https://preview.redd.it/rv9h6pyowd4e1.png?width=243&format=png&auto=webp&s=87744eaf522f2291171088428c5f365d876565ed

Recently I had this blurry image of a circlet-shaped crown floating through my instagram feed and I am very interested in it. Looking at a glance this seems like the crown of a Christian Monarch since you have what looks like a cross above the circular shaped gemstone (forgive the lack of a better term) but when I tried to use google lens to find out which monarchy this crown belongs to I can't seem to find it.

Also I am interested in finding out the gemstones necessary to make this. I assume the one in the middle is a diamond due to how shiny it is, the ones at the highest point of the crown alongside the one perpendicular to it on the bottom of the band are emeralds, and the ones beside them are rubies or spinels and then emeralds again, with the ones at the far end of the band being imperial topaz or fire opal. I also noticed some very small gemstones set on what looks to be dots. Sorry for the poor description, I am not very well versed in jewelry.

Left to right: Archduke Joseph Arpad, Archduchess Anna Monika Pia holding Archduke Istvan, Archduchess Margarethe, Archduke Joseph Franz, Archduchesses Ilona and Anna Theresia (1934)

View Poll

201 years ago today, the ceremonies of segregation and coronation were held for the first emperor of Brazil, dom Pedro I.

The date surely wasn’t picked at random. The ongoing process of independence that was happening in the new empire was the symbol for resistance, breakup and continuity, and the coronation obviously shouldn’t contradict what the newly-independent Brazil was standing for. The day of the event, December 1st, was symbolic. It was on that date where Portugal lived its “independence restoration“, ending the Iberian Union and seeing the rise of the Bragança dynasty on the throne.

To mark the date, Pedro I created the Imperial Order of the Cross. A young nation’s grand national celebration and first coronation!

Coronation of Pedro I, Jean Baptiste-Debret

Pedro I on his coronation robes.

Pedro I during the “Throne Speech”.

Imperial Order of the Cross ( later renamed to “Order of the Southern Cross” by the Republic )

Pedro I’s crown. Its regalia was re-used on Pedro II’s crown ( fun fact: the crown was supposedly stolen during the Republican coup and its pieces found many years later on accident! Had the worker who noticed not been careful, it would’ve been burned and destroyed )

Now, before you ask, Why are there two WDs at a time? Isn't this some sort of crime? Is HBNTrader drunk, crazy, has his account been hacked, did he taste some of the really good stuff from Colombia, is there a civil war in the mod team, should I be concerned? Are the WDs now WMDs (Weekly Multiple Discussions)?

Well, there are two reasons:

• We know that we screwed up with the Weekly part of Weekly Discussion but we really want to get to fifty by the year's end.
• The other one is literally about Andorra. So ToryPirate and I decided that it would be hilarious if we became Co-Princes of the Weekly Discussion Department for a week. As to which one of us is Macron and which one is the Bishop, well, we'll leave that to you.
• And OK, we simply posted them at the same time, within minutes of eachother.

Sorry for disappointing you if you were looking forward to a nice, bloody succession war.

Now, this having been said, let's move on.

Nobility gets talked about, not just on /r/noblesseoblige where we deal with non-royal noble families and the sometimes very quirky laws and traditions concerning the creation, recognition and inheritance of titles. Nobility is something that is talked about on /r/monarchism and in many communities on the Right as something that a monarch must embody. "The King is the first noble" - not just because it is him alone who can grant titles, to confirm the social status of aristocrats or to promote new, deserving individuals and families to this class, but because he should serve as a role model for all nobles and aspirants to nobility, because he should emanate nobility.

Weekly Discussion Number 47 is here and this week's question is:

What does Nobility mean to you?

