The Case for Monarchy or Why I am a Monarchist
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 05. 2021
- Discord Server Link, Also the Best Place to Contact Me
/ discord Discord Server Link, Also the Best Place to Contact Me
/ discord
Telegram Group
t.me/argent7771
Odysee Channel
odysee.com/@Argent:9
Bitchute Channel
www.bitchute.com/channel/FxGX...
Gab
gab.com/ArgentTemplar
Telegram Channel
t.me/argentchannel
Rumble
rumble.com/c/c-422497
Tip me here, I get all of the money, unlike super chat.
streamlabs.com/LibertyandJust...
If you enjoy my content you can super chat or pledge to my Patreon here
/ argenttemplar
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/tr.png)
Books I reference
Emperor a New Life of Charles V
www.amazon.com/Emperor-New-Life-Charles-V/dp/0300196520
Imprudent King a New Life of Philip ll
www.amazon.com/Imprudent-King-New-Life-Philip/dp/0300216955/
Just a note as far as the French Succession crisis goes I wasn't sure if you count the Hundred Years War or the War of Three Henri's during the French wars of religion. If you don't then France didn't have one under the Capetian/Valois/Bourbon dynasty.
Argent
Some Critics of Monarchy would say that advocates of Monarchy are compensating for the lack of a good father figure by wanting a strong and paternalistic figure in a King. What are your thoughts on this?
Keep up the great work and God Bless. 🙏🏻
Take Care & Peace. ✌🏻
Well the role of the King on Earth reflects the role of God in heaven and God is the father of everything. Besides that regardless of your age there's nothing wrong with wanting a father figure
@@Argent7771 Okay. Thanks for the response. Take care and good video. God Bless. 🙏🏻
@@Argent7771 I remember at one point you said you were at least supportive of fascism, though I’m sure with your newfound monarchal leanings that supportiveness has gone down the crapper. Just curious if it’s still something you support or not.
As I said in the video I support a hybrid of the two
Basically i'd rather have a king than a whole government of Nancy Polosi's.
But what if the Queen WAS Nancy Polosi!? :o
The only 100% correct option, if you ask me. BASED af.
Wait you're a monarchist again? Based
Monarchist gang! 😆
But in all seriousness, monarchist is the only realistic position for a serious Catholic. Republics are unlikely to be able to maintain the Church as the state religion unless they are very small. Like San Marino small.
@@Zorro9129 What's your opinion on Venice?
@@Zorro9129 Yeah it was Cringe and Decadent and the Wealthy Families basically defacto ruled it for Centuries.
Also, Screw The 4th Crusade. They should've ended after the 3rd.
What are your thoughts on Accion Francais?
@@Zorro9129 Okay. Damn, yeah I agree.
I think they also wanted to create a Latin (Catholic) Union, so no Romania unfortunately.
@@crusader2112 What happened to Zorro's comments?
@@1685Violin They got ooofed. By Y**tube probably.
The thing I find interesting about “elective” monarchies is how often the electors would choose the previous Kings heir as the new King. Both the HRE and PLC were doing well with their systems until the rulers died without an heir and then they started to degrade.
That's not strictly true one of the main causes of the Thirty Years War was the Protestants attempting to get a majority in the Electoral College so they could elect a Protestant emperor
@@Argent7771 When I was talking about the HRE I was referring to the Ottonian and Salian dynasties, after their death is when in my opinion the problems we would see in the HRE start to form and it’s not until the Habsburg dynasty comes to be the undisputed ruler of the HRE that it begins to stabilize a bit. In the PLC it was the Jagiellonians.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland
@@Argent7771 This is how Salic Law came about. The Franks used to have an Elective Monarchy and would just vote for the Eldest Son and after a while they got bored of voting and it became a Fundamental Law of the Kingdom of France.
Scotland had an elective monarchy (tanistry) in the early Middle Ages, but it sometimes led to trouble. At one point there were about a dozen potential choices, and the King of England, Edward Longshanks got involved (played by Patrick McGoohan in the Braveheart film), and then started taking over the country and turning it into an English colony.
@@thursoberwick1948 Elective Monarchies tend to be unstable, the Papacy included.
