/monarchy/ vs /2hu/ game starts at 21:00 UTC https://cytu.be/r/infinitycup Who will carry the team? Charles II of Spain? Henry VIII? Louis XIV? Leopold II? The Queen's Corgi? Nicholas II? K. James VI & I? Caligula? Charles V or alpha-chan? Grace-chan? /icup/ should begin in less than an hour.

Monarcucks pounding sand; losing hope.

commiecat poster containment thread WARNING: NSFW privilege granted ONLY here Thread related to >>4632

My favourite prince? It'd have to be Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin. He was an explorer and a scientist!

DIOS PATRIA Y REY

i have come to witness the crowning of the jewel i have given present yourself to me or by allah i will take it back by force

Is this the only wholesome board on 8chan?

Given that Graceposter is engaging in the retardation of walls of text, I must counter with a thread of Based Thought. As is always the case with Based Thought, these thoughts will be no more than a sentence or two, as to spend too much time thinking about one particular subject is harmful.

Are there any around here? Do you see any positive change in China in the near or far future when it comes to monarchy in China?

In this world, Norway and Sweden unite as Kingdoms before the start of the Viking age and Norway and Sweden form an early non-Aggression pact. The reason? To resist Christianity and the Northern Crusades (NC). While Denmark succumbs to Catholicism, converting before facing the NC, Norway and Sweden remain stubbornly 'Pagan,' and refuse to let those who reject the worship of the Aesir-Vanir into the nobility. Denmark in this timeline plays the role of Prussia in our timeline but at a much earlier date. As a result of less in-fighting, the Nordic nations have become first-tier super-powers as opposed to their backwater status in our timeline. The Danish and French Empires are officially Catholic and have a non-Aggression pact similar to the one the Northern Empires have. The Norwegian Empire remains majority 'Germanic Pagan,' although Buddhism, Taoism, and even 'heretical' (non-Catholic) Christianity have also spread to some degree among peasants. In the Swedish Empire, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, and non-Catholic Christianity form the major religions while the nobility is still required to primarily worship the Aesir-Vanir. Only racially Nordic people that worship the Aesir-Vanir are permitted to be nobility in the Northern Empires. Christians and other races are locked out of official power. Meanwhile, the Catholic Empires do not tolerate any public religious diversity, even among peasants. In this timeline, Religion, Monarchy, and Feudalism are still absolute, with the exception of Switzerland. The Renascence happened in Italy, and the industrial revolution began in Britain but they didn't lead to serious political reform nor the total abandonment of villages. The Protestant Reformation happened but never achieved political power. The Japanese Empire remains Shinto, Buddhists, feudal, and isolationist in that foreigners are not welcome without an invitation by a Daimyo, yet Japan is not closed to trade. The Arabian Caliphate is this timeline's primary source of chaotic 'terrorism.' All within the Caliphate are slaves to Allah, even the Caliph. This is a common saying in the Caliphate, and it may be true, but there are ranks of slaves, and a Black is not permitted to be the master of an Arab or whiter muslim. In war, Blacks form the majority of foot soldiers. By 1999, technology has advanced to the point the Norwegian Empire has landed a Man on the Moon and nuclear weapons have been tested by all major powers, although never used. 'Internets' exist but are niche. Taking the train is more common than taking a personal car. The internal combustion engine although discovered, was banned for peasants for 'polluting the air.' Large urban development is largely restricted to rail corridors and rivers. There are far more legal jurisdictions than in our timeline and far fewer jurisdictional agreements. Marriage is still the primary method of class advancement. https://8chan.moe/voxxe/res/4254.html#q4830

I've been thinking a lot about the problem of 'libido dominandi' (or 'the lust for power') in the political sphere, the ramifications of it, the incentive systems and structures that exacerbate it, and likewise the incentive systems and structures that help abate it. I think it is one of the central causes for concern in political systems. It corrupts the leader who is power-craven, making them emotionally enfeabled, and within short order incredibly corrupt or much worse arrogant with "good intentions." Because of this, I think it is the central cause for the eventual failure of Democracies and Republics. In fact, the leaders chosen in a Democracy or Republic have to choose to run for office, which means that right from the get go they lust for power. In other words, the problems of libido dominandi are baked into the very nature of a Democracy/Republic. What I find interesting about demarchy (or sortition) is that it is a system that at least has a chance to choose individuals who don't want power, or an even better arrangement, individuals who absolutely hate the job and want to do as little of it as possible. When I was trying to think through other institutional arrangements where this might possibly be the case, monarchism was another natural fit. True, there were monarchs who wanted power, like "l'etat c'est moi" Sun King, but there were also rulers like Pedro II, who very much seemed like he absolutely detested being King. What do you guys think about the "lust for power," demarchy, etc.?

Discuss /ck/ related to /monarchy/. Talk about what royalty would eat. How they would eat. Historical feasts / banquets. >Dining in public was an important aspect of royal display and a way of offering access to the sovereign. Important members of the court were given the honour of serving the king, carving his meat and pouring his wine in front of a crowd of spectators >Public dining was a frequent practice in the reign of James I (1566–1625), who liked elaborate spectacle and lavish entertainment. Following the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the custom was revived by Charles II (1630–85) with great splendour and ritual. While breakfast and supper were private, the king's dinner, eaten in the mid-afternoon, was held at least once a week in the Presence Chamber of the state apartments or in the Banqueting House at Whitehall. >Each member of the household in attendance had a specific role in serving the meal. Three officers attended: a carver, server and a cup bearer who each presented the king with dishes while on bended knee. A procession of liveried servants would then bring the food to the king's table. The king would choose from the food offered and his attendants would carve and taste each portion before placing it before him. Spectators were allowed to revel in the ritual feasting from behind a balustrade or a rail.

& for discussion on Russia / Ukraine.

I could get behind this monarchy stuff tbh, but how do you explain how The Greatest Leader in Human History was elected as President of a Republic?

There is already a Telegram group for we can talk? i only knows this group, but it is on spanish https://t.me/joinchat/gmn3MTCeYtNmOTAx

It's not legitimate without Grace chan!