Meritocratic republicanism trumps all other lesser forms of goverment (including monarchism).
And in these days who has the right to take the crown? When just in my country (Bosnia) over 50 000 people trace their line to Kotromanić family and nearly every third family of Bosniaks trace them selves to medieval noble houses :/
Monarchisim is a thing of the past, but don't get me wrong I am not for rule of majority or some rampaging liberal democrat, I am a meritocrat I stand for rule of the best.
Kings are accountible to their people and their monarchy. Bad monarch CAN and ARE ousted successfully without bloodshed. The Glorious Revolution proves that it is possible to oust a bad monarch and put in a good one when the majority of the people disapprove of the monarch. The world has been fighting for a democratic ideal, while ignoring the tried and tested forumla of monarchy. Modern economics, politics and society isnt fit for democracy anymore.
And as for Monarchy's trait of non-instigation of its own belief system, explain to me the crusades. Also, explain to me the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, the enslavement of Africans, the subjugation of the central asian peoples by Czarist Russia, or the English Conquest of Ireland.
The crusades were a response to a massive expansion of the Islamic Caliphate during the Early Middle Ages. When the first crusade was declared, the Seljuk Turks were nearly at the gates of Constantinople, while Christian forces were in a deadlock with the Muslim Moors over control of Spain. It was not as much about spreading Christianity, as not having Christendom flanked by two unfriendly expansionist states.
The conquest of the Americas was based on political and economic interests. The same is the case with the Russian expansion into Central Asia. The English conquest of Ireland was no different. They had nothing to do with "imposing" their belief systems on others. There is no evidence to suggest that behind all of these military campaigns, the main motive was to spread their belief system. The main motive was political gain.
Also, how could Mr. King possibly represent all the people in the country, especially with populations as they are? Can a Christian monarch who is at war with another country represent a Buddhist in the kingdom who doesn't support war at all? If the monarch is only answerable to "God and his commandments", then how are the people's rights to be protected? The Judeo-Christian God spends the first five flattering himself anyway! He says nothing about the rights of human beings.
Unlike an elected official, a monarch is a political and social leader. A monarch can rule not only through the mechanism of the law, but also through his prestige. An unelected head of state is almost always a representative of a single political faction. With the exception of democratic monarchies, monarchs are naturally disassociated with divisive party rule. So it is easier for a monarch to work for the welfare of his subjects, because he is not tied to factions which represent ....
a sizable group in the nation's population. It would be against his best interest to play nationalities and religious groups against one another, since it would bring him no political gain, on the contrary. An elected official on the other hand, could gain political advantages by playing various groups against another.
From a classical liberal standpoint, a despotic monarch is better for liberty than mob rule. As Lord Acton once noted, "It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist."
government will be neccesary to propogate humanity to the stars, and to end the practice of war. If we can all just get over our pettiness and look up to the sky, we can pool our resources and create amazing things (also, don't even get me started on sedition and censorship in monarchical societies).
Pacifism will remain an ideal and war a reality. Pacifism means letting the non-pacifists have control. If the Western people were to swear to never fight another war, the Eastern people would act differently and would soon become rulers of the world. It is naive and over simplistic to think that humanity can achieve utopia just by wanting it enough.
If one blue-blood rules over everybody, then there is a pretty grave chance of said blue-blood being a bit of an asshole. I'm sure we can all cite examples of those. Also, if said blue-blood is a zealot, then hell generally rains down on those who believe in a different cosmic entity. If the wisest person in the kingdom is born a street sweeper (or a woman, for that matter), then that is exactly what he'll be. Personally, I prefer constitutional republics. Eventually though, a single Terran
If one commoner rules over all, then there is an even greater chance of him "a bit of an asshole." After all, rapid rises from obscurity to the prominence, often have negative effects on people. All one needs to do is to look at some popular musicians or actors to see this. While it is not pleasant to be under the tyranny of the few, the tyranny of the many can often be far worse, for it is considerably more difficult to restrain a million tyrants rather than one.
once almost all of europe was ruled by kings and emperors by the will of god himseft! but now thy are being ruled by maggots! thkz to the united shit of america! with there false ideology of peace now look whts happining now! :)
And I have say that, as a Portuguese Monarchist, this video makes me proud of being a Monarchist. "Por Deus, pela Pátria e pelo Rei" - was the Portuguese motto (For God, Country and King) - and it shall be so again, in the near future! The Portuguese people are starting to wake up to the cruel reality that the Republic has done nothing more than destroy what was left of Portugal. Thank you once again, ImperialRussiaGuard, for this amazing video.
This is EXACTLY why I am a monarchist. I feel it is closest to what God's government will be like during the Millennium. :) I am so sick of the US right now, I can't wait until I get to England.
PS - Hate to be a donkey, but I don't remember ever reading about Sir Winston Churchill serving as a monarch. ;)
well these days it's actually for queen god & country if your nation shares queen elizabeth II as the sovereign head of state. I'm australian we see no harm in sharing her and the rest of the english monarchy throughout the country.
Hey, don't forget to add in your next video that Monarchists (Royalists) are basically collectivists who put the matters of the State over the matters of the People, in fact there is no individual even the Queen (Or King) isn't an individual but the embodiment of the State, right. after all that's why they were born and we tiny peasant Mice couldn't being to comprehend the majestic abilities of a Monarch, after all God made them to Rule, and we should jsut get in line and kiss some royal arse.
What if the monarch is not standing for national identity, sovereignty, the uplift of the faith they are supposed to represent, or the interests of the people - and is in fact working hand in hand with those who are destroying the nation (people)? What does a monarchist do in that case?
@willyrobinson Overthrow that monarchist in place of another who can get his priorities in line as well as the priorities of one's nation like he/she is supossed to. As History teacher I've read and studies many monarchs who have alienated the will of the people and ended up thrown out of power either for a better monarch or fall into the hands of a republic or dicatorship.
@willyrobinson well charles I was executed because he was trying to rule with the divine rights of kings in england which sparked off the english civil war. then charles II was exiled, then james II was removed for the same reason and then parliament brought william III a protestant dutch king to reign over the english/british realms. so then, the bottom line is is that it's down to the representatives of the people....the member of parliaments to bound or remove the monarchs
@bizintin - the music being used is from the film THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS with Daniel Day-Lewis and Russell Means. The soundtrack clip is "Promentory" and is over eight minutes long.
Excellent video, I am so ashamed that many Catholic priests today never even touch on the topic of monarchy, when the monarchy did so much for the Church. everything has become so superficial!
@DrDeso1 I can't help but be amused by pseudo-intellectuals who ramble on how monarchy is a product of the "dark ages". Let us begin with the fact that monarchy existed long before even antiquity. The ancient Mesopotamian civilization is perhaps one of the earliest examples of monarchy. Also it is very interesting to note that during the "dark ages" monarch generally had very little power. It was local nobility that was the predominant political force during the early Middle ages.