I really like that picture
the real European Union
I'm also more on the side of monarchism "just to get along", just because I don't immediately presume clerical accountability of the monarch and I don't think that such a system is even viable in our current society that is so thoroughly poisoned by liberalism. My main concern is that the monarch itself can be an effective corrupting agent of the clergy, like in the case of Phillip IV of France when he tried the Templars and had the French bishops as his co-conspirators. Other than that, the only thing I have a hard disagreement with is the utilitarian argument for a State religion, which to me is pretty cringe.
At the heart of "liberalism" is simply a concept of inherent human rights. That is a very difficult concept to argue against.
@@canteluna It is not really, because it is basless without trancendence.
@@reactiondavant-garde590 Transcend this... but seriously, what are you talking about?
@@canteluna You don't have any type of "rights" without an assumtion that something or someone give them to the humans. From purly materialistic point of view humans can't have objective rights, because in materialism we are just matter, a bunch of atom.
The other problem with rights that it is arbitrery. Who decided what your human rights? Why he had the authority to do it?
@@reactiondavant-garde590
YOU "You don't have any type of "rights" without an assumtion that something or someone give them to the humans."
ME Really? So I could attempt to murder you or steal your stuff and you couldn't claim I violated your human and property rights? Laws are based in the concept of "natural rights" which are ours as a matter of being human. The rule of law and the justice system are among the oldest human institutions that exist to reinforce those rights and apply consequences to those who have been found by the justice system to have violated them. It is rule of law that defines those rights legally and ensures that the definition isn't arbitrary and sets standards of evidence to prove violation which keeps us from enforcing vigilante justice on our own
Say they come from God or the covenant of human relationship, but it is not up to you to say they don't exist. You speak for no one but yourself.
I would say rights come from being human. There is no question that we recognize the right not to be harmed by someone else (another human - these rights don't apply to being harmed by animals or natural disaster, accident, etc. unless there can be proved human negligence, because the rights, again, are a social covenant. Rights exist because humans and human nature exists.
The first amendment, for example, recognizes a natural right to associate with whom you please and to say what you like. Of course rights have limits when they breech a point of diminishing return and extend into the violation of another's rights. Again, the justice system is our institution for ensuring that our natural rights are recognized and protected.
YOU "From purly materialistic point of view humans can't have objective rights, because in materialism we are just matter, a bunch of atom."
ME That is laughably stupid. Again, with that insane logic, I could simply murder you and just claim I was rearranging your atoms. Materialism is ignorance. Marx is a FAILURE!
YOU "The other problem with rights that it is arbitrery. Who decided what your human rights? Why he had the authority to do it?"
ME I answered that above. I would just add, If rights aren't grounded in human covenant, then where do laws come from? Did the atoms just pick them at random? Your entire materialist argument exists by assuming humans are only their physical properties. That is so ignorant and basic, that if you don't understand that just intuitively, I don't know what to tell you other than you've been misled.
Absolute hereditary monarchy is the Best non democratic form of government
I think my ideal version of the United States would be a confederation of (mostly) self-governing member states, and the federal government would be headed by a hereditary monarch with supreme executive authority.
I’d probably still have some form of Congress though, if only to serve as a check against tyranny.
I agree with the Confederation part, I can't see any kind of Monarch in America, especially since it fought against a Monarchy. I don't know, it just seems almost impossible.
@@crusader2112
It probably would never happen, but that’s my vision.
I’d like the federal government to be much less intrusive than it is now, and let the states more or less govern themselves. I’d probably go back to the old method of electing senators, maybe increase the size of the House of Representatives to 1000, and limit the Supreme Court’s power as well.
@@JP-sd7di Limit the Supreme Court? I say abolish it entirely and give power back to the Local Courts.
P.S. What are your thoughts on The Articles of Confederation?
@@JP-sd7di Weren't some parts of your vision of American already done with the _Articles of Confederation_ which failed and had to be replaced with the current Constitution?
@@1685Violin
Unfortunately, I’m not familiar enough with the details of the Articles of Confederation and why they were replaced to comment, but you may very well be right.
Traditional Iberian style monarchies, with the cortes and stuff, are the best.
2:10 Your first case is low time preference
3:40 ish an asterix is blaming the next person for your failures which happen just as they gain office
7:15 Succession in one Party states
11:00 Dynastic Incentive to govern well
I didn't pay attention to other timestamps, but state religion.
I agree entirely!
Wonderful video!
You ended up in the anarcocapitalist argument for a monarchy.
