Monarchism

I'm writing a fantasy/alt-history series. Part of the lore is that India never comes under British control and is an independent monarchy. Who would be the King of India in the 1920's?

I want to be as respectful as I can when it comes to this subject.

As an Australian looking in on US political culture, one of the most bizarre things to me was always the obsession they have with the 'First Lady'.

To me, this is just the natural inclination towards monarchy playing out - in that there is a realised need for a queen consort.

Whether they admit it or not, the US seems to be crying out for the establishment of its own monarchy. It has not been a country for very long in the whole scheme of things and I would not be surprised if one day they realise the most stable and effective form of governance.

I can easily imagine am American monarch and it would soon become one of the greatest monarchies in history were it to happen.

I guess legally the national sovereignty of an aristocratic republic lies with the nobility, and the national sovereignty of an elective monarchy lies with the monarch?

It’s just that the former’s actual power to control the country may lie with the country’s leaders rather than all nobles, while the latter’s actual power to control the country may lie with the nobles rather than the monarch?

I am a monarchist because:

• I grew up under an absolute monarchy where I had no voting power and there were no other parties. And yet, the country itself is incredibly stable and wealthy and there is no sense of social collapse

• I am currently residing in my home country, a republic, and I find that it is blatantly corrupt and people rely on private security more than police and people themselves are in denial that other countries are better and that this country can imitate their success

• I have spent a few years reading up on different types of government and concluded that there is no one size fits all solution, and that different countries need different government types. However, I find that monarchies tend to be the most politically stable as demonstrated by the countless monarchs who we do not know about in our common knowledge of history since there is no scandal in doing your job right

Not too long ago, someone here posted about a positive update in regard to monarchism in Brazil. Do we have an update on that? Are there any Brazilians here that keep up with the government that can tell us how it’s going?

Link to the Previous Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/s/9EbMUqAmmV

An interviewer asked Prime Minister Thatcher, "If you fail would you feel obliged to resign?"

Her full response was,

"I am not talking about failure. I am talking about my supreme confidence in the British fleet, superlative ships, excellent equipment, the most trained professional group of men, the honorable and brave members of Her Majesty's services. Failure? Do you remember what Queen Victoria once said? Failure? The possibilities do not exist. That is the way we must look at it."

I'm mainly looking for argumentative books, both monarchist and anti-monarchist.

I believe I understand the overrall rhetoric of both stances. But it would be nice to read a deeper dive into the subject with historical examples and data on each rhetorical point.

Thank you.

I am a monarchist and I would like to know what other monarchists think. Without resorting to something like the divine right, or even appealing to tradition(even though that's important). Elaborate your pragmatic reason(s) for being a monarchist, desiring a monarchy, supporting monarchy, etc. Please feel free to also mention what kind of monarchy you support (Constitutional, Semi-Constitutional/Executive, Absolute, Etc.)

Found this in a British book store. It was in the non-fiction section. And yes it 100% serious

Happy birthday to Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran who is 64 today, who knows maybe soon he will be crowned Shah of Iran 🇮🇷

Most are aware the office of President of the US (POTUS) is a role serving the positions of both the head of state as well as the head of government, not to mention the partisan position POTUS holds as head of party.

As head of government every President has to make controversial policy decisions that unavoidably alienate substantial portions of the population. Even when a Government’s policies are widely supported, failures and injustices in their implementation are often blamed on the President. Yet Presidents, in their capacity as heads of state, are expected to symbolize and attract everyone’s loyalty, providing a common focus of patriotism for all citizens. Clearly, the requirements of the first role often clash with those of the second.

In parliamentary regimes, where loyalty to the head of state (“king” or “ceremonial president”) can easily be dissociated from support/opposition to the head of government (prime minister in cabinet), citizens can more easily sustain their patriotic loyalty to the State while opposing the policies of the Government. When the two roles are linked, however, citizens easily confuse their dissatisfaction with Government with disloyalty to the State. As a result, opposition to the current Administration may produce discontent with the Constitution and provide support for coups and revolutionary movements: opposition to Government easily becomes treason to the State; dissent becomes revolution. The absence of a separate head of state may also deprive the regime of an important moderating force to help conciliate opposing political movements or tendencies in times of emergency.

But what Biden has done with his “garbage” remark goes beyond the problem of this fusion of roles. It demonstrates the inability for a head of government and party leader to serve as a head of state. It shows us a level of disdain brought about by partisan politics which eliminates the absurd claim that he is the head of state of the entire nation. This is an impossible concept to sustain if the head of state articulates a belief that a large portion of the state’s population is “garbage”.

One supposes this can be remedied by having a ceremonial office of president that is separate from that of the head of government. But in all such cases, the person holding these offices are typically members of political parties who are considered “elder statesmen”. Often they are just as partisan but more subdued, as more active members of their party.

Theoretically (and imagining Biden to be in excellent health in 5+ year) if Biden were to be given a position of the ceremonial head of state of a parliamentary U.S., is it likely his attitude about that portion of the population would be changed?

The other alternate of a semi-presidential system is also demonstrated to be very partisan. Whether France, Russia or any number of other nations which have adopted this system, the president is extremely partisan. That is probably a reflection of having to be directly elected.

This leaves us with one form of government which is superior to these alternatives: monarchism.

The superiority of monarchism in this respect is that the monarch is not beholden to any political or partisan group for their authority and position. They are instead the head of state to all the people because the state, though not easy to define, constitutes the geographical area as well as all the people living there. Not just the people who support them through elections, but all people, no matter their political affiliation.

In this extended timeline, Jahangir never ordered the execution of Guru Arjan Dev and maintained peaceful relations with the Sikhs. He also began to build a Mughal navy with the help of the East India Company. These changes to his policies fostered better relations with the Sikhs, which were one of the main reasons behind rebellions in northern India and the subsequent decline of the empire. Jahangir successfully repelled the Safavid invasion in 1622, keeping Kandahar under Mughal rule. This region was crucial for trade, which would have strengthened the economy of the Mughal Empire.

