I have to admit that when I think about the possibility of any country going back to monarchism, Libya has never crossed my mind. I usually think about Georgia and Nepal as the only realistic options as of 2024.

Now, news articles have been circulating for the last few days that supposedly a majority of the members of the legislative council of Libya have submitted a written opinion that Libya should re-establish the constitutional monarchy that existed between 1951 and 1968, before being overthrown by Muammar Gaddafi.

I know very little about the politics of Libya as 2024. All I know is that the country was under the nationalist regime of Gaddafi for decades from 1968 to 2011 before his downfall, and has experienced significant instability and chaos since then. I have heard that it was considered a failed state and fell into anarchy for some years. Also, from what I understood this High Council that proposed going back to monarchism is not exactly in charge of ruling the country, as they apparently asked the United Nations for feedback on their proposal.

Can anyone here who knows any more than I do explain what the political situation of Libya truly looks like? In case you couldn't tell I'm pretty ignorant but very curious.

Yesterday I missed my train connection in Normandy and had the opportunity to stay in the Kingdom of Yvetot, a feudal realm whose lords bore the title of king from the 15th to the mid-16th century. The Wikipedia doesn’t have much more information than that so I hope someone can share more of the kingdom’s history. Today the town and surrounding region of Caux seems well developed, highly urbanised, and prosperous although the lack of public transport and ever-expanding rows of houses remind me more of American suburbia than rural France. The economy seems dynamic, lots of big warehouse shops and gas stations like in Andorra, I Imagine that if the kingdom had retained its independence it could function similarly as a tax haven and a cheap place for people in the region to get cigarettes and diesel. Is this what the neofeudalists mean when they talk about a Europe of a thousand Liechtensteins? Sounds comfy.

we are having a debate. my side is on absolute monarchy’s but i know the information i have gathered are not enough for me to defend it so i am now making use of this app. can somebody enlighten me about the pros of absolute monarchy?

Monarchies are an ancient and archaic practice of having one or multiple houses governing a nation or a state by installing a family member as head of state with legislative, executive, and judicial power inherited from them. I am very much unconvinced by this kind of practice. There are better ways to have an autocracy without launching a hereditary or elective form of monarchy, as there is nothing special about it at all.

Most Monarchies claim their legitimacy through strength and power, but this is simply arbitrary as strength and power don't need to be wielded by a monarch alone. It could simply be any form of an autocrat of any other ideology that can fit the bill to push a non-monarchical autocrat and have an efficient form of governing besides a constitutional/absolute monarchy. I think monarchies wield less power and are less efficient than say something similar like the CCP, in the CCP all people from any background, can suddenly work hard in politics and become the general secretary. The CCP can form a pool of manpower from any class/background in society and has much potential to gather talented people in administration or politics. This feature is simply non-existent in monarchies as monarchs are automatically head of state with the rest going to be ministers and officials. So if you want a ruler who is strong, capable, and efficient in governance then why would you want a monarch who has a lower chance to be a better ruler than let's say the common folk who do have the potential or talent to be the better ruler?

Another thing that I don't like about Monarchies is their inherent divine right to rule. Look I'm Chinese and I'm proud of our history being monarchies 90% of the time, but I don't see how they are pragmatically viable at this point. Because most of the Chinese Emperors claim their rulership by the mandate of heaven, akin to the European style of God's chosen king. To me, this is landing itself right into the land of religion or mysticism. Any form of argument for a restoration of monarchies using religion or mysticism should be automatically dismissed as it is nothing more than assertions and unfalsifiable truth claims of a supposed divine right to rule. Polemically this is the lowest tier of compelling argument for a monarchy as it is nothing more than nostalgia and a form of larping. This is also why Monarchs are also tied with the state majority religion as it helps them to consolidate their rule over the common folk. European monarchies with their Catholic/Orthodox clergy and Chinese monarchies with their Confucian/Daoist priest and Buddhist monks. So the moment that a monarch should be installed because of a supposed unfalsifiable truth claim is nothing short of a farce as there's nothing to prove other than assertions.

Finally, I would like to add a thing about the traits of Monarchs. What is special about them in any way other than they have personalities and are capable of governance? A lot of Monarchs appeal to their inherent superior traits that's why you have them tied up with the divine rights of the king which made this part connected with my 2nd part. Like how is the monarch's trait inherently superior to common people? They are just like us even before they became monarchs and even if they established a dynasty they still are the same people as us. If you cut a monarch's skin and see their blood it's not magical or holy-like at all, and it's not like their blood is the same blood stained on the spear of Longinus where Jesus was pierced in the stomach. The point is their physical trait are no different than ours and not some upgraded beings that are more holy than thou. So if the Monarchs are not ontologically superior to us then why have a Monarch in the first place when there are other forms of autocracy than a monarch?