H. H. Hoppe makes the same argument brilliantly in his work.
The best way to balance a monarch’s power is private institutions such as profesional guilds, churches, the aristocratcs etc.
Centralized power is always a bad idea.
Monarchism for the win!
Jacobites are still here!
One of the most important aspects of monarchy is that it draws its authority from God, not the people. This allows them to resist degeneration for a longer period of time
This is the most appealing argument for monarchy (as long as you ignore the question-begging about the nature of God), but then the concept of individual rights is also "god given" (or "natural" if you're secular), so...
Well your whole political ideology is based on something that doesn't exist.
@@kiwichippie5465 Prove it. make an argument, simply asserting something isn't a refutation.
@@canteluna Well I said god doesn't exist because theists haven't met their burden of proof.
@@kiwichippie5465
I think you meant YOUR burden of proof. back in philosophy class, we learned that the traditional argument for God (modus ponens) depends on logical fallacy, false premise, question begging or non sequitur. That is still true as far as I am aware.
I am not advocating for belief in God (for me, God is mostly a fictional or assumed character in the religions of human mythologies) but there are other concepts of God that even some physicists argue for, that God is the name given to the concept of a "conscious" universe (or universe as consciousness).
This conception actually dovetails with the Christian assertion that human consciousness is God (and God's consciousness is in all things) and that our conscience is our way of understanding God. Again, you can't really get there without question begging. That is why a "leap of faith" is required to get there. And revelation. That is to say, a trust in that intuition that has "revealed" God to through consciousness to the most conscious of creatures, the human.
The logical argument for God is said to fail because it can't solve the first cause problem. But that must be taken on faith because the universe exists. It came from something and that something (called the Big Bang) came from...? No one has solved the something from nothing (infinite regression) problem. So, we have no choice but to act on faith (intuition is an expression of consciousness in all animals).
Materialists believe consciousness is a product of matter, but physicists now understand matter to be a product of consciousness. So, what we call consciousness and God may be a semantics question.
Even so, I have never heard an argument that makes plausible for God being the CREATOR of the universe. God would be a product of the Big Bang, not its creator. But, assuming matter is an expression of consciousness, then the idea of creator vs product might be fuzzy. I would just not use the term "intelligent design" without begging the question of what each of those two words mean.
So, in terms of burden of proof, again I ask, whose definition of proof and by what methodology?
Monarchy is the system of Legitimacy: the king rules because he's the king.
Republics pretend they have legitimacy, but in reality the government is based on Belief: this guy rules because we agree he should rule (where "we" varies, an aristocracy, the whole people etc).
"Empires", one party states and so on rule due to strenght, and pretend that they are based on Belief.
One party states/juntas etc and monarchies are completely different, the first category is best understood as the end state of democracy: eventually one faction will win the struggle for power inherent democracy and will rule by strenght.
The three always follow one from the other.
Succession is indeed the chokepoint that separates good monarchies from the bad; the problem however just isn't solvable for the other two: when you rule by strenght and you lose it, you simply no longer rule. If you rule by belief, the second you don't look legitimate anymore you stop ruling.
All types of government rules by strength at some degree, more or less.
Strength it's not good or bad by itself and should not be shame like an evil.
@@wilhelmorangenbaum163 you're right I wasn't being as clear as I wanted to.
The concept that I wanted to express is that strenght is all that remains to one party states.
@@lorefox201 Oh, ok then. I agree on that.
Legitimacy don't meant anything in revolution.
@@johnrockwell5834 Revolutions are gay
There are good qualities to monarchy but I do see some negative ones as well. It is often anti-nationalistic/tribal. Monarchs typically prefer an ethically diverse population they can play against each other to prevent uprisings. Also, royals will marry nobility from other countries/ethnic groups to expand their familial influence. This means they may not identify with the population they rule and will most likely always be closer with the royals of other nations than with their own people. Look at the Normans who spoke a different language than the common folk for over two hundred years, and if I recall correctly, even Fredrick the Great preferred French over German.