@ImperialRussianGuard Indeed. And as Louis Napoleon III noted in his Napoleonic Ideas, monarchy and democracy are equally old. It's idiotic to pretend that either are more primitive or old-fashioned than the other.
@ImperialRussianGuard "It was local nobility that was the predominant political force during the early Middle ages" - A multitute of rulers ruling based off of family ties, economic and political influence and backed by armies of supporters often paid by that ruler....could have sworn you were talking about a republic huh?
@isurfu2ube It's amazing, people willfully subjugating themselves to a fellow human being, so much for free will... and it's not God's Will that made them kings, it's might makes Right and being Born, point in case Tsar Nicholas II or King Louie of France, I guess God got it wrong there huh, or maybe it's just the arrogance of a few small minds who think they have the right to rule over others and use God's name in vane to do so. (Divine Right of Kings),
@DravenWolfe yes well this is where constitutional monarchy comes as being the most successful form of governance than compared to absolute monarchy. And of course constitutional monarchy started off in england and later the idea was adopted by other european, asian,african and arabic monarchies
@liverpoolmatt87 I don't know what that has to do with what I wrote, plesae explain, cause I was mocking you Monarchists for being sheeple not the Monarch system itself.
@DravenWolfe and I dont understand of what you meant by sheeple, secondly the point behind my response is pretty much about lecturing you on a particular monarchist system because to me you seemed to have a naive perception on monarchism mate. lastly you're not really doing such a great job for mocking the monarchists....especially coming from an american
@isurfu2ube No might makes right or genetic lottery put somone on the throne, God created men like George Washington, Fredrick Douglas or Zhang Liao who fought agaist Tyranny of human nature.
While I am a monarchist, and indeed a full supporter of my Royal house the House of Windsor and the British Crown. This video doesnt mention antyhing about atheistic monarchies, which are quite possible. Very good however :) Can I ask what music plays in it
I found your presentation interesting and I too am a Monarchist.
But we must never forget that there were despots and indeed very evil Monarchs o ver the centuries and thus the emergence on Constitutional Monarchies as to Autocratic rule.
How how I applaud you my friend, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO! If only the whole world or the majority of the whole world knew how good Monarchy is and its absolute power for the good of the people, the world WOULD be a much happier and prouder place!
An absolute monarchy, if ruled by a non-abusive monarch is the best form of government. For he is King for life and as such, must not only have a way to solve short-termed problems, but a plan for the far future, unlike an elected president. The King must not only rule the nation, but prepare his children, for they shall be the monarch one day and they must be able to take on all his duties.
I am a student of political ideologies. I have seen and heard much of Democracy, Communism, Fascism, Theocracy but Monarchy is not somthing I see on the table of political thought very often. Even through all that happened in Russia there are still Tsarists out there.
church and state, divine right, faith..... no, no just no..
I'm a monarchist without a doubt, and I do believe that it is one of ( if not the best) form of government, but when you started talking about religion and faith, it just blew it, the king does not need of god to be king.... it seems that not all monarchists are the same...
I think monarchism is not that good. I think that the power of a state should be divided between the Ruler, a council of 150-500 wisest man in the state/smartest people, and by the people of the state.
@ZamolxesWolf. A monarch does not rule alone. A monarch appoints minister who are masters in their field of expertise. After all Otto Von Bismarck was appointed by King Wilhelm of Prussia. Unfortunately history has shown when the will of the masses rules alone, not so good thing happen.
@ImperialRussianGuard ''Unfortunately history has shown when the will of the masses rules alone, not so good thing happen. '' I actually refer tot this. Vote! The vote of the ruler is counted as 35% of all votes, the vote of the council is taken as 30% of all votes, and the vote of the people is taken as 35% of all votes. But this is not aplied when a decision must be taken fast, in those situation only the council and the ruler decide. The decision of the ruler is taken as 35% and 65% council
God bless all worldwide monarchies! May all Royal Houses be blessed to all fair prosperity and may their peoples keep their faith and loyalty to a King or Queen; not a President. Rule Britannia and God Save The Queen.
"Monarchies Unlike other nations with a different form of government do not go force there form of government on other nations" fair point I mean it not like we all speak the language of a small Island kingdom because amassed control across 6 fucking contents
one must also remember that Wilson and Roosevelt served a republic
"protects form the left" Ok let see witch western nation is most right wing?
If you knew history you would knew the British expanded their empire because of strategic interests not ideology.Democracies meanwhile force their form of government on everyone. Wilson and Roosevelt were both very poor leaders. Especially Wilson. Surely you have a better example than those two !
@ImperialRussianGuard "strategic interests" you release that means to better control the world and make war more eficently the world your looking for is economic I suppose that regime change was the only reason for going to Iraq nothing about oil and a glossing over of Austrian and UK forces there.
I picked wilson because he was a war leader. I grate that Churchill was a grate of war time leaders but did he enacted any grate social change as FDR did.
By " Strategic interests" I mean going to war for legitimate reasons, not to spread democracy and human rights. At first when Iraq was invaded the american intelligence believed Saddam Hussein had Weapons of mass destruction. As we all later found out that wasn't the case. The only reason why there are still soldiers in Iraq is to make sure" they have a democracy". Wilson may have been a wartime leader but he wasn't very good one. Ironically WW2 did more to the American economy the FDR.
@ImperialRussianGuard and what legitimate reasons are they because unless you think economic or political gain is legitimate I realy can thing of a reason to invaded a other that a first strike against you. The British took land because it was there Hong Kong they took in the Opium Wars to Export Indian Opium to.
Who followed the army wight governers and missionaries Cabbot was sent to find "part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to all Christians."
As a matter of fact I do. Economical, territorial, political and strategic gains are all legitimate reasons to go to war. These wars make a nation stronger . Thats how great empires are built. How did you think the British created their empire ? Did they go to India and offer them chocolate cake in return for joining their empire. Unfortunately that's not the way things work in real life.
List of resons why briton fouht to spread Monarchism Economical, territorial, political and strategic gains and centrlise a one world govermet.
List of resons why republics fight to spead democrasy Economical, territorial, political and strategic gains.
what part of us debating wether the british did any more or less legitmet force there form of government on other nations dose not impue were talking about war when I say took I mean to implay gun ships were involved.
There is clear difference between wars fought over ideology and strategic interest. Wars fought in the name of strategic interests benefit the country. Wars fought in the name ideology have no benefit than "feeling good". There is not one example of history when a monarchy invaded a republic to change their from of government. Reverse the players and there are many examples.
@ImperialRussianGuard I have yet to here of forced ideology change not for strategic interest
WW1 the German Empire was replaced with an republic by Briton, Empire of Japan , Kingdom of Italy, France and the US so monarchies have changed the government form (the principle allied signees according to Wikipedia 3/5 monarchies)
Napoleon installed the monarchy of the Holland all though it was a position of the earlier republic although the Holland hade been a puppet fore the French republic
@ImperialRussianGuard The first world war was a pointless war for petty men who were all related to one another. The less people the wqar is fought for the more concentrated the blame is. Wars most time are for that countries gain no war is fought on ideological grounds. Look at republican France and this is clear. Communism is also a good example of originally exporting a good cause to then trying to control people through it.
