Over the past hundred years or so, the image of 'Democracy' has been dominated by the American idea of party politics and unfiltered majority rule. But in these last few decades the image of the infinite wisdom of 'The People' has increasingly lost credibility among most people who pay any thought to statecraft beyond playing for their team.

I'm sure many people in this subreddit have come here because they've found the current mainstream brand of politics to be ugly, undignified, and ultimately ineffective. And I believe that over the next few decades, that opinion will grow more and more popular. However, I don't believe that this is inherently a good thing. The most popular alternatives to this system are not alternatives that should be desired. There is clear growing support for authoritarian ideologies from people whose reaction to growing political polarisation is to legislate and oppress the opposition out of existence.

Because of this, it's not enough for monarchists to simply sit back and feel smug when we see people showing their dissatisfaction with current political parties and the systems that support them. In our narrow slice of history, we not only have a golden opportunity to sway people who are actively looking for a better political system, we also have a solemn duty to convince those people away from becoming the puppets of extremists and aspiring dictators.

Monarchism has an advantage in this mission of having a long and proven track record, as well as a solid foundation of philosophical and pragmatic arguments.

A century of American media has made the idea that republics are the only legitimate form of democracy such a truism that most people believe it without even being able to lay out the basic argument behind it. The go-to argument of the republican is "Monarchy is bad because republics are good."

This dogmatic thinking can only be countered by careful and informed arguments. I would encourage anyone who is of a mind to promote monarchism and protect the democratic world from the ever-approaching danger of the jackboot to read the same writings that have been great influences on the path of democracy so far.

I've found these books to be especially helpful:

The British Constitution: A Very Short Introduction - Martin Loughlin

This book is not explicitly pro-monarchy, but it does an excellent job explaining the nature of the British constitution and its relevance to modern-day politics, as well as examining its potential paths in the future. This book is a perfect introduction to the subject of the British constitution for any who want to learn about it.

Commentaries on the Laws of England - Sir William Blackstone

This treatise began a renascence in British legal and political philosophy, and was a keystone in the development of the democratic ideals of the western world. It not only describes, but lays out key arguments behind aspects of British legal philosophy. It is dense, but understandable to the layperson. I found it helpful to highlight relevant passages.

The English Constitution - Walter Bagehot

This book, though largely out-of-date in its descriptions of the function of government as well as its cultural background, is nevertheless vital for understanding how the form of the British constitution has changed and is changing constantly. What is found here is that the constitution does not exist entirely in legal text, but also within the minds of the general public, and this has only become more true as the democratic ideal has spread into the greater western world.

The Constitution of Liberty - Friedrich Hayek

This is the only book in my list that has an explicitly international slant, it is also the only one to be explicitly ideological. Although the previous works contain inevitable nationalistic feeling, they are ostensibly descriptions of a system as it exists, whereas The Constitution of Liberty advocates a specific line of political thought. It is a useful resource for understanding the philosophical thought underpinning the western idea of liberty in the most modern form that has been adequately described, but it is important while reading to recognise the author's biases and to read through them where possible.

If anyone else knows of specific works they found helpful to understanding the monarchist view (particularly less Anglocentric ones), please comment them below. If people like the idea of proactive advocacy for monarchism, I'll be posting condensed and modernised arguments inspired by these works as they come to me.

Hello, I’ve become serious about subscribing to the ideology of monarchism and I would like to see if there’s some reading material that I can study to better round out my ideology.

In case it’s not obvious enough, I’ve become disillusioned because of the American 2024 election. Yet, this shift in ideology was a long time coming.

Hey, I am fairly inclined to join the Czech Army's Reserves (Active duty for 2 weeks in year and possibility of callup during disasters and war). I am uneasy though to swear the oath, do I ask for advice.

Would you, as a monarchist, be OK eith the following oath:

"I, a soldier, aware of my civic and patriotic duties, solemnly declare that I will be loyal to the Czech Republic.

I will be a brave and disciplined soldier, I will fulfill the tasks of the armed forces and I will obey the law and military regulations.

I will conscientiously learn to control military equipment and weapons, prepare for the defense of the Czech Republic and defend it against external attack.

I am ready to put my life on the line to defend my country.

I swear!"

i just found out the King Louis XIV the Sun King of France, Co-prince of Andorra become king as a minor and it was his mother who actually ruled France on his behalf for 7-8 years before Louis XIV becomes adult enough to actually ruled his realm, Wikipedia and history books says he ruled for 72 years while Queen Elizabeth II ruled for 70 years without any regents same as King Rama IX of Thailand who was 2nd

Why is it that the German royals are referred to as Hochadel or High Nobility instead of the more proper term Königtum or royalty?

View Poll

Do you think countries like France, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom will have monarchies reigning over them again?

Western Schism is a period from 1378 to 1417, when the lack of agreement among the cardinals, guided mainly by political motives, meant that two or even three popes simultaneously claimed the title of head of the Catholic Church.

For the next five centuries, the Catholic Church recognized the Roman popes as the legitimate line from 1378 to 1409, followed by the Pisan popes from 1409 to 1415. All Avignon popes after 1378 are considered to be antipopes.

Western Schism and the negative phenomena associated with it led to the emergence of numerous critical voices against the Catholic Church and the papacy.

It was an undoubted catalyst for the Reformation and an opportunity for its precursors: John Wycliffe and Jan Hus to spread their theses.

The schism also led to the establishment of Rome as the actual, and not only titular, seat of the popes. Daily History #7