The main issue with absolute monarchs is that once you have them, your stuck with them. Asides from your points on nationalism and monarchs not being representative of the country (Danish Greek king and Ottomans using Turk as an insult), monarchs can support fascism, national socialism variant of fascism, democracy, progressive politics, communism, be puppets for foreign invaders, be mass murderers, be religious fundamentalists, be secularists, launch wars, keep countries out of wars, be pedophiles, be mass murderers, bring justice to pedophiles and mass murderers, and worst of all can change state religion on a dime and immediately start purging the religiously affiliated they don't like, bankrupt the state, start pointless foreign wars that can bleed young men, and in some cases reinstitute slavery, cause genocide, and make an ethnic majority second class citizens in their own country.
If let's say a monarch was a mass murderer (literally), they could not be prosecuted because of sovereign immunity.
Monarchs can also be incredibly competent such as Pedro II, Aurelian, and Peter the Great.
Their human with irrevocable decision making and can be just as corrupt as any other democratically elected person. They can be experts in nothing unless they choose to be, if they choose to be, and can choose to detach from oligarchies and populations alike. They can be virtuous or degenerate and can lock you up or kill you if you say otherwise.
Monarchism is better than communism.
@@ProudRegressiveIf a monarchy has a counter balance to make sure the monarch doesnt do to outrageous things, then i think it works pretty good. Whether it be democratically elected officials or hereditary nobility, clergymen and rich commoners.
"Viva, Viva, Viva o Rei
Viva a Santa religião
Viva os lusos valores
Na feliz Constituição
A divinal Constituição"
- Hino da carta (Anthem of Kingdom of Portugal)🇵🇹
I am a Brazilian monarchist and in relation to the ideal type of monarchy for me and others would be the traditional Catholic municipalist corporatist monarchy.
I like to say Im a monarchist for normal reasons like treaty rights or something but tbh I kust like having a long term figurehead and it makes me happy
Three seconds in and I already subscribe to your channel.
If the Monarchy is like the Old German Kaisserreich. Then Yes. 😎👍
If it's the Anglo one. Then No.
If I triggered anybody, well. That's my opinion. However, if you have a Based leader like Huey Long for leader for life, then I'll take that over a Monarchy. 😎👍
Every Man A King But None Shall Wear A CROWN! ✊🏻✊🏻✊🏻
Im for absolutism but it should be based off merit, virtue, being based, and ethnically belonging to said country. Not just cause daddy is dictator. But that doesnt mean his son doesnt have the chance of being leader it just means its not guaranteed
How about Anglo-Saxon then? (Like pre-Norman invasion)
@@ignisimber2818 A Meritocratic Monarchy. BASED and Red-Pilled. 👍
I would Unironically support that.
It kind of reminds me of the "King Beyond The Wall" Idea from GoT. The son would have to prove his worth if he wants to succeed his father as the New King.
@@keeperofthedomus7654 King Harold Godwinson was the True King of England. I wouldn't mind a Pre-Norman England.
P.S. The Irish part of me though also likes to Larp about Celtic (But Still Christian) England as well.
@@crusader2112 I'm a fascist not a monarch but yeah I'd settle for something like that. Like I would kneel to Caesar fascist or not no question
I'm an American. I'd rather have a monarchy because they do things rather than talk about doing things.
To be Honest a Constitutional Monarchy is the best Monarchy because if there is a System in place that can be set as a Balance to a Monarch that has alot of Power to prevent them from becoming Tyrannical
Even democracies Can become tyrannical.
The monarch’s job is to protect the nation from politicians and serve as a counter balance to their oligarchical short-term interests. Monarchs of constitutional monarchies cannot fulfil this role effectively and become little more than a celebrity or a mascot for the establishment governments.
For example, British legalisation of abortion did not face any opposition from the Crown because Elizabeth II did not want to create a constitutional crisis.
That being said, I am not that much in favour of the so called “absolute monarchies” either (e.g. England under Henry VIII). These monarchies had too much centralisation of power. Instead, I think the old estates system consisting of the Nobility, Clergy, and Burghers (roughly mapping to the political elites, the church, and the bourgeois in modern times) did well in balancing monarchal power. Especially the church. This system would be decently meritocratic as well since anyone doing well enough can become a clergyman or a bourgeois. The participation of clerical interests in politics would also ensure that the governing system remains religious. Constitutions after all, are man-made documents and are often modified extensively by governments to suit the current Zeitgeist.
@Ollie Green "Even" implies it's somehow rare for democracies to become tyrannical. I'd say given a long enough timeline, every democracy becomes tyrannical, falls into civil war, or becomes outright totalitarian.
