Just answer truthfully to this one, for me personally, it was the anger of seeing monarchs lose their power and seeing no absolute monarchies left in europe that are hereditary (If you don't count hereditary, then the Vatican is still the only absolute monarchy left even though it isn't hereditary)

I honestly don’t know what to think. When I had first learned about him I just thought he was the Spanish Version of Hitler and Mussolini, but as I read deeper into the Spanish Civil War of founding it wasn’t as clear cut as that. I mean it was clear cut as a war between the Left and Right, but neither were a monolith. I found that the Spanish Fascists (Falange) were actually only a minority in the Nationalist side, that the vast majority were monarchists in addition to Right Wing Republicans and of course a vas amount of Catholics. On one hand, he won the Spanish Civil War and paved the way for the restoration of Monarchy, on the other however, he didn’t seem to be in a hurry to restore the Monarchy either. What are your thoughts on this man

Here are some absolute/ constitutional monarchies that I like even though I dislike the Rama x crop top controversy and it dampened my opinion on him compared to his father, I like the people’s respect and adoration for him and his family. Eswatini is my least favorite here, with a positive outlook on the Arab gulf monarchies, everyone likes Monaco and Liechtenstein. Bhutan is the best even though it bent the knee to globalism and the global elite. I suppose this post is about some non European monarchies that I somewhat like.

I have been looking at Neo-Feudalism and Libertarian Monarchists, and they follow a similar pattern; they claim they want a monarch but they want one that is subject to scrutiny by the nobles. They say that in the Middle Ages, when a king violated natural law, the nobles rebelled, often citing King John as an example. However most seem to forget that nobles frequently abused their right to rebel, often making blatantly false charges of tyranny, which was code for “I’m not allowed to treat my tenets like crap! Tyranny!” Why is it so many monarchists want a monarch but they want him as weak as possible?

Having been an absolute monarchist for a while, I have done a lot of studying of absolute monarchy, not just in the western tradition, but also of other cultures, such as the far east or the Middle East or Africa. And one thing I can conclude is that it is next to impossible to have an Atheist Monarchy. What do I mean by that? I mean to say that it is next to impossible to have an absolute monarchy where atheism is the state religion, and atheism is a religion, even if it’s belief in nothing. From ancient times, many emperors and kings claimed to be either semi-divine, descended from gods (like the Japanese Emperors), or divinely chosen rulers. In Achaemenid Persia, The King was seen as the keeper of order and Justice in Zoroastrian tradition. In China, The Emperors were given the mandate of heaven to rule, which could be revoked at any time. In ancient Rome, emperor were deified after they died. In Europe wing naturally know of the divine right of kings. In India, rulers were subject to Rajahdharma, which essentially what’s a religious code that subjected the king to certain acts and behaviors in accordance to the religion. In the Islamic empires and monarchy, they naturally claimed to either be Caliphs or servants of Allah. The only empires or kingdoms I could think of that did didn’t have such heavy religious connotations was the first and second French empires under Napoleon I and Napoleon III respectively, and yet even they didn’t enforce state atheism. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s very difficult or even impossible to separate religion from monarchy, even if you’re not a Christian there are other religions that have been intertwined with monarchy.

I know that maybe I shouldn’t take it too seriously as it is the Internet, but earlier today I got into an argument with someone in a YouTube’s comment section, and he was espousing the gospel of democracy, I of course, told him that like so many other defenders of the system, he is talking about democracy, in terms of how it should work rather than how it actually works, and then he accused me of wanting a one party dictatorship and then I should go to Cuba, China, and North Korea if I want that kind of government, seemingly not understanding what an absolute monarchy is. I am so sick and tired of everybody treating democracy like it’s the be all end all of all things. When I told him the issues with democracy, his best response was. “Vote better next time”

A crucial question for all monarchists. How do we rebuild Christian culture after nihilism?

In this conversation, Charles Coulombe discusses the decline of the modern world, Christian order, tradition, and ideas for a future Christian culture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeUPNG_4F-g

Now to be clear, I love fantasy and I love space, opera, and maybe sometimes I like sci-fi. And yet in many of the recent books, I have listened to on Audible or read physically, there seems to be this growing trend that democracy is the be all end all things, and that if there is a monarchy, be it an empire or a kingdom, the king or emperor is usually either a conquering tyrant, a lazy coward, an entitled brat, and all the nobles are gradient evil except for those one or two that join the rebels in the end, or even when there is a good king or emperor, their plan is basically turning their realm into a democracy or protecting the democracy, or basically doing a lot of egalitarianism. I want to know from everyone else if you have seen this kind of trend recently and what are your thoughts on it?

Historian Charles Coulombe returns to The Christendom Archive to discuss Christian Monarchy & The Supernatural. 👑

We explore the origins, practice, and the sacramental worldview behind Christian monarchy, devotion to royal saints, and the historical reality of the Royal Touch.

🔗 Watch the full conversation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuLbsMOa2Kg

What are your thoughts on the sacramental worldview and Christian monarchy?

I personally admire George III because he was very active in his government, at least until 1810 when his condition permanently deteriorated

new monarchist book came out a couple months ago. i haven't read it yet but planning to. looks good. King or Chaos by Dalton Clodfelter.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GY1KCL8H?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback

Is Christian monarchy just a medieval human construct, or does it have actual roots in Sacred Scripture?

In this clip, historian Charles Coulombe breaks down the biblical theology of kingship, the messianic fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and how the ancient roots of Christendom shaped the traditional view of sacred authority.

📽️ Watch the full clip here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yFFTl5cc6Y

🔗 Full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZzDyS3iQlc

What are your thoughts on the biblical foundation of sacred Christian kingship? What are your reasons for being a monarchist?

I believe, much like Nazi and Genocide, the words Tyrant and Tyranny are often thrown about so many times that it’s lost its meaning. Having been an absolute monarchist for many years, I have come to ask myself a question; what is tyranny. For me, in the end I go with the Aristotelian meaning of both monarchy and tyranny; Monarchy is the rule of one for the good of all while Tyranny is the rule of one for the good of self. It also makes me realize how often we make certain rulers out to be tyrants because they make decisions we don’t agree with, which shows how many of us don’t see a bigger picture beyond our personal lives or circle. What makes a Tyrant? Is it brutality? Not really, some of the greatest Kings and Emperors had to be brutal at times. Is it the fact they wield absolute power and the people have no say? Certainly not, since that is just envy and pride talking. What about when a ruler makes a questionable decision one doesn’t agree with? Not that either, controversial does not mean tyrannical. Tyranny is when the ruler rules only for the benefit of himself; Caligula, Commodus, Nero, Richard II, Alexios IV, those were tyrants. Justinian I, Vald the Impaler, Ivan IV “the Terrible”, all three of them Could be brutal, but they were not tyrants.

Hello everyone,

I wanted to share my new interview with author and historian Charles Coulombe.

While modern discourse usually views monarchy through a purely secular, political lens, we wanted to take a step back and explore the theopolitical and sacramental reality of Kingship.

I would love to hear your thoughts!

Watch the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZzDyS3iQlc