• How does one obtain, transmit and lose nobility - of course, in this case, independent of country-specific definitions and nobiliary law? Specifically, can people in a republic, or in a society that firmly refuses to recognise formal hereditary status, become noble and transmit the nobility they have earned to their descendants?
• Or, should nobility be regarded as a strictly legal status, something that you either have or you don't, regardless of personal qualities?
• Is status in the sociocultural sense important, does one need to be of high birth or high estate to be noble, or can a humble man act nobly?
• Can and should all men pursue to be noble? Or does society need individuals who respect nobility but accept that it just isn't for them?
• Should this kind of nobility be considered a class, something that all noble man have in common, perhaps thus justifying the institution of formally granting honours and titles of nobility? Or should it be something that everybody should strive for individually?
• What is the difference between a rich man and a noble man? (Is there any?)
• What is the difference between a good man and a noble man? (Is there any?)
• What is the difference between a heroic man and a noble man? (Is there any?)
• What is the difference between a virtuous man and a noble man? (Is there any?)
• What is the difference between a powerful man and a noble man? (Is there any?)
• What is the difference between a well-bred man and a noble man? (Is there any?)
• What is the difference between a strong man and a noble man? (Is there any?)
• What is the difference between a refined man and a noble man? (Is there any?)
• What is the difference between a pious man and a noble man? (Is there any?)

This week's discussion topic is a bit more speculative but should still be interesting.

Andorra is in the interesting situation of having co-princes as its rulers. Even more interesting (some would say weird) is that one of these co-princes is the president of France. The history of how Andorra got to this point is intriguing but to do a short point form summary;

• The bishop of Urgell was given sovereignty over Andorra.

• The bishop wasn't powerful enough to secure the principality against invasion and invited a nearby sovereign to become co-prince with him.

• Several successions later the co-prince is also the King of France.

• Revolutions, wars, and an upstart general later, it became custom that whoever ruled France (king, emperor, or president) also became co-prince of Andorra.

Obviously, the original rationale for their being co-princes no longer applies. Further, the transfer of sovereignty from the House of Bourbon was done without the king's consent (the position of co-prince was renounced by the First French Republic).

Which brings us to the crux of this discussion: What if one of the claimants to the French throne (Legitimist or Orleanist) were offered the position of co-prince for their line in exchange for them giving up all claim to the throne of France for them and their descendants?

Personally, this scheme would work best with Louis Alphonse de Bourbon making the throne of co-prince since legally his line has renounced the throne of France already. In many ways Louis Alphonse is representative of Andorra's position stuck between France and Spain as he has been involved in the politics of both countries (and is technically barred from succeeding to either).

I have left the Napoleon dynasty out of this discussion as they were traditionally elected and proclaimed emperor and I feel they should continue pursuing that tradition.

Rules of Engagement: As with any discussion of the French Succession, don't kill each other. Alternative options for solving the succession are welcome provided they aren't ones that have been mentioned a billion times already.

I was trying to look on Etsy for some pro-monarchy shops, but everything related to those terms was anti-monarchist/antifa/Marxist/New Left (and I could practically smell the bad BO through my computer screen). Does anyone know of any good small shops that create monarchist art or accessories?

To clarify once and for all the conflict with the Holy Roman Empire.

-Being Roman did not mean being so in its ethnic sense; the Roman Empire gathered a great melting pot of different ethnicities that were Romanized over time, either by the civic intervention of Rome (where there was greater cultural permeability) or by the evangelization of the church, in the case of the Germans, it was the church that introduced them to letters, mathematics, the written collection of knowledge, political organization, that is, the Greco-Latin civilization.

-It was also Holy (in reality, Sacred), because the one who crowned the emperor was the Pope, receiving bendition of the Church (intermediary between Christianity and God through Mystic Body of Christ), in addition to committing himself to the defense of Christendoom by his claims of Universal Power, as was the case of the Third Crusade (protecting Eastern Christians from Arab-Muslim), the Mongol Invasions (against Pagan raiders and expansionism), the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars (against Turkish-Muslim expansion), the Thirty Years' War (against the division of Cristian Church between Nordic-Germans and Southern-Latins) or the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (against Liberalism and Enlightment secularism menacing the Christian Social Order). Being so an organic continuation of the Western Roman and Carolingian geopolitics in defense of throne and altar, despite of human imperfections.