@TheMaskhadov most of the wars fought by monarchies were strategic wars. Their objectives were to win Economic,Political or strategic gains. While more ideologically based governments such as Communism fought to spread their ideology.
@ImperialRussianGuard It is not spreading their ideology. Russia did not fight the second world war becuase of ideology nor did they invade Afghanistan to spread Marxism. Most wares are strategic but now a days they are merely wrapped up in political notions. I do not believe the invasion of Iraq was to spread Democracy.
Boy, if that's the way LordoftheKaty feels about Monarchists and the Monarchy, then he's going to just LOVE me, as I'm not only an American Monarchist, I'm an AFRICAN-American Monarchist xD FOR GOD, KING AND COUNTRY!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
BULLSHIT : Jesus said many times that he is not of this world, that his government is not part of our planet. Churchill was a false Jew, a Zionist pawn during the Rothschild created WW2. Ever heard of a "good" king ? This is propaganda since the New World Order will be a One World Government ultimately with a single despotic ruler, a "King", who will outlaw religions to replace it with faith in this tyran that we will be forced to love (adore).
@911allo I don't believe this. Republics go together with communism and socialism. Monachies go with capitalism and liberty. Look at every country that went socialist and communist. The socialists and communist deposed the king of whatever country they were trying to take over, instituted their will of socialism and communism against the people and took away their liberty.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Monarchies do not force their system over other nations? lmfao!!! XD
Throughout the middle ages nations battled against eachother to take over lands. How about when England forced Scotland into their nation while the Scotinsh fought for their independence, is that not coersion? Sorry, but this is an epic fail, just as monarchies are the biggest damn joke.
@LordoftheKaty. Scotland also had a king. The only wars monarchies fought over were other land and other un-ideological reasons. Republics and democracies have however always forced their ideals on others. Bismarck,Disraeli,Aristotle.Voltaire and even John Adams praised monarchy.What makes you think your opinion is more valuable than theirs. I can assure you it's not
@gugagagagreprpr Alright, if a monarchy is so great then explain to me is it great that Queen Isibella of Spain murdered thousands of Muslims and Jewish people. And is it great that King Henry murdered people who disagreed with him over the church, such as Sir Thomas Moore, yet the had no say in their fate because the King's order is above all. Hoow about the people burned at the stake by Queen Mary Tudor? Monarchy leads to dictartorship.
@LordoftheKaty If a republic is so great why did Robespierre kill thousands in the "Regin of terror". If a republic is so great why did the Russian provincial goverment collapse after only a few months in power. If a republic is so great why is the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran considered one of the least democratic places on earth. Do you know how Hitler, Robert mugabee and other equally unpleasent people came to power? Think before you speak.
@ImperialRussianGuard I highly advise you to look into who is really in power. I understand where your argument is coming from ,but I advise you to look into the major central banking instituions and the Federal Reserve, most of those wars were started at these people's commands, and most of those dictators were actually supported financially by these institutions. For instance, George Bush's grandfather actually helped Hitler get into power with his bank.
@LordoftheKaty Bring descended from vikings does not make you an expert on monarchy. Without a doubt bankers have financed revolutions. An example how moscow bankers gave money to overthrow the Tsar. Also foreign bankers such as Jacob schiff financed the Russian revolution. However that is not the sole reason for dictators such as Hitler and Lenin to came to power. Hitler rise to power was through the ballot box. And Lenin's was through lies and useful idiots.
@ImperialRussianGuard At least you have elections in a Republic to get rid of tyrants. Most tyrants like Hitler or Hugo Chavez had unlawfully rigged the system where no more elections could be held. Or they coerce the people to vote the way they want them to. However, I ask you, with a monarchy, what is one to do if the king or queen is a tyrannicle despot and they cannot do anything?
@LordoftheKaty Taking that in account, I can tell you that I descend from King Afonso Henriques, commonly known as King Dom Afonso I of Portugal, as well as more than half of Portugal, and probably all of our ex-colonies. Anyways, do you see any dictator on a European throne? It's pratically impossible nowadays that to happen. In a Republic? Oh yeah! Because of that stupid regime, Portugal had to endure over 20 years of incompetence; 60 years of dictatorship; and now, over 30 years of corruption
I would argue that not all monarchies are created equal and that classical "SERENE REPUBLICS" modeled as seen in Venice, San Marino and Genoa are good examples of governments as well. I think that one must be careful to not think of all monarchies as equal or so much better that what we have today.
Proabably what we share in common is an opposition to secularism. But that is not necessarily a problem solved by monarchy as we see in Luxembourg.
I would argue that not all monarchies are created equal and that classical "SERENE REPUBLICS" modeled as seen in Venice, San Marino and Genoa are good examples of governments as well. I think that one must be careful to not think of all monarchies as equal or so much better that what we have today.
Proabably what we share in common is an opposition to secularism. But that is not necessarily a problem solved by monarchy as we see in Luxembourg.
Brilliant video my friend. While I am a secular monarchist, my belief in the monarchical system are unwaivering. The monarch embodies the nation, its traditions & culture. It symbolizes strength, honor & dignity, whereas taking the role of the people's father / mother, as he/she represents the nation's ultimate guide, counselor & an example to follow. As stated many times before, I hope that all legitimate monarchs will be restored to each country bearing due historical precedent...
This is a brilliant video! Although I am not religious myself, I hold good morals like one would if one were religious. I am a Monarchist and believe that one head of state serves the best and upholds true morals.
I only have one small bone to pick, and that's the implication that monarchy must be religious, when indeed there are and can be secular monarchies and secular monarchists. Other than that, fine video. Another motto I'd apply to monarchy: "one for all, and all for one!"
depends what country, i.e in the orthodox countries the king is our pope and emperor and it is in the bible that God requires kings to rule nations so its the other way around, if your religious then you chose the monarchy for some people
Monarchy was truly the only true type of government. I have been exploring all forms of politics, and the only one which I can even see as ideal even mathematically is monarchy. Long live the king. and may the Hohenzollern's rule again someday :)
@MHJforPrussia Are they not all dead anyway. Also Monarchism is gone constitutional monarchies are mostly gone but our world can no longer be ruled by one man and his family it is unfeasible and unfair.
@ImperialRussianGuard no my standard of fairness would be modern day France not a France in the throws of political change. Also your point is mute because in any great event were things are completly changed most times tons of people have died. When the Roman Empire collapsed their was anarchy. When India became independent there was also huge massacres. The point ofd the matter is no man in the west would throw away his vote.
@AquariaUSCA Well anyone can say that but that doesn't mean that the Kings are noble. Most of the royals nowadays are crap at politics. The reason we have constituional monarchism in Britain is becaUSE THE kING DID A SHIT JOB.
