How is monarchy bad in any way?

Implying that absolute monarchy is the rule an not a reaction to the French Revolution

WE'RE HITTING SHITPOST LEVELS THAT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE POSSIBLE

What lead you to this conclusion

What, do like being the king's property?

What the hell?

Niggas have you even studied history? Only a handful of monarchs claimed absolute power. madmonarchist.blogspot.com/p/myths.html?m=1

That isn't how this works. But I do want a ordered hierarchy

I am myself and want to be free to do as I will. To this end I need at least some power. I don't want to be owned by others. I want to own myself first.

Except it was. The serfs were property of the king, and even places where the peasants rented the land a-natura, the kings had unchecked power.

...

I want evidence that kings could go unchecked

that's exactly how it works. When you obey the king's laws, when you do as he wills, all is well, but when you step a toe out of line, when you disobey his will, you are thrown to the stockades! What is property if not control?

MAXIMUM KEK

They are kings.

Like nigger pick up a history book. Are you from america or something?

...

You cant go lower than the rock bottom of your original post, OP.

kek.

How is the hierarchy determined? Who is the rightful monarch?

You can submit to me user-san, just call me Master.

sauce?

Modern concepts of property shouldn't be applied when talking about feudalism. A feudal King is kept in check through his dependency on his vassal, a state as an institution to enforce his will didn't exist until the formation of nation states. A system of mutual dependency sometimes even degenerated the kingship into a mere symbol.

The feudal estates of the realm legitimized themselves seldom by force but rather through filling out their designated role in society given to them by divine right - splitting the society into the laborers and the warriors (which originally used to be only monks and priests as warriors of god). When the church decided that the integration of the barbaric warrior into society is a necessity because of the dwindling administration, they created chivalry and outsourced the priests into their own class. A knight could never receive full redemption though, he can merely try to attain mild dilution as he would always be a bloodthirsty sinner - feudal lords struggled with their own legitimation as rulers that inhibited them from committing oppressive atrocities.

However, once standing armies dominated the field, nobles were serving as their function of being warriors no more but in name, which was ultimately leading to the hatred against them and perceiving them as parasites in the French Revolution. By that time, monarchy was nothing but tyranny because it enforced it's power through bureaucrats and police, not through the mutual relations of feudalism. Dismantling religion through the post-enlightenment was perpetuating this idea.

The same way, capitalists will ultimately being rendered meaningless as their function as business owners, entrepreneurs and carriers of responsibility fade away as society progresses.

turbo-boosted v-tech autism

Putting cartoon whores on your artifact-ridden jpgs sure makes your edgy meme-ideology look more credible.

I fully support the idea that monarchy chooses he who is best to lead the people, and of course, that person is me, by the force of my own will I am the best suited to be the king. As your king, OP, I hereby declare monarchy to be shit and all men are absent from its doctrine. I also decree by divine right that OP is a faggot.

But before I give up power I also decree that since I am the sole ruler, and have no offspring or chosen successor, that there can never be someone to take my place and overwrite these rules when I die. Tough luck, kiddo.

Also
top kingly kek m8

Thanks for making me hate right-wingers even more op