The trade initiatives and the development of a Mughal navy with the East India Company continued under Shah Jahan's reign.

Aurangzeb was not a religious fanatic; he maintained a policy of secularism .He never imposed jizya and cultivated good relations with both Sikhs and Hindus. Without the imposition of jizya, there would have been no Jat revolt, Sikh rebellions in northern India, or strained relations with the Rajputs, who were considered the backbone of the empire. Aurangzeb also succeeded in integrating the Pashtuns into the Mughal Empire through cultural exchange and strong relationships with local governors, meaning there would be no Pashtun rebellion, which had previously damaged the empire.

Aurangzeb had also reformed the Jagirdari System in which he implemented a more centralized system of revenue collection where land grants were more closely regulated, ensuring that the crown retained greater control over income and administration, hence avoiding the Jagirdari crisis. He also created Bureaucratic structure which helped The emperor to control Jagirs, Reduce corruption and Reduce the chances of Rebellions

Aurangzeb initiated Deccan expansion but only captured the northern territories of the Golconda and Bijapur Sultanates, which means there would be no prolonged Mughal-Maratha wars. He also recognized the Ahom Empire as an independent kingdom.

After the First Anglo-Mughal War, Aurangzeb expelled the East India Company from India instead of allowing them to trade. He died ten years earlier, in 1697, and ensured a secure and peaceful succession for his son, Bahadur Shah I.

After Aurangzeb's death, Bahadur Shah I ascended to the throne in 1697. He maintained the stability of the empire and peaceful relations with both the Rajputs and Sikhs. Bahadur Shah I also ensured a smooth succession for Azim-ush-Shan. Additionally, he initiated trade with France.

Without the instability caused by Aurangzeb's death, the Sayyid Brothers never became kingmakers, and nobles like Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah and Zulfiqar Khan did not gain significant influence in the Mughal court. Instead, Rajput chiefs could have emerged as the kingmakers of the empire.

Following Bahadur Shah I's death, the absence of instability in the empire meant that Mirza Azim-ush-Shan was never killed in 1712 and instead became the Mughal emperor. Azim-ush-Shan was much more experienced in governance than Jahandar Shah. Under his reign, art and trade flourished, and he ruled the empire until the early 1730s.

After Azim-ush-Shan's death, there was a brief war of succession lasting two to three months, during which Azim-ush-Shan's nephew, Rafi ud-Darajat , won the struggle after killing Farrukhsiyar and ascended to the throne. Rafi ud-Darajat never had tuberculosis , gaining the experience needed to govern the empire. Without the Mughal-Maratha wars and Sikh rebellions, Rafi ud-Darajat managed to repel the Afsharid invasion of the Mughal Empire, ruling until the late 1740s.

Without the Maratha invasion of northern India, there would have been no Afghan invasion either.

The Mughal Empire would require capable rulers and constant adaptation to the new world to survive and thrive.

Just a questio for curiosity

When it comes to making the idea of monarchy acceptable to public memory of today, media and entertainment are our best friends.

Long before television and computers, we had literature that tell the tale of monarchs, good and evil. Tales of kind and honorable kings and queens should serve as inspiration for future monarchs to lead their country properly while tales of cruel and psychopathic kings and queens should serve as a warning on what future monarchs should never do.

In this day and age, families and children in particular deserve better monarchist media and entertainment than before. Unfortunately, when your cultural hegemon is the United States, take three guesses as to how they portray monarchies in their media. Even the United Kingdom is starting to doubt the Royal Family in their media and that is bad news.

Then there is Japan. The sole East Asian monarchy with an Emperor as the nation's head of state. So far, Japan has produced this wonderful masterpiece last year known as Ohsama Sentai King-Ohger. It is Power Rangers, or Super Sentai in this regard, but with bugs and royalty as it's main motif. It explored the perks and pains of being a monarch with every single member of the Team being a monarch of their own kingdom. It also explored that kings and queens have citizens to feed and shelter, and will do anything for their people and kingdom, by any means necessary.

Because most of Tokusatsu being geared towards not just young children, but also young adults and parents who stayed for the intriguing storytelling, sexy actors and actresses, and high-end toys, there is a great chance for families to enjoy stories about what it means to be a great king and queen.

Also, Kamen Rider should also have its very own story that actually explores the themes of royalty and leadership to its fullest extent. There is this anniversary series called Zi-Ō (Time King) but I would not recommend because it is an anniversary season, and therefore should watch the seasons that came before it to get the full context.

Aside from Japan, there is Baahubali, a Tollywood epic blockbuster of a brave, kind-hearted, and badass prince whose father was slain by his cruel, sadistic, and manipulative brother. In the end he was able to overthrow his evil uncle and reclaim the throne for himself to start cleaning up the mess his slain uncle left. Even if India is currently a republic, and sadly a corrupt and divided one at that, there are still some stories that inspire people that a monarchy is better than a republic.

Currently, I write online novels laden with themes and subtexts of royalty, leadership, and power. Most of them explore what it means to be both a powerful and responsible monarch or leader in general.

If anything, we as monarchists should provide great media and entertainment so that families and societies will ingrain themselves into thinking that monarchy is the way to go.

I was recently researching Queen Elizabeth's family tree through Barbara of Celje and I went back enough to come across the Bagratuni family. According to familysearch.org, my primary source, Pancalo of Armenia, daughter of Ashot Msaker, married into the Mamikonian family to Greece, yet according to some other sources, Pancalo didn't even exist and her apparent son, Bardas I Mamikonian, was the son of a Greek noblewoman. What is true?