From Polcompball Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Not to be confused with Minarchism

"For monarchy to work, one man must be wise. For democracy to work, a majority of the people must be wise. Which is more likely?"

Monarchism is an ideology that believes in a government with a monarch at the head. Monarchs are rulers who govern a country until they die or are abdicated and hold titles like king or queen. Monarchism can be in any quadrant as most ideologies authoritarian or libertarian, conservative or progressive, economically left or right, can have a monarch if they want to.

The child of Tribalism, he is one of the oldest ideologies in the Polcompball canon, being born at the cradle of civilization itself (possibly born even 12,000 years ago).


Creation of Monarchies

The historical shift from tribal confederacies to monarchies marks a significant transformation in the organization of human societies. These changes reflect a complex process of political, social, and cultural adaptations that vary depending on the region and historical context.

Centralization of Power

One of the fundamental aspects of the transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy is the centralization of power. In a tribal confederacy, power is dispersed among various tribes or clans, each maintaining a certain level of autonomy. The shift to a monarchy entails the consolidation of power under a single ruler or royal family, overseeing the entire territory. This process may involve negotiation, alliances, or military conquest to unite the disparate tribes under one authority.

Establishment of a Bureaucracy

To effectively govern a larger territory with a diverse population, a monarchy necessitates an organized bureaucracy. This includes the creation of administrative divisions, tax collection systems, and legal structures. Consequently, the transition to a monarchy typically involves the development of a more formalized and hierarchical governing system, allowing for efficient management of the state's affairs.

Creation of a Common Identity

In a tribal confederacy, tribes or clans may possess their own distinct cultures, languages, and traditions. The establishment of a monarchy often necessitates the development of a shared identity to foster unity among the diverse population. This process can involve the adoption of a common language, the establishment of shared cultural practices, and the promotion of a national myth or narrative that links all people together.

Expansion of Military Capabilities

A monarchy typically requires a larger and more organized military to maintain control over its territory and protect against external threats. The transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy may involve the creation of a standing army, the development of new military technologies, and the establishment of military academies or training facilities to ensure the state's security.

Infrastructure Development

A unified monarchy may require the construction of new infrastructure to support its administration, defense, and economic growth. This can include the building of roads, bridges, and fortifications, as well as the establishment of new cities or the expansion of existing ones. These infrastructure developments facilitate trade, communication, and the overall functioning of the state.

Changes in Social Structure

The establishment of a monarchy can lead to changes in social structure, with the creation of new classes or the reorganization of existing ones. For example, a new aristocracy might emerge, composed of individuals who have been granted land and titles by the monarch. Additionally, the roles of tribal leaders or elders may change, with some being incorporated into the new governing system while others may lose their influence or authority.

Legitimization of the Monarchy

The transition to a monarchy often requires the development of a system of legitimacy, which can involve religious or ideological justifications for the ruler's authority. This might include the promotion of a divine right to rule or the creation of a new state religion that supports the monarchy. This legitimization process reinforces the ruler's authority and consolidates their power.


The transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy involves a significant reorganization of political, social, and cultural structures. While the specific changes may vary depending on the historical context, the process generally entails the centralization of power, the establishment of a bureaucracy, and the creation of a shared identity among the diverse population.


The Kingdom of France lasted for almost a thousand years and, obviously, there were a great many changes in government during all of that time. That, in itself, puts the lie to the republican misconception that France under the monarchy knew nothing but stagnation. On the contrary, the government of the Kingdom of France grew up in an organic way and changed according to the circumstances of the time, all under the unchanging supervision of the monarchy. When France as we know it today was originally formed there was very little government at all other than the monarchy, growing out of the barbarian customs of warrior kings and loyalty to your family chieftain. These were superseded by the Franco-German empire of Charlemagne and after the division of that body by the Kingdom of France most today would be familiar with. Because of its roots in the Dark and Middle Ages, the Kingdom of France was originally governed in a very diverse and decentralized way, not at all how most picture the Kingdom of France. However, those beginnings are significant and, really, never entirely went away.

While the King and his court focused on issues such as national defense and foreign relations, the provinces were mostly left to their own devices. They had their own governors, parliaments and their own laws which varied from place to place according to local custom and individual circumstances. The legal system was not uniform itself, being based more on tradition in the north (like English common law) while being much more similar to Roman law in the southern parts of the country. In theory the power of the monarch was absolute but, in fact, the vast majority of local issues were considered outside of the purview of the King and were left in the hands of local nobles, clerics and officials. Eventually there would be over thirty parliaments in France, spread throughout the country. Certain regions such as Brittany and Burgundy also had their own “Estates Provincial” which had local powers of legislation and taxation and consisted of representatives of the common people, nobility and clergy in that particular region. It was a system that could be quite confusing and difficult to manage with government bodies frequently overlapping in their jurisdictions. However, this also served as a check against overreaching by those in authority even if it was not particularly efficient.

