If a monarch makes an elected parliament to represent the people will that inevitably spiral into further loss of a monarch’s power or can a monarch’s power remain if a parliament exists?

Now there’s a good question

It’s hard to say

There’s not a large enough sample size to determine a clear trend

The British monarchy was pretty solid for centuries even with a separate legislature

Though of course their system has Lords n shiet

The king was still pretty powerful until after the war

And that was largely due to the complacency and weakness of the sitting monarch, rather than a systemic failure

IMO

I think that the system can exist for long periods when things are going good or ok but when hardship hits people tend to blame the system instead of the actual causes.

The parliament and House of Lords were fine because Britain was doing well.

But when they stopped doing as well the kings powers were taken.

it's almost as if the system of government is secondary to a strong culture and society

<:blobwoke:473997738904780840>

Eh

Both reinforce eachother

As far as I can tell any sort of federal assembly is a bad idea in the longterm

If you have a parliament, the one thing it can agree on always is empowering parliament. Even one moment of monarchical weakness and you end up with a figurehead

And once parliament is in charge I think we can observe in history there's always been a drive to expand the franchise

If anything have regional parliament or better yet make large cities republican enclaves

I like large cities being mini republics, buy I'd also like to point out the necessity of Parliaments, of which all medieval monarchs had a form, for feudal tax collection. You're gonna have to find another way for people to consent to tax and your government.

They consent by not moving

Parliaments did exist in Britain and France exactly for the purpose of being able to vetos taxations and so they did

And it was a mess

I'd go so far as to say that if the French monarchy didn't have a parliament at all that the French revolution wouldn't have happened

Yo <@578804170342137867> why was Apollo banned?

He says he's sorry and won't post anything like whatever it was again

@ThunderFuck He spammed the channels with rubbish.

Nesselblatt, I'm talking feudal Parliaments, not early modern ones. The French Assembly was of course a disaster, but i think its important to reflect on monarchy before this period, and how they worked. Powerful monarchs expanded the roles of their Parliaments so they could expand their tax collection, and weak monarch minimised the role of their Parliaments so they could secure their hold on the throne. If you have a noble title, if you represent a wealthy city, you should negotiate with the ruler as to the taxes you give to said ruler.
Of course the monarch should be powerful in and of themselves, but absolutism is a modernist occurrence, and it was that centralisation of power which led to the revolution. Power should be dispersed throughout the estates, and not just legally like some liberal separation of powers BS, but by the actual reality of power held, and they will hold eachother in check, and in the aim of furthering their own interests (the clergy, nobility, bourgeois and commoners) they will progress the general interest of the civilisation.

I was referring to feudal parliaments like the one in Britain or France
In practice the nobility and monarch negotiating to raise taxes for the sake of the country just didn't happen

Parliament wasn't used except as a way for them to avoid taxes

The way you keep the monarch from excessively taxing the populace is by having the state be decentralized to some degree with other ppl with tangible power to collectively oppose royalty if there are genuine excesses

It's easy to veto taxes if you're a comfy landed noble who will never face consequences for obstruction

It's hard to on your own to oppose a king over some petty tax you'd like to avoid, easier to do when the entire class is pissed off about genuine excessive taxation

What you do with parliaments that vetoes taxation is first of all nothing since parliament would rarely be called into sessions to begin with the monarch finding creative ways to tax without calling it taxation (for example forced loans) until eventually some sort of crisis gives a parliament leverage over the monarch which they can use to enhance their own powers etc.

@Endeavour do you have a folder filled with boomer memes on your phone/computer for whenever you see a boomer statement

@EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156

I have a q-boomer friend that understands the race realism but buys believes in the "demkkkract plantation"

I don't know how he can combine both of race realism and and boomer views on race but he managed to do it

Like he told me he thought candace owens was based

just thought of him when you put that up