What you have to day in Britain is a republic with a ceremonial / cultural monarchy, not a true constitutional monarchy where the king is the head of state. The PM is the leader not the king or queen. The crimes of thousands of years of monarchy pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by the republicans, the "democracies" , in the last 200 years.
Better to deal with one corrupt monarch, than with a thousand corrupt politicians.
@AquariaUSCA We do have a constitutional monarchy you can blame Queen Victoria for getting rid of mosat of the powers that remained to the monarchy. In the end no one will ever go back to monarchism because people like having power themselves. I could name thousands of massacres done because of Kings the most poignant being the First World War this was asn Imperial war fought for the pride of the respective monaRCHIES.
@TheMaskhadov I wouldn't be too sure about that. Monarchism is growing in Portugal and Russia. The people of these countries are becoming sick of the incompetent government which replaced the monarchy. Thousands of massacres ? You are either knowingly lying or you are exaggerating beyond belief. World War I happened because a conflict of interests. Government had nothing to do with it.
@ImperialRussianGuard thousands of massacres are true much more than so called radical politics. Read history and it is awash with wars or conflicts of interest as you put it.
@TheMaskhadov I think that the age in which our monarchs lost most of their powers was before the time of Queen Victoria. The Magna Carta is important, as is the beheading of Charles I, because he wanted to be an absolute ruler, and well, the British didn't really like that....so it was since Charles I that the monarchy has become the way it is.
@TheRealUsagiDreams Power was lost but you forget Charles the second was reinstated with full powers of a monarch of course Britain had a constitutional monarchy and for some time had a strong parliament but it was Victoria when the final powers were given away because she was unwilling to take her role in the country.
@TheAwp45 Massacres are the killing of many. So you could probably name a million murders. This is pointless because under monarchies the system was unfairly rigged so that landowners would be fat while the people starved. People were not equal but in different stages. Unless ytou are a member of your respective countries aristocracy you argument if succesful would be self defeating because you would become a lsave of that monarch a serf.
What you described to me resembles what is happening in America. The wealthy are fat while the people are starving. Simple put, it doesn't matter if it is the monarchy or democracy there would still be such a thing. Of course I do not follow mideviel monarchy so all of their rules is not what I would support. Instead, I support the Basileus monarchy, which means you can not own land, own slaves, and the king does not burden the treasury.
Meritocratic republicanism trumps all other lesser forms of goverment (including monarchism).
And in these days who has the right to take the crown? When just in my country (Bosnia) over 50 000 people trace their line to Kotromanić family and nearly every third family of Bosniaks trace them selves to medieval noble houses :/
Monarchisim is a thing of the past, but don't get me wrong I am not for rule of majority or some rampaging liberal democrat, I am a meritocrat I stand for rule of the best.
Atridij 1 week ago
Kings are accountible to their people and their monarchy. Bad monarch CAN and ARE ousted successfully without bloodshed. The Glorious Revolution proves that it is possible to oust a bad monarch and put in a good one when the majority of the people disapprove of the monarch. The world has been fighting for a democratic ideal, while ignoring the tried and tested forumla of monarchy. Modern economics, politics and society isnt fit for democracy anymore.
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
pardon, *non-imposition*
Maetel22 1 month ago
And as for Monarchy's trait of non-instigation of its own belief system, explain to me the crusades. Also, explain to me the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, the enslavement of Africans, the subjugation of the central asian peoples by Czarist Russia, or the English Conquest of Ireland.
Maetel22 1 month ago
The crusades were a response to a massive expansion of the Islamic Caliphate during the Early Middle Ages. When the first crusade was declared, the Seljuk Turks were nearly at the gates of Constantinople, while Christian forces were in a deadlock with the Muslim Moors over control of Spain. It was not as much about spreading Christianity, as not having Christendom flanked by two unfriendly expansionist states.
ImperialRussianGuard 3 weeks ago
The conquest of the Americas was based on political and economic interests. The same is the case with the Russian expansion into Central Asia. The English conquest of Ireland was no different. They had nothing to do with "imposing" their belief systems on others. There is no evidence to suggest that behind all of these military campaigns, the main motive was to spread their belief system. The main motive was political gain.
ImperialRussianGuard 3 weeks ago
Also, how could Mr. King possibly represent all the people in the country, especially with populations as they are? Can a Christian monarch who is at war with another country represent a Buddhist in the kingdom who doesn't support war at all? If the monarch is only answerable to "God and his commandments", then how are the people's rights to be protected? The Judeo-Christian God spends the first five flattering himself anyway! He says nothing about the rights of human beings.
Maetel22 1 month ago
Unlike an elected official, a monarch is a political and social leader. A monarch can rule not only through the mechanism of the law, but also through his prestige. An unelected head of state is almost always a representative of a single political faction. With the exception of democratic monarchies, monarchs are naturally disassociated with divisive party rule. So it is easier for a monarch to work for the welfare of his subjects, because he is not tied to factions which represent ....
ImperialRussianGuard 3 weeks ago
a sizable group in the nation's population. It would be against his best interest to play nationalities and religious groups against one another, since it would bring him no political gain, on the contrary. An elected official on the other hand, could gain political advantages by playing various groups against another.
ImperialRussianGuard 3 weeks ago
From a classical liberal standpoint, a despotic monarch is better for liberty than mob rule. As Lord Acton once noted, "It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist."
ImperialRussianGuard 3 weeks ago
government will be neccesary to propogate humanity to the stars, and to end the practice of war. If we can all just get over our pettiness and look up to the sky, we can pool our resources and create amazing things (also, don't even get me started on sedition and censorship in monarchical societies).
Maetel22 1 month ago
Pacifism will remain an ideal and war a reality. Pacifism means letting the non-pacifists have control. If the Western people were to swear to never fight another war, the Eastern people would act differently and would soon become rulers of the world. It is naive and over simplistic to think that humanity can achieve utopia just by wanting it enough.
ImperialRussianGuard 3 weeks ago
If one blue-blood rules over everybody, then there is a pretty grave chance of said blue-blood being a bit of an asshole. I'm sure we can all cite examples of those. Also, if said blue-blood is a zealot, then hell generally rains down on those who believe in a different cosmic entity. If the wisest person in the kingdom is born a street sweeper (or a woman, for that matter), then that is exactly what he'll be. Personally, I prefer constitutional republics. Eventually though, a single Terran
Maetel22 1 month ago
If one commoner rules over all, then there is an even greater chance of him "a bit of an asshole." After all, rapid rises from obscurity to the prominence, often have negative effects on people. All one needs to do is to look at some popular musicians or actors to see this. While it is not pleasant to be under the tyranny of the few, the tyranny of the many can often be far worse, for it is considerably more difficult to restrain a million tyrants rather than one.
ImperialRussianGuard 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
once almost all of europe was ruled by kings and emperors by the will of god himseft! but now thy are being ruled by maggots! thkz to the united shit of america! with there false ideology of peace now look whts happining now! :)
deathwing316 1 month ago
What is that painting at 2:33? Thanks in advance!