The problem with this system was that, under the right circumstances, it could be a major danger to national unity and internal peace and order. This basically came about with the spread of Protestantism in France. Unlike the earlier Albigensians, the Protestants persisted in parts of France and local governors, nobles and finally members of the Royal Family embraced Protestantism and made it a powerful force in France. Naturally the Wars of Religion ultimately broke out between the Catholic and Protestant factions and this had a devastating impact on the country. In the end, it would also bring about major changes in how France was governed. It was the Wars of Religion that really ended the old decentralized form of government France had known for centuries with most power being retained to the lower levels. This series of civil wars was something no one wanted to see return and the man in charge, who determined to prevent such a thing from ever happening again, was Cardinal Richelieu. In the name of King Louis XIII, Cardinal Richelieu set about demolishing the castles of the nobility and centralizing power in France into the hands of the King (with the Cardinal of course being the ‘power behind the throne’) while during the same period Gallicanism became a powerful trend by which the Church became more subordinate to the Crown rather than the Pope in Rome.

The peak of this centralization of power in France, both political and spiritual, is usually illustrated by the reign of King Louis XIV of France; the quintessential absolute monarch. Because France had been so traumatized by the religious and other civil wars that preceded him, most people were quite happy to see King Louis XIV take charge of everything himself. He dismissed the man who was effectively his prime minister, placing everything in the hands of government officials chosen by himself. Louis XIV also brought about greater legal uniformity with his “Code Louis”, streamlined taxation (which brought in more revenue) and encouraged manufacturing as well as the arts. On the religious front, he clashed with the Church often in both the private and public spheres but he was a staunch enough Catholic to never think of doing something dramatic as the King of England and founding his own church. Nobles came and lived in Versailles where all real power was concentrated in the country. For a time, it seemed to work and after the War of Spanish Succession when the Bourbon dynasty was successfully transplanted to Spain, it is no wonder that the new Spanish monarchs followed the example of King Louis XIV and began to centralize power in that country as well.

King Louis XIV, however, was a very talented and energetic man, a larger-than-life figure, and, obviously, not every monarch could be expected to be just like him and the period when centralization in France was most successful was during his reign. Even when Louis XIV made mistakes, he did not persist in them but was quick to change course and try something new so that, it did not matter so much that he was no brilliant statesmen but that he had the drive to always take action. Power was centralized in France under Cardinal Richelieu and that worked fairly well given that the Cardinal was a clever (if sometimes unscrupulous) man. It worked under King Louis XIV for reasons just discussed, however, there would come a time when there would be no Cardinal Richelieu and no “Sun King” and that is when the flaws in this massive centralization of power became evident. Under “the beloved” King Louis XV, French power began to stagnate, corruption became problematic and the nobles and clerics often neglected their local people. After the death of Louis XIV, the French nobility saw their power rise again but too many did not use this to benefit those under their care. The classes in France or the three estates of the nobility, clergy and commons became increasingly alien to one another. The Estates-General itself, the national assemblies of the three classes, was not called into session throughout most of the long reign of Louis XIV and throughout the entirety of the reign of Louis XV.

King Louis XVI did his best to put things back on the right track, trying to roll back some of the centralization of power that existed under his grandfather and great-great grandfather. He ordered the reinstatement of the local parliaments that had mostly been abolished after successfully opposing an effort by Louis XV to have the nobility pay taxes, he believed in listening to the voice of the people. He called an Assembly of Notables to address the economic crisis and when that fell through took the more drastic step of recalling the Estates-General. As we know from history, things quickly got out of hand from that point on thanks to unscrupulous officials and a class of professional agitators who made the destruction of the Kingdom of France their primary goal in life. It was the ruination of a great and historic opportunity to see the Kingdom of France put on a more balanced framework after swinging between the extremes of centralization and de-centralization. In the person of King Louis XVI the French had a monarch who genuinely cared for his people and wanted to know their opinions while also appreciating the safeguards and sacred foundations of his own absolute power.