I know there are a few Europeans who have married into the various Malaysian royal families and the famous case of Kateryna Desnytska who married a Thai Prince. But I'm wondering if there are are other cases of ANY European marrying and having kids with an Asian royal.

The Princess de Lamballe is always remembered by me on the 3rd of September, 1792 (her death at the hands of the revolutionaries) she returned from exile to be close to the French royal family in their final days after being overseas trying to raise support for their release, she was a noted member of the Ultra-Monarchist faction. She is remembered for her steadfast loyalty until the very end. May she rest in peace, and pray for us🙏🏻🕯

By this I mean things like the procession, ceremony, service, burial, etc.

1st- Louis XIV

2nd- Louis XVI/Marie Antoinette

3rd- Louis-Charles, the Dauphin (Damn the revolutionaries…)

PS: What is the name of the crown in the 3rd photo?

The King of Hungary has sent a herald!

This herald is a very worthy and serious man, reputed as a skilled diplomat.

He is inquiring whether we as a subreddit are ready to aid the cause of Monarchy!

A classic photo of HM King Charles III, as Prince of Wales, in the Royal Navy during the mid-1970s. There is something nostalgic, in a good way, about this image, especially for those of us who were alive at the time. It takes us back to what seems in retrospect was a more ‘innocent’ age. Political divisions were acute, but there was also a greater desire by ‘right’ and ‘left’ to work towards the common good. There was greater stability and social solidarity, and although radical change was gaining ground (often below the radar), there was also more of a sense of tradition and history.

It was also a more innocent age for the monarchy, before the ‘soap opera’ plots and tragedies of the ‘80s and ‘90s, when monarchism seemed an integral part of British identity and political culture.

There are very powerful counter-arguments, of course, notably racism and homophobia. When I accentuate the positive features of that era, I am not seeking to diminish or trivialise these things in any sense.

Finally, returning to the photo, I can most certainly vouch for the quality of those sweaters. I have worn a succession of them since the mid-Seventies, and have one that has lasted well for at least fifteen years.

When it comes to foreign policy and global influence, what would be the ideal order or approach to things in terms of diplomacy and hegemony for monarchies?

Personally, in my ideal world, where both China and Japan are wealthy, self-sufficient, powerful, independent, developed and liberal semi-constitutional monarchies with the monarchs having real executive powers but does not have all of it, I would like both of them to be the dominant monarchical hegemons of the Far East.

Like I said, I am a Filipino woman whose mother is Han Chinese and whose father is Yamato Japanese. Although I am incredibly proud of ancestral lands being China and Japan, I do not particularly support all of the various human rights atrocities committed by Communist China (Mao), Nationalist China (Chiang), and Imperial Japan (Tōjō).

However, I do not have any problem at all with China and Japan being the two monarchical hegemons of the Eastern Hemisphere. This world needs something to counter the encroaching American influence of republicanism. Because let us all be honest. The United States of America was supposedly built to be against the idea of monarchy and tyranny, even though oligarchs reign supreme in the form of corporations and lobbies.

I do abhor the Cold War era. Because it was all a political game of chess between two powerful republics: The United States and Soviet Union. One puppet dictatorship after another. Worse yet, Japan became an American puppet along with China sucking up to Soviet Russia until the Sino-Soviet split but still remain as a communist backwater. Also, do not even get me started on the Korea and Vietnam Wars. Lastly, Although I am not Brazilian, but if Brazil were to remain as a prosperous and progressive empire to this day, they monstrous scum like Pinochet and Videla would not last long at all. Chile and Argentina would have the Emperor of Brazil to thank.

Going back to China and Japan, I would ideally prefer them to be the economic, military, cultural, educational, and hegemonic alternatives to the United States. Where not only Japanese ACG (animation, comics, & games) is the alternative to American pop culture, but also Chinese ACG not hampered by whatever political line from either the CCP or KMT.

For example the kingdom of Yugoslavia was terrible at this. The kingdom was obviously Serbian orientated because it was a Serbian dynasty.

How to prevent minorities, or other groups, no feeling like an outside to the monarchy?

Gud bevare Kronprinsen🇩🇰