And I have say that, as a Portuguese Monarchist, this video makes me proud of being a Monarchist. "Por Deus, pela Pátria e pelo Rei" - was the Portuguese motto (For God, Country and King) - and it shall be so again, in the near future! The Portuguese people are starting to wake up to the cruel reality that the Republic has done nothing more than destroy what was left of Portugal. Thank you once again, ImperialRussiaGuard, for this amazing video.
AvatarMarxon90 1 month ago
The United Monarchy is the best and the most blessed monarchy of all time
Slamdumb020 1 month ago
This is EXACTLY why I am a monarchist. I feel it is closest to what God's government will be like during the Millennium. :) I am so sick of the US right now, I can't wait until I get to England.
PS - Hate to be a donkey, but I don't remember ever reading about Sir Winston Churchill serving as a monarch. ;)
jacobjedi2 1 month ago
interestingly enough the tsar was actually a cousin of king george V and the two pretty much looked the same with their features.
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
well these days it's actually for queen god & country if your nation shares queen elizabeth II as the sovereign head of state. I'm australian we see no harm in sharing her and the rest of the english monarchy throughout the country.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
Hey, don't forget to add in your next video that Monarchists (Royalists) are basically collectivists who put the matters of the State over the matters of the People, in fact there is no individual even the Queen (Or King) isn't an individual but the embodiment of the State, right. after all that's why they were born and we tiny peasant Mice couldn't being to comprehend the majestic abilities of a Monarch, after all God made them to Rule, and we should jsut get in line and kiss some royal arse.
DravenWolfe 2 months ago
Long live the Empire!!!!
4MikiMr 3 months ago
What if the monarch is not standing for national identity, sovereignty, the uplift of the faith they are supposed to represent, or the interests of the people - and is in fact working hand in hand with those who are destroying the nation (people)? What does a monarchist do in that case?
willyrobinson 4 months ago
@willyrobinson Overthrow that monarchist in place of another who can get his priorities in line as well as the priorities of one's nation like he/she is supossed to. As History teacher I've read and studies many monarchs who have alienated the will of the people and ended up thrown out of power either for a better monarch or fall into the hands of a republic or dicatorship.
toysruskid06 3 months ago
@willyrobinson well charles I was executed because he was trying to rule with the divine rights of kings in england which sparked off the english civil war. then charles II was exiled, then james II was removed for the same reason and then parliament brought william III a protestant dutch king to reign over the english/british realms. so then, the bottom line is is that it's down to the representatives of the people....the member of parliaments to bound or remove the monarchs
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
LONG LIVE THE TSAR, THE KAISER, THE SHAH, THE EMPEROR ! LONG LIVE MONARCHY !!!
Amrruk 5 months ago
LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE !!! LONG LIVE THE TSAR !!!!
Amrruk 5 months ago
the more importance of religion you place in monarchy, the less popular it will be
sealhunta 5 months ago
@sealhunta
Religion is almost the whole point of monarchy, so no, monarchy will not separate itself from religion.
TheAwp45 4 months ago
I would enjoy listening to more of this piece of music. Do you have title, CD name?
bizintin 6 months ago
@bizintin - the music being used is from the film THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS with Daniel Day-Lewis and Russell Means. The soundtrack clip is "Promentory" and is over eight minutes long.
whitewraithe 6 months ago
Excellent video, I am so ashamed that many Catholic priests today never even touch on the topic of monarchy, when the monarchy did so much for the Church. everything has become so superficial!
priest008 6 months ago
very nice video and song!
ROBINBHZ 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
monarchy is a lot of bull from the dark ages. Balances religion and government? How about we just put a wall between the two and call it a day.
DrDeso1 6 months ago
@DrDeso1 if you are not religious then you have no place here dude, go preach to the Freemasons.
priest008 6 months ago
@DrDeso1 I can't help but be amused by pseudo-intellectuals who ramble on how monarchy is a product of the "dark ages". Let us begin with the fact that monarchy existed long before even antiquity. The ancient Mesopotamian civilization is perhaps one of the earliest examples of monarchy. Also it is very interesting to note that during the "dark ages" monarch generally had very little power. It was local nobility that was the predominant political force during the early Middle ages.
ImperialRussianGuard 6 months ago 16
@ImperialRussianGuard Indeed. And as Louis Napoleon III noted in his Napoleonic Ideas, monarchy and democracy are equally old. It's idiotic to pretend that either are more primitive or old-fashioned than the other.
DrCroccer 6 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard "It was local nobility that was the predominant political force during the early Middle ages" - A multitute of rulers ruling based off of family ties, economic and political influence and backed by armies of supporters often paid by that ruler....could have sworn you were talking about a republic huh?
GermanConquistador08 3 weeks ago
@DrDeso1 God placed a King to rule over people period!!! NOT people! but GOD!!! GOD!!
isurfu2ube 6 months ago
@isurfu2ube you're not serious are you?
DrDeso1 6 months ago
@DrDeso1 I'M DEAD SERIOUS! GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD!!!
isurfu2ube 6 months ago
@isurfu2ube It's amazing, people willfully subjugating themselves to a fellow human being, so much for free will... and it's not God's Will that made them kings, it's might makes Right and being Born, point in case Tsar Nicholas II or King Louie of France, I guess God got it wrong there huh, or maybe it's just the arrogance of a few small minds who think they have the right to rule over others and use God's name in vane to do so. (Divine Right of Kings),
DravenWolfe 3 months ago
@DravenWolfe yes well this is where constitutional monarchy comes as being the most successful form of governance than compared to absolute monarchy. And of course constitutional monarchy started off in england and later the idea was adopted by other european, asian,african and arabic monarchies
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@liverpoolmatt87 I don't know what that has to do with what I wrote, plesae explain, cause I was mocking you Monarchists for being sheeple not the Monarch system itself.
Collectivists = Sheeple.
DravenWolfe 2 months ago
Comment removed
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
Comment removed
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DravenWolfe and I dont understand of what you meant by sheeple, secondly the point behind my response is pretty much about lecturing you on a particular monarchist system because to me you seemed to have a naive perception on monarchism mate. lastly you're not really doing such a great job for mocking the monarchists....especially coming from an american
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@DravenWolfe in a constitutional monarchy, nobody kisses some royal "ass" at all. it's quite the opposite.
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@isurfu2ube No might makes right or genetic lottery put somone on the throne, God created men like George Washington, Fredrick Douglas or Zhang Liao who fought agaist Tyranny of human nature.
DravenWolfe 3 months ago
so basically the king is the alpha male? I thought we evolved past that.
DrDeso1 6 months ago
@DrDeso1 Well the more things change the more they stay the same.
priest008 6 months ago
@DrDeso1 Civilization does not eliminate human instincts, it merely tames them.
ImperialRussianGuard 6 months ago 6
@ImperialRussianGuard And accommodates them to a humane degree...
mayura97 5 months ago
- Monarchism is truly the best form of government!!! Long Live Monarchism and Long Live Monarchists!!!!!