The Kingdom of Bhutan, “Land of the Thunder Dragon” occupies a unique place in the world. The Bhutanese monarchy is actually fairly recently established and is one of the few cases of a monarchy springing up in the XX Century rather than being torn down. It is the only monarchy (or the only country of any kind) which has Mahayana Buddhism as the official state religion and it is the only remaining independent monarchy in the central Asian area (since the demise of the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal). It is also relatively unknown to most of the outside world, which is not surprising since it kept itself fairly isolated until recent years. It is perhaps best known, among monarchists at least, for its measuring rod of “Gross National Happiness” as opposed to Gross National Product. Bhutan was content to keep to its traditional ways, maintain its unique customs and more or less ignore the world beyond its borders. Politics was non-existent as the people devoted themselves to their work and their faith and left what little governing there was to do in the hands of their beloved ‘Dragon King’. More than a few referred to it as a real-life version of Shangri-La, an isolated Himalayan kingdom with no divisions, no strife, no crime, no modern conveniences but no modern complications to go with them and a very simple and peaceful way of life. To many, it seemed like paradise.

Bhutan was first unified in the seventeenth century and from that time was ruled as a Buddhist theocracy by a reincarnating lama in a system of government similar to that in neighboring Tibet. The ruler was the Shabdrung or “Dharma Raja” as he was also sometimes known. Although he usually had final say in matters, officially the secular affairs of the country were to be handled by a regent called the Druk Desi or “Deb Raja”. These early rulers were often Tibetan lamas, sometimes refugees and sometimes guests invited over to help. The man most held as the founder of modern Bhutan was Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyel who came to Bhutan from Tibet in 1616 as a political refugee. He unified Bhutan and by the time of his death only the eastern provinces were not under his rule and those were even then in the process of being conquered. He overcame Tibetan invasions and the opposition of other religious factions to his rule. The Drukpa nobles who were loyal to him were rewarded with tax exemptions, titles and special privileges. By the time of his death, most of modern Bhutan was united and under his control and diplomatic relations had been established with neighboring Tibetan and Indian princes as well as Nepal. He cemented his rule with the building of large monastery-fortresses in all the major valleys of the country and for the most part these survive to this day as a lasting reminder of his legacy. Many of the government positions he established to administer the country, likewise, survive to the present day.

For such a large and dominant figure there was, not surprisingly, some turmoil when he died and at one point there was no less than five men all with factions behind them claiming to be the legitimate reincarnation of the Shabdrung. When one called upon Tibet for assistance in pressing his claim the result was the last and most successful Tibetan invasion of Bhutan. Were it not for the Tibetan lamas calling for peace and an end to the fighting, Bhutan might have been conquered and remained a part of Tibet. Others also tried to obtain the help of the Manchus to offset the influence of Tibet and establish a lasting peace. In 1734 both sides sent emissaries to the Manchu Emperor in Peking seeking arbitration of their problem but, in the event, things were solved mostly by those involved locally, aided by the death of several of the major contenders. In the end, diplomatic relations with Tibet were established as well as an annual tribute to the Tibetan court and through them eventually to the Manchu court in China. It could, technically, be considered a loss of sovereignty for Bhutan but, in effect, it was no different from the numerous other local rulers from countries as far flung as Mongolia, Vietnam and Korea who recognized Imperial China as the dominant power of the region while still managing their own affairs to varying degrees.

A more smoothly functioning Buddhist theocracy was established though, rather like Tibet after the death of the “Great Fifth” the Shabdrung often had only nominal superiority while the regent was the one who actually ruled the country. Under their leadership, Bhutan began to grow and expand. This brought the country to the attention of the British after Bhutanese incursions into Sikkim and other states in northern India. The British launched a military expedition that expelled the Bhutanese and seized several of their border forts in 1772 but when final peace was made in 1774 these were returned. During this crisis, Bhutan and Nepal both sought the arbitration of the Panchen Lama of Tibet due to fears of the growth of British power in neighboring India. The British were a growing presence in the region and began taking a greater interest in both Tibet and Bhutan, observing, for example, the minor rebellions that resulted from the overthrow of the regent Zhidar. He was replaced by Tritrul Jigme Senge who kept things more or less stable until his retirement in 1788 after which were several decades of chaos and instability under a succession of regents of various quality. Some tried to rule in partnership with the Shabdrung, probably in an effort to gain a religious shield for themselves, while others tried to enlist other lamas to partner with them but to little avail.