-It was also an empire: Charlemagne, Otto I the Great, Frederick I Barbarossa, Henry IV, Frederick II Hohenstaufen, Charles IV of Luxembourg, Charles V Habsburg of Germany and I of Spain, not to mention the great cultural renaissance that they introduced at the expense of the decanted "Roman" empire of the East after Eastern Schism, adhering to political-religious conflicts such as the Guelphs and Ghibellines, the fights for the imperial crown, the conflicts with the Pope for universal power (the dominium mundi) events that had great repercussions and historical weight throughout the Middle Ages and Early modern times.

Therefore, stop making absurd analogies of today's political structure with those of before, because they are nothing alike. There was no defined concept of the homeland (which in fact helped him define the Church with Saint Thomas Aquinas) nor did the modern centralized state exist with it's homogeneous political unions (which are more compatible with Republic than Imperium), there were no constitutions and parliaments did not function as they do today, modern man does not even know what a Fuero, a Landtag or the political weight of a prince or an archbishop were. Get out of your head that the feudal man was someone ignorant, they are crude nineteenth-century legends created by arrogant French philosophers with mental problems. Judge the Holy Roman Empire for what it was: the Holy Roman Empire.

• Inspired by another writing Made by Salazar (editor of Bola Hispánica blog).

For me, religion isn't an integral of monarchism. That doesn't mean I hate religion and wish for it to be abolished, but I am not gonna be convinced that any monarch in history has ever been ordained by a god.

Royal blood is as imaginary as money itself. Paper money is realistically not useful for anything, but yet it has such a major impact in the world because of our sheer belief in its worth, and royal blood is the same.

I do believe that a legitimacy of a dynasty is earned by how long it manages to keep its rule, and how well it can keep its successors loyal to its duty and traditions instead of just partying around until their parent dies and gets the crown handed to them.

Instead of some "Mandate of Heaven", it is pretty much instead a "Mandate of History". A monarch that is born from a long and enduring dynasty that takes more than a life time to build is already as divine as the claim of being sent by god.

Archduke Franz Karl of Austria is the closest direct descendant of Margaret Paleologa, which was the great^6 granddaughter of Andronikos II Palaiologos, the Byzantine Emperor. So in practice, Maximilian of Mexico is closer to the Palailogos in blood relations rather than Christian IX sons.

So what makes Otto of Greece is far more preferrable to Greeks rather than the descendants of AD Franz Karl?

As someone in the minorities of society, I cannot help but notice that parliamentary monarchies are some of the stable places to be for those on the fringes of society. One of my friends who is also queer and a veteran agreed with me that they would rather raise their kids in a system like Denmark, japan, or Britain than the USA. Why is it that those kinds of monarchies are so stable?

Hello everyone, a while ago I posted an ad for someone to partake in an interview in this sub, my first interviewee was attlerexLSPDFR (Brady). He was a wonderful interviewee and I'm happy how the vid turned out, still open to interviewing more people from here. Check out this video if you it interest you, thank you.

https://youtu.be/sVbdk61lihw

because the Vatican is a monarchy, but the pope/King gets elected. so isnt it tecnically a democracy?

Usermaatre Meryamun (Strong is the Maat of Re, Beloved of Amun), Second Pharaoh of the Twentieth Dynasty, during the New Kingdom Period of Egypt.

A brief rundown of his accomplishments:

-Successfully repelled an invasion from the mysterious Sea Peoples.

-Slowed down the decline of his empire through shrewd political and economic policy.

-Constructed the Medinet Habu, one of the largest funerary temples in Thebes.

-Credited for saving Egypt at a time when many Bronze Age civilizations were collapsing.