Well done, keep uploading new videos like this.... Wonderful!!!!
khowblogger 7 months ago
What's the name of this song?
CrossCarrier1985 8 months ago
While I am a monarchist, and indeed a full supporter of my Royal house the House of Windsor and the British Crown. This video doesnt mention antyhing about atheistic monarchies, which are quite possible. Very good however :) Can I ask what music plays in it
ThomasSmithThomas 8 months ago
I found your presentation interesting and I too am a Monarchist.
But we must never forget that there were despots and indeed very evil Monarchs o ver the centuries and thus the emergence on Constitutional Monarchies as to Autocratic rule.
22ROSS51 9 months ago
@22ROSS51 , even the evil monarchs as you said were much better than today's so-called political leaders!
khowblogger 7 months ago
What music is playing during the video?
TheWilsonTheaterComp 9 months ago
I will strongly agree to disagree. There is no way that I will ever be convinced nor support this.
Innerdepths 10 months ago
Ми всјо биелогардеицев! Смерт комунистами!
RasoNSByzantine 10 months ago
How how I applaud you my friend, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO! If only the whole world or the majority of the whole world knew how good Monarchy is and its absolute power for the good of the people, the world WOULD be a much happier and prouder place!
Long live Monarchy, may it truimph over the rest!
Royalist forever!
Britishguy18 11 months ago 4
Brilliant song to match it.
ClassicalMonarchism 1 year ago
An absolute monarchy, if ruled by a non-abusive monarch is the best form of government. For he is King for life and as such, must not only have a way to solve short-termed problems, but a plan for the far future, unlike an elected president. The King must not only rule the nation, but prepare his children, for they shall be the monarch one day and they must be able to take on all his duties.
rimlanin 1 year ago 4
Well done! Monarchy forever!
TVCatholic 1 year ago
What is the name of the song playing during the video? I've heard it before and have ever since been searching for it.
JarlFrank 1 year ago
I am a student of political ideologies. I have seen and heard much of Democracy, Communism, Fascism, Theocracy but Monarchy is not somthing I see on the table of political thought very often. Even through all that happened in Russia there are still Tsarists out there.
YoungOldWomen 1 year ago
church and state, divine right, faith..... no, no just no..
I'm a monarchist without a doubt, and I do believe that it is one of ( if not the best) form of government, but when you started talking about religion and faith, it just blew it, the king does not need of god to be king.... it seems that not all monarchists are the same...
88Zuke 1 year ago
I think monarchism is not that good. I think that the power of a state should be divided between the Ruler, a council of 150-500 wisest man in the state/smartest people, and by the people of the state.
ZamolxesWolf 1 year ago
@ZamolxesWolf. A monarch does not rule alone. A monarch appoints minister who are masters in their field of expertise. After all Otto Von Bismarck was appointed by King Wilhelm of Prussia. Unfortunately history has shown when the will of the masses rules alone, not so good thing happen.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago 23
@ImperialRussianGuard ''Unfortunately history has shown when the will of the masses rules alone, not so good thing happen. '' I actually refer tot this. Vote! The vote of the ruler is counted as 35% of all votes, the vote of the council is taken as 30% of all votes, and the vote of the people is taken as 35% of all votes. But this is not aplied when a decision must be taken fast, in those situation only the council and the ruler decide. The decision of the ruler is taken as 35% and 65% council
ZamolxesWolf 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Monarch who rule alone: Manarch Abslolute. Power divede in state between monarch and other:Constitutional Monarchism
ZamolxesWolf 1 year ago
@ZamolxesWolf . In my personal opinion absolute monarchy can be applied to certain monarchs but I would not apply it to a whole dynasty.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
Monarchism reely is great! =D
Shqipria3 1 year ago
Greetings from Hungary!
God save the tsar!
Stamiabi 1 year ago
Greetings from Hungary!
Bozse carja hranit!
Stamiabi 1 year ago
Fur Gott,Kaiser und Fatherland.
GothicKnight81 1 year ago 4
God bless all worldwide monarchies! May all Royal Houses be blessed to all fair prosperity and may their peoples keep their faith and loyalty to a King or Queen; not a President. Rule Britannia and God Save The Queen.
DukeOfBlighty 1 year ago 15
@DukeOfBlighty You do know that you are blessing muslim Kings and also many africans. These people tend to be not very nice.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
Great video Bravo!!!
EmperorAlgus 1 year ago
A total of 13 of the 21 countries with the best index
Human Development Index (HDI) of the world are
monarchies. This brings down the speech that
republics are the most democratic and fair
Data from 2009
fabianoasc 1 year ago 2
"Monarchies Unlike other nations with a different form of government do not go force there form of government on other nations" fair point I mean it not like we all speak the language of a small Island kingdom because amassed control across 6 fucking contents
one must also remember that Wilson and Roosevelt served a republic
"protects form the left" Ok let see witch western nation is most right wing?
and witch is the oldest Democratic republic
hens0w 1 year ago
If you knew history you would knew the British expanded their empire because of strategic interests not ideology.Democracies meanwhile force their form of government on everyone. Wilson and Roosevelt were both very poor leaders. Especially Wilson. Surely you have a better example than those two !
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard "strategic interests" you release that means to better control the world and make war more eficently the world your looking for is economic I suppose that regime change was the only reason for going to Iraq nothing about oil and a glossing over of Austrian and UK forces there.
I picked wilson because he was a war leader. I grate that Churchill was a grate of war time leaders but did he enacted any grate social change as FDR did.
hens0w 1 year ago
By " Strategic interests" I mean going to war for legitimate reasons, not to spread democracy and human rights. At first when Iraq was invaded the american intelligence believed Saddam Hussein had Weapons of mass destruction. As we all later found out that wasn't the case. The only reason why there are still soldiers in Iraq is to make sure" they have a democracy". Wilson may have been a wartime leader but he wasn't very good one. Ironically WW2 did more to the American economy the FDR.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard and what legitimate reasons are they because unless you think economic or political gain is legitimate I realy can thing of a reason to invaded a other that a first strike against you. The British took land because it was there Hong Kong they took in the Opium Wars to Export Indian Opium to.
Who followed the army wight governers and missionaries Cabbot was sent to find "part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to all Christians."
hens0w 1 year ago
As a matter of fact I do. Economical, territorial, political and strategic gains are all legitimate reasons to go to war. These wars make a nation stronger . Thats how great empires are built. How did you think the British created their empire ? Did they go to India and offer them chocolate cake in return for joining their empire. Unfortunately that's not the way things work in real life.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard
List of resons why briton fouht to spread Monarchism Economical, territorial, political and strategic gains and centrlise a one world govermet.