In 1808, however, the lama Tsultrim Drakpa was persuaded to take the throne but then later persuaded the Shabdrung, Jigme Drakpa, to take the throne himself, though he had grave misgivings about it and did so against his better judgment. Chaos quickly ensued as the followers of Tsultrim Drakpa had no wish to lose their positions to the followers of the Shabrdrung and they instigated a rebellion. This is where the story becomes more than a little bit complicated, particularly for outsiders to the unique religious beliefs of the region in question. No sooner did this rebellion get underway then another faction joined in made up of the followers of Yeshe Gyelsten, who was the “verbal incarnation” of the Shabdrung and who they installed as a rival regent in a rival court to the “mental incarnation” of the Shabdrung. Political and religious powers aligned themselves on either side and went to war. Eventually, a settlement was reached in which both incarnations would act as joint-regents but, in the end, violence and circumstance was what really solved the factional dispute. Fights over the regency continued, to the utter distress of the Shabdrung, to the point that revolts almost became a national tradition. However, all of that was soon to change when a new, dynamic force entered the field.

Jigme Namgyel was born in 1825, a younger son of a noble family with deep spiritual ties and a high reputation as warriors as well. In his youth he spent time working as a common herdsman and had quite a colorful life, gaining some note for his great strength and athletic prowess as well as his good character and common sense. He became a major figure in the frequent wars and rebellions of Bhutan and came to be seen as quite a champion. A lama absolved him of the obligation to separate from his wife while holding office and presented him with a special helmet, the first “Raven Crown” of Bhutan which was imbued with the essence of two forms of the fierce, protecting deity Mahakala; the Northern Demon and the ‘Raven-headed Mahakala of Action’. His subsequent victories in battle were attributed to the spiritual protection of his headgear and, in different forms as new models have been created, it remains the crown and symbol of kingship in Bhutan to this day. In any event, he ultimately came to power and was known as the “Black Regent” and he brought about some relative calm and quiet, consolidating his control over at least half of the country but most importantly by setting the stage for the accomplishments of his descendants.

The “Black Regent” was succeeded as Penlop of Trongsa (basically a sort of governor) by his son Gongsa Ugyen Wangchuk. He was the leader of the pro-British faction in opposition to the more pro-Tibet faction as to who Bhutan should align with. He was victorious and gained further prestige by mediating a dispute between Tibet and British India after which he was made a Knight Commander of the Indian Empire. Later, because of the long history of internal disputes and civil wars under the theocracy, in 1907 Ugyen Wangchuk was made the first King of Bhutan and the country was either a part of the British Empire or at least within the British sphere of influence certainly. Diplomatically, it was dealt with by the British as a princely state of India but Bhutan remained set apart and still maintained its very close and traditional ties with Tibet. On the domestic front, the new succession of Kings of Bhutan brought, after some minor trouble that was to be expected, a new period of peace and calm for the Himalayan kingdom. Government was extremely simplified by the new arrangement and there was an end to the constant cycle of rebellions and struggles over the regency for the nominal religious leader. The Kingdom of Bhutan led a happy, peaceful life, mostly isolated from the outside world with only the occasional diplomatic contact, usually with India.

World War I and World War II passed by Bhutan with no impact at all. The latter conflict came during the reign of the third monarch of Bhutan, King Jigme Dorji, who took some modest steps toward modernity by allowing some conveniences into the country, such as wheeled carts to haul crops; nothing very dramatic at all. Later in his reign, however, some more innovative steps were taken when he established a High Court for Bhutan and a National Assembly, described by some as a unicameral legislature. Eventually it would even be given the power to remove the King himself with a two-thirds majority vote. For the time being though, Bhutan remained an absolute monarchy. These baby steps towards democracy were not taken by most people as being terribly significant. However, what was seen as a major change was the increase in diplomatic contacts with the outside world which were necessitated by the aggression of Communist China and the earth-shattering changes brought about after Chairman Mao came to power. The very idea of military conflict of any sort had become a distant memory in Bhutan. They had their revered and beloved kings, their devout Buddhist faith and strong ties with the neighboring Empire of India and Kingdom of Tibet, for as long as most could remember, and the people were happy and content. Things seemed serenely ideal for Bhutan when, all of a sudden, the world around them started to come apart.