@@Thelionofcaliban You don't even know what the word "totalitarian" means.
@@canteluna Do you?
is this Fritz Imperial?
19th tsarist model is the best model of monarchy based on the eastern Roman government
Is he still a trad-cat tho
I am an 'anything-but-ist'.
Monarchy, military dictatorship
Is the Philip II biography the one by Kamen? Reading that now too.
I can only get the ones on Public Domain so they are going to be rather Anti-Catholic but I have read a good paper on him by an Irish Jesuit, he is not actually biased.
@@johnnotrealname8168 It's sad how some people only know him because of his marriage through Mary Tudor.
@@savagedarksider5934 Those people ought to be shot. Philip II was an awesome King.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Would you like the return of the German monarchy ? And by the way, I think Philip II was A awesome King.
@@savagedarksider5934 Well the Holy Roman Emperor was King of Germany so yes. Habsburg though.
thank you espeon
Monarchy is Biblical and created Sainthood 🙏🏻
One of the false assumptions of democracy is that voting people into power prevents tyranny or bad rule.
Thats not true as it doesnt allow to vote people out of power.
A randomised ruler would be less tyrannical as long as there is a way to vote they out of power.
Interesting arguments and it would be interesting to see what a developed country would look like adopting such a model.
However, it's not American and so not an option for us.
I agree. It's not in the American Spirit.
But if America Balkanized, then some or one of the territories could be ruled by a King.
A Meritocratic System of course.
It would be complete disaster more
so then our current system by far.
It will be like Saudi Arabia.
@@crusader2112 I really doubt that.
@@TheGamernews1 Doubt what? Balkanization? I wasn't saying America will Balkanize, I was saying if it did.
shows you broken crown podcast on YT.
What is your opinion on Wilhelm II, Germanophiles try to defend him but I can't think of any way he wasn't garbage as a ruler (not a person).
My impression of Wilhelm II (not that you asked) is that he was was an unremarkable monarch in a time which demanded an exceptional monarch.
He just needed to listen to Bismarck.
The only thing that l find attractive in a monarchy is you at least have the potential to train the individual from childhood for the job
Monarchy? Nah. How about First Citizen?
How about being both lmao
@@thekristofsbergledger9758
If the Republic despises Male Monarchs. How can Augustus do so?
Tbh, monarchies are a good idea but now that we have death drones and shit, we're truly fucked if we get a mad king. Wed need to destroy technology first
Theodemocratic libertarian socialist anarcho monarchist here!
Yes I would like fries with that word salad. Large please
@@ElGreco15 lol it actually means a lot & isn’t word salad
Surly the best option is an Agnatic One Party State (Syria)
I assume that is facetious.
@@canteluna Partly
But how did monarchy fail so badly against revolution?
Because like many systems it degenerated over time. Monarchy is often a gravy train, with a figure head and a number of other non-royals profitting off it and noticing it.
@@johnrockwell5834 Systems are like people. They get middle age spread, get trouble with their teeth, back and other things, and can't defend themselves against attacks like they used to.
That said, I think founders are often idealised. Republics are guilty of this, as are Communist states, but monarchies do it too.
@@johnrockwell5834 I think it"s interesting that the second thing Communism does (after eliminating the old ruling class) is then to go after most of the revolutionary types. It's brutal, but I think Stalin etc realised that anyone capable of overthrowing the old system was capable of overthrowing him.
With founders there are definitely two types - the rebels and the organisers. The first ones don't always fit into the new system and get "itchy feet" and the second lot are the ones who put everything back together again. Sometimes you get the two types combined - I think Washington and Napoleon were. It's harder to spot these types in a monarchical system (although Napoleon did become a monarch).
@@thursoberwick1948
Its also a form of Divine Vengeance. God will avenge the blood of his Saints.
Similar thing happened with Oliver Cromwell when he suppressed the revolutionaries himself too.
@@johnrockwell5834 Yes, you can see it that way, but it is a form of damage control. I have very mixed feelings about Cromwell to be honest - as someone of Scottish and Irish descent, I don't like him because he was no good for those peoples, but there were some things which needed to be changed in England. Also the hypocrisy of the royalist English, who brought the Stuarts back in, only to get rid of them again a couple of decades later...
You could just have a confessional State to God and not have a specific denomination at all, not even abrahamic or not.