List of resons why republics fight to spead democrasy Economical, territorial, political and strategic gains.
what part of us debating wether the british did any more or less legitmet force there form of government on other nations dose not impue were talking about war when I say took I mean to implay gun ships were involved.
hens0w 1 year ago
There is clear difference between wars fought over ideology and strategic interest. Wars fought in the name of strategic interests benefit the country. Wars fought in the name ideology have no benefit than "feeling good". There is not one example of history when a monarchy invaded a republic to change their from of government. Reverse the players and there are many examples.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I have yet to here of forced ideology change not for strategic interest
WW1 the German Empire was replaced with an republic by Briton, Empire of Japan , Kingdom of Italy, France and the US so monarchies have changed the government form (the principle allied signees according to Wikipedia 3/5 monarchies)
Napoleon installed the monarchy of the Holland all though it was a position of the earlier republic although the Holland hade been a puppet fore the French republic
hens0w 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard The first world war was a pointless war for petty men who were all related to one another. The less people the wqar is fought for the more concentrated the blame is. Wars most time are for that countries gain no war is fought on ideological grounds. Look at republican France and this is clear. Communism is also a good example of originally exporting a good cause to then trying to control people through it.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
@TheMaskhadov most of the wars fought by monarchies were strategic wars. Their objectives were to win Economic,Political or strategic gains. While more ideologically based governments such as Communism fought to spread their ideology.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard It is not spreading their ideology. Russia did not fight the second world war becuase of ideology nor did they invade Afghanistan to spread Marxism. Most wares are strategic but now a days they are merely wrapped up in political notions. I do not believe the invasion of Iraq was to spread Democracy.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
Boy, if that's the way LordoftheKaty feels about Monarchists and the Monarchy, then he's going to just LOVE me, as I'm not only an American Monarchist, I'm an AFRICAN-American Monarchist xD FOR GOD, KING AND COUNTRY!!!
mdallion446 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BULLSHIT : Jesus said many times that he is not of this world, that his government is not part of our planet. Churchill was a false Jew, a Zionist pawn during the Rothschild created WW2. Ever heard of a "good" king ? This is propaganda since the New World Order will be a One World Government ultimately with a single despotic ruler, a "King", who will outlaw religions to replace it with faith in this tyran that we will be forced to love (adore).
This propaganda prepares us for it !
911allo 1 year ago
@911allo . Slightly insane aren't we ? I would appreciate if you did not involve our Lord and saviour in your wild conspiracy theories.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago 5
@911allo I don't believe this. Republics go together with communism and socialism. Monachies go with capitalism and liberty. Look at every country that went socialist and communist. The socialists and communist deposed the king of whatever country they were trying to take over, instituted their will of socialism and communism against the people and took away their liberty.
illinoissupertrooper 1 year ago
God Save the Kings and Pretenders of all the world.
Jlordtaylor 1 year ago
Vivat Regina!
roxandorox 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Monarchies do not force their system over other nations? lmfao!!! XD
Throughout the middle ages nations battled against eachother to take over lands. How about when England forced Scotland into their nation while the Scotinsh fought for their independence, is that not coersion? Sorry, but this is an epic fail, just as monarchies are the biggest damn joke.
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago
@LordoftheKaty. Scotland also had a king. The only wars monarchies fought over were other land and other un-ideological reasons. Republics and democracies have however always forced their ideals on others. Bismarck,Disraeli,Aristotle.Voltaire and even John Adams praised monarchy.What makes you think your opinion is more valuable than theirs. I can assure you it's not
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@LordoftheKaty You are the one who is a faliure sisn you fail at such a epic scale to bring true historical fact behind you argument!.
gugagagagreprpr 1 year ago
@gugagagagreprpr Alright, if a monarchy is so great then explain to me is it great that Queen Isibella of Spain murdered thousands of Muslims and Jewish people. And is it great that King Henry murdered people who disagreed with him over the church, such as Sir Thomas Moore, yet the had no say in their fate because the King's order is above all. Hoow about the people burned at the stake by Queen Mary Tudor? Monarchy leads to dictartorship.
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago
@LordoftheKaty If a republic is so great why did Robespierre kill thousands in the "Regin of terror". If a republic is so great why did the Russian provincial goverment collapse after only a few months in power. If a republic is so great why is the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran considered one of the least democratic places on earth. Do you know how Hitler, Robert mugabee and other equally unpleasent people came to power? Think before you speak.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago 3
@ImperialRussianGuard I highly advise you to look into who is really in power. I understand where your argument is coming from ,but I advise you to look into the major central banking instituions and the Federal Reserve, most of those wars were started at these people's commands, and most of those dictators were actually supported financially by these institutions. For instance, George Bush's grandfather actually helped Hitler get into power with his bank.
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago
@LordoftheKaty Bring descended from vikings does not make you an expert on monarchy. Without a doubt bankers have financed revolutions. An example how moscow bankers gave money to overthrow the Tsar. Also foreign bankers such as Jacob schiff financed the Russian revolution. However that is not the sole reason for dictators such as Hitler and Lenin to came to power. Hitler rise to power was through the ballot box. And Lenin's was through lies and useful idiots.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard At least you have elections in a Republic to get rid of tyrants. Most tyrants like Hitler or Hugo Chavez had unlawfully rigged the system where no more elections could be held. Or they coerce the people to vote the way they want them to. However, I ask you, with a monarchy, what is one to do if the king or queen is a tyrannicle despot and they cannot do anything?
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard BTW, I'm a direct descendent of William the Conqueror and Queen Isibella of Spain as well as a few Viking Kings.
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago
@LordoftheKaty Taking that in account, I can tell you that I descend from King Afonso Henriques, commonly known as King Dom Afonso I of Portugal, as well as more than half of Portugal, and probably all of our ex-colonies. Anyways, do you see any dictator on a European throne? It's pratically impossible nowadays that to happen. In a Republic? Oh yeah! Because of that stupid regime, Portugal had to endure over 20 years of incompetence; 60 years of dictatorship; and now, over 30 years of corruption
AvatarMarxon90 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard there are tyrannic monarchies, just as there are tyrannic republics...
AquaRing 1 year ago
As Louis XIV said I am the state...and he coud not be more right
tsythtrhyresfd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would argue that not all monarchies are created equal and that classical "SERENE REPUBLICS" modeled as seen in Venice, San Marino and Genoa are good examples of governments as well. I think that one must be careful to not think of all monarchies as equal or so much better that what we have today.
Proabably what we share in common is an opposition to secularism. But that is not necessarily a problem solved by monarchy as we see in Luxembourg.
LiturgicalChants 1 year ago
I would argue that not all monarchies are created equal and that classical "SERENE REPUBLICS" modeled as seen in Venice, San Marino and Genoa are good examples of governments as well. I think that one must be careful to not think of all monarchies as equal or so much better that what we have today.
Proabably what we share in common is an opposition to secularism. But that is not necessarily a problem solved by monarchy as we see in Luxembourg.