First, there was the collapse of the British Empire and what affected Bhutan the most was, of course, the end of the Empire of India. The relationship had been ideal by Bhutanese standards; the British Empire protected them but as there had never been any real need to avail themselves of this protection, neither Britain or India ever bothered much about Bhutan so the security was more akin to a good insurance policy that left Bhutan free and independent but still able to call on British India for help should a crisis ever arise. Suddenly, Bhutan was informed that the British were gone, the Empire of India was gone and suddenly in its place were several new republics. Bewildered, but eager to maintain things as they had been, Bhutan quickly recognized Indian independence and arranged a treaty with India similar to the one they had with the British Empire (in fact, it took much longer for the Republic of India to recognize the independence of Bhutan in return). It was quite a shock but, in the end, for Bhutan at least, very little had actually changed. Then, however, came even more shocking news when the communist Chinese People’s Liberation Army invaded and subjugated Tibet, annexing it to China and forcing the Dalai Lama to flee into exile in India.

In 1959 the Chinese communists seized control of the Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet and, to this day, these remain the source of an official territorial dispute between the Kingdom of Bhutan and the People’s Republic of China. It was after these frightening events that the King began to take steps to modernize Bhutan, at least somewhat, and to establish stronger ties with the international community. There was further alarm in 1975 when the nearby Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim abolished its monarchy and was annexed by the Republic of India. Fearful that the same could happen to Bhutan, the King began to establish official ties with more foreign countries and to send representatives to international organizations, such as joining the United Nations. Concerns were also raised due to the short Sino-Indian War both because of the violation of Bhutanese territory by Red Chinese forces and because of doubts that India could be relied on to defeat the Chinese if Bhutan ever had to avail itself of her protection.

However, it was under the next monarch, King Jigme Singye, that Bhutan began to change in a really dramatic way. During his reign, Bhutan joined many more international organizations, drew even closer to India and, most significantly, started the legal transformation from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. Throughout his reign, and, after his abdication, that of his son, democracy was introduced to Bhutan and the first political parties were established. At the time, many had considerable misgivings about these developments. People who valued the unity and serenity of Bhutanese life feared that political parties would create divisions amongst the people. There was also the introduction of television, foreign fashions and modern technology to the country. All of these have, in their own way, caused problems for Bhutan and the traditional life of the country is certainly not the way it used to be. However, the King remains extremely popular and certainly the new class of politicians are anxious to forge ahead and keep their newly acquired positions. It is not the Bhutan that used to be but, for those inclined to be harsh regarding the changes (and it is certainly tempting to be) one has to keep in mind the larger geo-political picture. The world had changed since Bhutan found peace and contentment as a monarchy and the last thing the Kings of Bhutan wanted was to see their beloved country go the way of Tibet or even Sikkim, swallowed up by a larger neighbor without anyone in the rest of the world doing anything about it or perhaps not even noticing at all.




King Culture

On the internet there are some men-focused movements and groups which are opposed to the ideas of both Manosphere and Men's Liberation. It dislikes Manoshere's toxicity and hatred towards women and its usual non-traditional and one sided view of relationships. It does, however, also dislike, even more, Men's Liberation's attempt to "free" men from traditional masculinity and its general progressivism. Instead it wants men to embrace traditional masculinity and work on self-improvement. It is generally against the "modern wester lifestyle" and wants men to free themselves from modern degeneracy, such as pornography and extreme consumerism. Work out and read good litterature (such as the Bible or philosophy) is what it believes men should do instead of partaking in the lifestyle which western society promotes.



British political scientist Vernon Bogdanor justifies monarchy on the grounds that it provides for a nonpartisan head of state, separate from the head of government, and thus ensures that the highest representative of the country, at home and internationally, does not represent a particular political party, but all people.[18] Bogdanor also notes that monarchies can play a helpful unifying role in a multinational state, noting that "In Belgium, it is sometimes said that the king is the only Belgian, everyone else being either Fleming or Walloon" and that the British sovereign can belong to all of the United Kingdom's constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), without belonging to any particular one of them.[18]

Private interest

Thomas Hobbes wrote that the private interest of the monarchy is the same with the public. The riches, power, and humour of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects. An elected Head of State is incentivised to increase his own wealth for leaving office after a few years whereas a monarch has no reason to corrupt because he would be cheating himself.

Wise counsel

Thomas Hobbes wrote that a monarch can receive wise counsel with secrecy while an assembly cannot. Advisors to the assembly tend to be well-versed more in the acquisition of their own wealth than of knowledge; are likely to give their advices in long discourses which often excite men into action but do not govern them in it, moved by the flame of passion instead of enlightenment. Their multitude is a weakness.

Long termism

Thomas Hobbes wrote that the resolutions of a monarch are subject to no inconsistency save for human nature; in assemblies, inconsistencies arise from the number. For in an assembly, as little as the absence of a few or the diligent appearance of a few of the contrary opinion, "undoes today all that was done yesterday".