Something lake a State Religion based on basic general Western morality and monotheism
My personal preference is Zoroastrianism.
I have no specific religious denomination, but the teachings of Zoroaster are fairly general to all major religions, based of rational good moral, not dogmatic or excluding and allow, with a very good historical precedent, freedom of a individual personal beliefs
Honestly, most of your arguments don't make a lot of sense to me.
I sincerely appreciate this video, but I disagree. All these failed and inept monarchies, the whole of Europe a history of inbreed half cousins fighting for prestige. I'm not advocating for democracy but surely just seeing the debacle that the great war was or the fact all the royal families were related as you even said causes issues of succession. Personally a republic but with limited voting rights. Only net tax payers can vote for representatives and military retired and active vote for the executive. If you wish I could elaborate further. I again really appreciate the video.
Fun Fact: Many members of Royal Families fought alongside their men in the Great War. See Christina Croft’s book “Princes in the Trenches. Also, in Germany it was the generals who pushed for war, the Kaiser wanted to avoid it. In Russia, the Tsar also tried to prevent it and in Austria it was the ministers who were the main pushers for invading Serbia.
I really dont see any true positives here, you really just illustrated how bad an idea monarchy is. What monarchy is actually better off today? Tell me how England or Denmark or the Netherlands or who ever us actually better off. Every monarchy is full of struggle, secession crisis, civil wars, fights to blood over power, intrigue etc. Including France. That's a big reason England had such a foothold for a time because of question of who was really in charge. You simply trading one set of problems for another. Past failures are not better than present failures. The true issue is people, human nature, and the lack of vigilance to good principles.
Well yeah there are problems in Monarchy as with any government structure. We are just finding which one is the best. We are not saying Monarchy is perfect with no problems.
I'm not a fan of the British monarchy, but one thing Elizabeth has done is provide a sense of continuity and stability. She has been on the go longer than most people have been alive - me included. She works because she usually keeps her personal opinions quiet, unlike her son Charles.
monarchies today are in this state because they are as infected by liberalism as republics, besides being completely cerimonial monarchies in which the royal family has no power
that said I agree in principle, any kind of society can work as long as it's not infected by societal entropy
@@lorefox201 Yes and if you want an example of this, look at what Megan Markle has said recently. She keeps on banging on about "privilege" despite living in a palace - you couldn't make it up.
For once I disagree, monarchy is a terrible idea, most of the examples you've given would not work nowadays.
Respecting your people and taking care of your country was a product of the time, could you even imagine what kind of monarchs we'd have nowadays? Just picture someone like Susan as the head of a country instead of YT.
That being said, the arguments against the system in place are perfectly valid in my eyes, but that needs to be countered with accountability and punishment for abusing the system (as one solution).
The path to monarchy is long gone, and considering the revolutions against monarchies, it is probably for the best.
the problem with your reasoning is that today the elite is one uniform group, they all have the same ivy League education and the same anti-human outlook to the world: we DO have Susan at the head of the state, the difference being that it's a thousand anonymous Susans working as high level bureaucrats.
Even at its worse, monarchy is still better because Susan would be personally responsible for her bullcrap
@@lorefox201 Isn't that the problem thou?
In a monarchy it would be even harder to make people like that accountable, replace them or ensure that someone different suceeds them.
For better or worse, people are waking up, slowly, to the current bs. Having one figurehead would make this far faster, but it would also considerably limit the options available.
@@ShinSquall I principle yeah but in pratiche a king that loses legitimacy is easy to replace, a bureau that does doesn't even notice.
Last five years have shown that you can vote for litteraly anyone and unless he starts doing Stalin like purges of the public administration and judiciary you might as well be playing Calcio Balilla.
The elite needs someone to be accountable to.
@@lorefox201 they might be easy to replace by one of their retainers, but not someone with a different mentality.
A thousand anonymous Susan's would be impossible to fully replace, but holding a few tens (or hundreds) accountable might make the rest conform, at least for a while.
Sure, the elite are accountable in a monarchy, but adding someone above them, which holds supreme authority AND would most likely be groomed by said elite would lead to horrible results in my eyes.
It's a guarantee they'd be shielded from consequences.
@@ShinSquall "holding a few accountable may make the rest conform"
it litteraly never worked.
"adding someone above them... groomed by them..."
Looks like an easy solution then...