Message from @MK

Discord ID: 309832127011225611


2017-05-04 23:16:29 UTC  

his dynasty just fell apart and was replaced by another family also named romanov

2017-05-04 23:16:49 UTC  

due to his fucked up personal life and killing his own son

2017-05-04 23:16:56 UTC  

and putting his illiterate second wife on the throne

2017-05-04 23:17:06 UTC  

and basically giving his second wife to his best friend

2017-05-04 23:18:52 UTC  

People like to generalize and assume history is neat and tidy

2017-05-04 23:19:37 UTC  

or that primogeniture actually works when half the time it is a glorious fuck up

2017-05-04 23:20:01 UTC  

It's not necessary that it works perfectly at all

2017-05-04 23:20:03 UTC  

like William I -> William II -> Henry I -> Stephen / Mathilda -> Henry II

2017-05-04 23:20:16 UTC  

I dont consider these to be fuck ups

2017-05-04 23:20:18 UTC  

William II, Stephen, amd Mathilda were massive fuck ups

2017-05-04 23:20:18 UTC  

Nothing works perfectly

2017-05-04 23:20:24 UTC  

They are massive fuck ups

2017-05-04 23:20:34 UTC  

Stephen and Matilda worse than William II

2017-05-04 23:20:40 UTC  

Some Monarchs are bad but Monarchy is always good

2017-05-04 23:21:01 UTC  

Yes technically, the original Romanovs can be considered the only Russian rulers of Russia, though their origins are unknown, they could be semi-Rurkids

2017-05-04 23:21:12 UTC  

They could be

2017-05-04 23:21:17 UTC  

or they could be someone picked off the street

2017-05-04 23:21:29 UTC  

like Menshikov

2017-05-04 23:21:31 UTC  

to do some job

2017-05-04 23:21:59 UTC  

The purpose of Monarchy is to eliminaet egalitarianism and demotism and promote aristocracy

2017-05-04 23:22:15 UTC  

If you have a strong aristocracy and weaponized militia even a bad one cant do too much damage you should look what happened to tyrans most of the time time they were physicaly removed by their own family members

2017-05-04 23:22:17 UTC  

Everything that goes wrong in the government is to be fixed and life goes on

2017-05-04 23:22:22 UTC  

that is not the definition of monarchy

2017-05-04 23:22:35 UTC  

strong monarchs do not like aristocrats with actual power

2017-05-04 23:22:47 UTC  

they prefer to be absolute

2017-05-04 23:23:06 UTC  

They would be absolute on paper

2017-05-04 23:23:19 UTC  

We are yet to witness an absolute monarchy where the aristocracy was not in a position to shape ideas, aesthetics, policies and life in general

2017-05-04 23:23:28 UTC  

Yes we have

2017-05-04 23:23:30 UTC  

William I

2017-05-04 23:23:33 UTC  

We don't need aristocrats to be clerks

2017-05-04 23:23:33 UTC  

Augustus

2017-05-04 23:23:39 UTC  

That is not their natural position

2017-05-04 23:23:56 UTC  

Being a clerk is counter-definition of aristocracy

2017-05-04 23:23:59 UTC  

Henry VII, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I

2017-05-04 23:24:07 UTC  

Hey, Elizabeth was great

2017-05-04 23:24:23 UTC  

And apart from TV shows, Henry VIII was a popular ruler

2017-05-04 23:24:58 UTC  

Aristoracy isn't there to manage the state, though it can occupy *leading* positions in military business and politics

2017-05-04 23:25:25 UTC  

Aristocracy is there to be the best part of society and produce the best possible products of culture for society

2017-05-04 23:26:12 UTC  

But what if the King is the king as he has the biggest army and he has the biggest army as he's the King of the Peasants?

2017-05-04 23:26:21 UTC  

like many medieval English kings

2017-05-04 23:26:28 UTC  

and Roman emperors