Civil war reduction

Thomas Hobbes wrote that a monarch cannot disagree with himself, out of envy or interest, but an assembly may and to such a height that may produce a civil war.


The International Monarchist League, founded in 1943, has always sought to promote monarchy on the grounds that it strengthens popular liberty, both in a democracy and in a dictatorship, because by definition the monarch is not beholden to politicians.

British-American libertarian writer Matthew Feeney argues that European constitutional monarchies "have managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics"—specifically fascism, communism, and military dictatorship—"in part because monarchies provide a check on the wills of populist politicians" by representing entrenched customs and traditions. Feeny notes that:

European monarchies—such as the Danish, Belgian, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, and British—have ruled over countries that are among the most stable, prosperous, and free in the world.

Socialist writer George Orwell argued a similar point, that constitutional monarchy is effective at preventing the development of Fascism.

"The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions. A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism...It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided Fascism have been constitutional monarchies... I have often advocated that a Labour government, i.e. one that meant business, would abolish titles while retaining the Royal Family.’

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn took a different approach, arguing that liberty and equality are contradictions. As such, he argued that attempts to establish greater social equality through the abolishment of monarchy, ultimately results in a greater loss of liberty for citizens. He believed that equality can only be accomplished through the suppression of liberty, as humans are naturally unequal and hierarchical. Kuehnelt-Leddihn also believed that people are on average freer under monarchies than they are under democratic republics, as the latter tends to more easily become tyrannical through ochlocracy. In Liberty or Equality, he writes:

There is little doubt that the American Congress or the French Chambers have a power over their nations which would rouse the envy of a Louis XIV or a George III, were they alive today. Not only prohibition, but also the income tax declaration, selective service, obligatory schooling, the fingerprinting of blameless citizens, premarital blood tests—none of these totalitarian measures would even the royal absolutism of the seventeenth century have dared to introduce.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe also argues that monarchy helps to preserve individual liberty more effectively than democracy.

Natural desire for hierarchy

In a 1943 essay in The Spectator, "Equality", British author C.S. Lewis criticized egalitarianism, and its corresponding call for the abolition of monarchy, as contrary to human nature, writing,

A man's reaction to Monarchy is a kind of test. Monarchy can easily be 'debunked'; but watch the faces, mark well the accents, of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach—men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch...Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

Political accountability

Oxford political scientists Petra Schleiter and Edward Morgan-Jones wrote that in monarchies, it is more common to hold elections than non-electoral replacements.


  • Monarchism will take on characteristics of a stereotypical king or queen (which depending on your view might be anything from a warrior hero to lazy, inbred, sexually deviant, pious, entitled proto-bourgeoisie).
  • He uses divine right to rule and believes that God has ordained them their reign. Even though some monarchs are secular, they often believe that religion is necessary to unify the people.
  • He has hundreds of mistresses/concubines/harem which usually hang out in his castle (or bedroom).
  • He fights a lot with Feudalism, which sometimes gets violent.

How to Draw

Flag of Monarchism
  1. Draw a ball with eyes
  2. Fill it with purple
  3. Add a crown on top (Gold for the crown, and red for the jewels)

And you're done!

Color Name HEX RGB
Purple #B83DBA 184, 61, 186
Gold #FEE400 254, 228, 0
Red #FF0000 255, 0, 0


Loyalists and Family

Questionably Loyal

Filthy Peasants

  • Dennis - I order you to BE QUIET!!!!!!
    • : "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
  • Longism - Take that crown off, now. You're not a king and neither are those you claim to made into kings.
  • Enlightenment Thought - Dirty peasant kicked me off my own estate!
  • Roman Republicanism - The Roman Republic shall be reorganized into the FIRST ROMAN EMPIRE!
  • Jacobinism - Get that guillotine away from me!
  • American Model - 1776, never forget!
  • Marxism–Leninism - You destroyed the Romanov dynasty! Filthy red bastards!
  • Kritarchy - What do you mean I have been judged guilty of murdering 19 children and multiple instances of genocide, incestuous relationships and forced marriage?
  • Nazism - National and racial identity is a modernist concept made by those Enlightenment freemasons for fooling the peasants, you dirty populist rat! Germans should only obey for a Kaiser, not a modernist crap named "Fatherland"! But we both dislike those hook-nosed bankers.

Further Information



Examples of Monarchies and Royal Families


Online Communities





Comics and Artwork