LiturgicalChants 1 year ago
seems I spoke to soon about the opposition to secularism as someone below calls themself a secular monarchist.. hehehehe
LiturgicalChants 1 year ago
seems I spoke to soon about the opposition to secularism as someone below calls themself a secular monarchist.. hehehehe
LiturgicalChants 1 year ago
Excelent video!
Salutations from a Portuguese Monarchist!
NetherDrakeye 1 year ago
Long live the Dutch Monarchy
juultjuh99 1 year ago
While in a republic the president or prime minister has commitment with parties, in a Monarchy the King has commitment to the people and the nation.
fabianoasc 2 years ago 3
Brilliant video my friend. While I am a secular monarchist, my belief in the monarchical system are unwaivering. The monarch embodies the nation, its traditions & culture. It symbolizes strength, honor & dignity, whereas taking the role of the people's father / mother, as he/she represents the nation's ultimate guide, counselor & an example to follow. As stated many times before, I hope that all legitimate monarchs will be restored to each country bearing due historical precedent...
AugustusAurelianus 2 years ago 4
This is a brilliant video! Although I am not religious myself, I hold good morals like one would if one were religious. I am a Monarchist and believe that one head of state serves the best and upholds true morals.
This does Monarchists proud!
JCarradiceFrench 2 years ago
I believe in a supernatural being, just not Christian god, I'm not allowed to.
JCarradiceFrench 2 years ago
Why not be Christian?
pablononescobar 1 year ago
Because I cannot be accepted by the Church of England for my sexual orientation.
JCarradiceFrench 1 year ago
I only have one small bone to pick, and that's the implication that monarchy must be religious, when indeed there are and can be secular monarchies and secular monarchists. Other than that, fine video. Another motto I'd apply to monarchy: "one for all, and all for one!"
JonathanCid 2 years ago
depends what country, i.e in the orthodox countries the king is our pope and emperor and it is in the bible that God requires kings to rule nations so its the other way around, if your religious then you chose the monarchy for some people
EvzoniBBBB 2 years ago
Fine Video!
Grettings from Germany
Berretar 2 years ago
Very good video and very interesting channel.
LaFarfalla246 2 years ago
Wonderful video.
God, Sovereign and Empire.
TheBritannicRoyalist 2 years ago 4
За Веру, Царя и Отечество!
DaimonJV 2 years ago
Monarchy was truly the only true type of government. I have been exploring all forms of politics, and the only one which I can even see as ideal even mathematically is monarchy. Long live the king. and may the Hohenzollern's rule again someday :)
MHJforPrussia 2 years ago 29
@MHJforPrussia Are they not all dead anyway. Also Monarchism is gone constitutional monarchies are mostly gone but our world can no longer be ruled by one man and his family it is unfeasible and unfair.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
@TheMaskhadov Perhaps your idea of fairness is Jacobin France ? You know the one in which thousands and thousands of innocent people were beheaded.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard no my standard of fairness would be modern day France not a France in the throws of political change. Also your point is mute because in any great event were things are completly changed most times tons of people have died. When the Roman Empire collapsed their was anarchy. When India became independent there was also huge massacres. The point ofd the matter is no man in the west would throw away his vote.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
Comment removed
AquariaUSCA 1 year ago
@AquariaUSCA Well anyone can say that but that doesn't mean that the Kings are noble. Most of the royals nowadays are crap at politics. The reason we have constituional monarchism in Britain is becaUSE THE kING DID A SHIT JOB.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
@TheMaskhadov
What you have to day in Britain is a republic with a ceremonial / cultural monarchy, not a true constitutional monarchy where the king is the head of state. The PM is the leader not the king or queen. The crimes of thousands of years of monarchy pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by the republicans, the "democracies" , in the last 200 years.
Better to deal with one corrupt monarch, than with a thousand corrupt politicians.
AquariaUSCA 1 year ago
@AquariaUSCA We do have a constitutional monarchy you can blame Queen Victoria for getting rid of mosat of the powers that remained to the monarchy. In the end no one will ever go back to monarchism because people like having power themselves. I could name thousands of massacres done because of Kings the most poignant being the First World War this was asn Imperial war fought for the pride of the respective monaRCHIES.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
@TheMaskhadov I wouldn't be too sure about that. Monarchism is growing in Portugal and Russia. The people of these countries are becoming sick of the incompetent government which replaced the monarchy. Thousands of massacres ? You are either knowingly lying or you are exaggerating beyond belief. World War I happened because a conflict of interests. Government had nothing to do with it.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard thousands of massacres are true much more than so called radical politics. Read history and it is awash with wars or conflicts of interest as you put it.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
@TheMaskhadov I think that the age in which our monarchs lost most of their powers was before the time of Queen Victoria. The Magna Carta is important, as is the beheading of Charles I, because he wanted to be an absolute ruler, and well, the British didn't really like that....so it was since Charles I that the monarchy has become the way it is.
TheRealUsagiDreams 1 year ago
@TheRealUsagiDreams Power was lost but you forget Charles the second was reinstated with full powers of a monarch of course Britain had a constitutional monarchy and for some time had a strong parliament but it was Victoria when the final powers were given away because she was unwilling to take her role in the country.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
@TheMaskhadov
I could name not thousands of massacres by democracies but millions of people who died by one.
TheAwp45 1 year ago
@TheAwp45 Massacres are the killing of many. So you could probably name a million murders. This is pointless because under monarchies the system was unfairly rigged so that landowners would be fat while the people starved. People were not equal but in different stages. Unless ytou are a member of your respective countries aristocracy you argument if succesful would be self defeating because you would become a lsave of that monarch a serf.
TheMaskhadov 1 year ago
@TheMaskhadov
What you described to me resembles what is happening in America. The wealthy are fat while the people are starving. Simple put, it doesn't matter if it is the monarchy or democracy there would still be such a thing. Of course I do not follow mideviel monarchy so all of their rules is not what I would support. Instead, I support the Basileus monarchy, which means you can not own land, own slaves, and the king does not burden the treasury.
TheAwp45 1 year ago
FANTASTIC !!!
BelayaArmiyaForever 2 years ago 2
For God, King, and Country! Vive la Republique!
anaclet 2 years ago
for GOD, KING , COUNTRY AND FAMLIY.
athow123 2 years ago 2
I recognize that music, it's from the Last of the Mohecans movie.
bjr43 2 years ago 3
FOR GOD, KING AND COUNTRY!!!!!
M0nARchiSM 2 years ago 34
@M0nARchiSM
Which would vin, the emperor of evil empire or amaller noble kingdom?
God would decide - and he did - Variangian-Prussian Empire doomed!
Crossbearershvili 1 year ago
@Crossbearershvili
Race wars of different evolutions (and interests) never end.
When one race is overturned, like Normans, West and East,
Conquered races strike back, old and new rullers turn bists.
The ballance of the two is wise, it's why democracy is best.
Not all democracies. Economy requires less authocracy,
But in old pure times the Knight was bond of Patriarchy
Kingdom that Cousins Emperors corrupted to waist.
Crossbearershvili 1 year ago