serious brain drain were they to enter into full free trade and movement at present, should be guaranteed visa free travel, ease of entry, voting rights for permanent resident citizens in other realms, mutual defence and trade preference. They should have the ability, when ready, to accede into the full integration of the big CANZUK 4.

Trump, in his attempts to bully Canada into submission and annexation, has just granted the Anglosphere and the Crown the best possible opportunity to revitalise itself and form a truly massive and important association for the betterment of all. This new union, a Union of His Majesty’s Realms, has a real opportunity to be a new fourth power on the world stage alongside the US, China and EU. The time has never been better for this, and our political leaders need to seize the opportunity.

If you live in a Commonwealth Realm, especially within the big CANZUK 4, contact your MPs and argue for this move. Push for our political leaders to see the necessity of this. There is an absolutely golden opportunity, the likes of which have not been seen in decades, to truly forge something great.

Of all Emperors of the "Dominate" period (284-476), or perhaps the Empire as a whole... Constantius II is, in my mind, quite the enigma.

While undoubtedly the most competent of Constantine's children, there is more universally accepted consensus about him as a ruler.

Some claim he was a Tyrant, some say he was Easily Manipulative, some say he did what was Necessary at the Time, among many others.

He had the third longest reign of any emperor up until his time, and its not like his reign started smoothly, as he was rather inexperience when his father died, ascending to the title of Augustus when he just 20.

He had to fight the Persians, in fact quite a few times, to which the success had varied but was overall successful, which should be commended, given his opponent was Shapur the Great.

Warfare was effectively the norm of his reign, be it the Persians, the Barbarian tribes, his Brothers, or the many Usurpers he had to put down (notably Magnentius), yet he managed to hold onto power regardless, and for more than two decades, which was imply a degree of ability.

Granted, Constantius wasn't known to be a nice man, he had a countless number of people executed, including his own family... and the high levels of corruption that plagued the last century of the Western Empire, took its hold during his tenure... and the fact even with his military experience, he faced military incursions or revolts throughout his reign, including by the time her died (against Julian the Apostate nonetheless), so whether he would have held onto power had he not died from disease, remains unknown... and this clearly shows that Loyalty during his reign, could easily shift, likely through the promise of coin or authority.

Although accounts of Constantius II's reign and his overall character vary amongst the Romans themselves, during his turbulent period, he did inspire and retain loyalty from those that his brothers clearly could not, and his contemporaries did hold him, in high regard.

Checking this for my fantasy book.

I have a character who is the queen consort to a king (so she is basically the wife of that king, according to Wikipedia) and I would like to ask that if she is a queen consort, can she be a queen regnant at the same time?

A queen regnant reigns suo jure (in her own right) over a realm known as a kingdom and I am not sure whether one could be both titles at the same time, and this is why I am asking.

Thank you for reading this post btw :) I ask this question in good faith (with a speck of idiocy, I am not well-versed in monarchies...)

Thailand recently made same sex marriage legal. While LGBT in Thailand was recognised since 1950s.

So a few days ago there have been some posts from some members of the sub about the future of monarchism.

Now i feel like i should express my opinion on the matter. Right now i am highly doubtful that all countries will restore their former monarchies. But recently i have become sceptical we will see any complete restoration in any country.

But i do feel there are two ways the trend can be reversed. One is through undemocratic means. Its clear from the 2024 elections in various countries that popular vote is not one that is guided through wisdom. Populism has corrupted our sense of voters onowing what they want (an example is Romania where most of my fellow romanians voted for a reatrded pro-russian). Thats why i think a monarchy must be restored without consent from the people (either through a coup or a rigged referendum).

But still it seems morally wrong this aproach, as i believe a regime change can be legitimate only if people support it.

A second option would be a partial restoration. An example is like the sub-monarchies of Africa (ex. The King of Zulus in South Africa) where the monarch can have some political tasks and have some form of importance to society all while the country still remaining a republic.

It is unorthodox for many western countries but it is in my opinion the most likely and favourable method for monarchism to remain relevant.

This is a sad thought but it had been on my mind recently. Do any of you think this will happen?

Chao (Princess) Duangduen Na Chiang Mai, a revered figure in Northern Thailand’s Lanna heritage,

Her life was deeply intertwined with the rich traditions and cultural preservation of the Lanna Kingdom, leaving a lasting impact on the region.

Born on May 22, 1929, Chao Duangduen was the third child of Chao Rachapakinai (Chao Muang Cheun Na Chiang Mai), a prominent descendant of the ruling Lanna dynasty.

Her lineage traces back to the noble Na Lamphun and Na Chiang Mai clans, with her paternal grandparents, Chao Buarawong and Chao Fong Nual, playing significant roles in the historical fabric of Northern Thailand.

In a previous post, I shared about the Bai Sri Tul Phra Khwan ceremony, a cherished Lanna tradition that resonated with so many of you. Chao Duangduen was deeply committed to preserving such cultural rituals, ensuring that the history, traditions, and ceremonies of Lanna continued to thrive for future generations.

Her dedication to heritage extended beyond rituals, she actively championed efforts to safeguard Lanna art, language, and customs, embodying the true spirit of a cultural guardian.

Remembering the life of A Lanna Princess > Turn on captions for english subs

https://preview.redd.it/5169khiklnge1.jpg?width=414&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd4f6fda918e215379282c5fdf5c27193b60d801

One rule change the mod team would like to specifically highlight is the 'Scrapbook Saturday' rule:

• Historical images related to monarchy can be posted on Saturday and Sunday without commentary, merely a descriptive title will suffice.

• On the flip side, the above content posted any other day will require a bit more effort; a short paragraph discussing the image's significance is required.

This rule is meant to try and raise engagement with historical images which are often posted with little discussion.

This notification will be posted for at least the next few weeks.

Basically the title. Did the Enlightenment period in Europe, which began in the 1700s, cause the decline of monarchies across Europe? Moreover, did the Enlightenment support monarchism itself? (I apologise for my ignorance in the subject, hence why I am asking here).

Looking for a book recommendation for the Dutch royal family/House of Orange that at least covers the through to the start of the 20th century in English.

I'm curious that there are so many pretenders to their thrones. So, which of them can be restored sooner?