Absolute primogeniture means that the oldest child inherits, regardless of its gender. Canonically the Targaryens do not do this, they prefer sons and uncles over daughters.

But who would reign over Westeros? I am making the unrealistic assumption that birth and death years as well as marriages and children stay the same as they are canonically, because otherwise this would just be speculation.

Let's start with the conquest, which in this scenario would not be Aegon's, but his older sister Visenya's Conquest. Visenya rules until her death 44 years later.

Visenya's eldest child, Maegor, inherits. He rules until 48 AC and leaves no issue, has no siblings, so we have to follow his mother's next-younger sibling, Aegon. Aegon is already dead, and so is his oldest child Aenys, so the throne goes to his eldest child, [Rhaena](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Rhaena_Targaryen_(daughter_of_Aenys_I)).

Rhaena rules until her death in 73 AC. She survived her eldest child Aerea, so her secondborn child [Rhaella](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Rhaella_Targaryen_(daughter_of_Aegon)) inherits. Rhaella has taken a septa's vows, but as we know from OTL King Baelor, these apparently do not prevent one from being monarch. We don't know if Rhaella had any children, but if she did, they would have been unlawful since she was a septa.

We also do not know the year in which Rhaella dies. Assuming she dies between 73 AC and 103 AC, her mother's oldest living sibling, Jaehaerys, inherits. If Rhaella dies after 103 AC, the succession follows Jaehaerys' line.

Jaehaerys survives his firstborn child, Aemon, so next to inherit after Jaehaerys is Aemon's firstborn, [Rhaenys](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Rhaenys_Targaryen_(daughter_of_Aemon)), who rules until her death in 129.

Rhaenys survives her firstborn child, Laena, so Laena's firstborn child Baela inherits.

And this is where we end. We do not know when Baela dies, nor if she survives her only known child [Laena](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Laena_Velaryon_(daughter_of_Alyn)). If Leana has no issue, the throne would go to Baela's sibling Rhaena, and from there to the olde

Felt like a great accomplishment on Ironman. Just had to share. Ruler #4 is also in line to be the genius who strengthens the bloodline. AMA.

Edit: Started as Count of Anjou

Absolute primogeniture is hardly a thing in the real world, but let’s imagine for a moment how the Targaryen succession could have looked like if the concerned people would have been relatively fair towards their female relatives. (And I stress on relatively fair, here, because no non-legitimate bastard will be included in the list bellow.)

1. Rhaena, as opposed to both Maegor and Jaehaerys I until her death in 73 AC;

2. Rhaella, Rhaena’s daughter, as opposed to Jaehaerys I, in the eventuality she survived her mother;

3. Rhaenys, daughter to Aemon, Jaehaerys oldest son - as opposed to Viserys I, Rhaenyra and Aegon II;

4. Baela Targaryen, Rhaenys’s firstborn’s daughter - as opposed to Rhaenyra, Aegon II and Aegon III;

5. Of interest for the current timeline any descendant of Baela’s - I am thinking Velaryons and their kin;

6. Of interest for the current timeline, in the eventuality no available Baela descendant, any descendant of her sister Rhaena - she only had six daughters with her Hightower husband so here I imply half the Reach;

7. Of interest for the current timeline, and in the eventuality of both Baela and Rhaena’s lines becoming extinct, any child Jacaerys Velaryon will have from Sara Snow and his or hers descendants - thinking Starks, Umbers, Cerwyns, Waynwoods and Lyn Corbray with the mention, despite being Harwin Strong’s true son, Jacaerys Velaryon cannot be considered a bastard, as Laenor Velaryon recognized him as such, despite being fully aware of his true parentage;

8. Daena the Defiant, as opposed to Viserys II;

9. Daena’s sister, Elaena, and her legitimate offsprings: the Plumms and the Penroses, Brown Ben included;

10. Daenora, daughter to Rhaegel as opposed to Maekar;

11. Little Maegor, son of Daenora and Aerion Brightflame - some say we have already met this boy under the rags of the Tattered Prince;

12. Vaella, daughter of Daeron;

13. Maekar’s daughter Daella and her Dunk descendants - yes, I mean Brienne;

14. If legitimate, Jon;

15. Dany but only if non-bastard Jon is considered technically dead after ADWD;

16. The Baratheons, with the caveat Robert’s false children will go before Stannis and Renly;

17. Rhae Targaryen’s (the other Maekar’s daughter), descendants;

18. The Blackfyres;

19. The Martells;

20. Any descendants of Bloodraven’s sisters.

Hi everybody,

I was wondering what your opinions were on allowing women to inherit the throne. For centuries it almost never happened when a male heir was available, but today the trend is (in Europe at least) to allow for absolute primogeniture, what do you guys think?

Personally I don't mind it, but started wondering because of the discussion in Japan about a woman inheriting.

Absolute primogeniture (as opposed to Male-preference primogeniture) was not seen in (western) before 1980, when Sweden was the first monarchy to implement it. As it breaks traditional views on monarchism and is the complete opposite of the traditional Salic law, most monarchists shouldn't necessarily be a fan. However, it does adhere with views on equality and a 21st century monarchy.

What do you guys think?

The reason why I think this is a game-changer is that in 1901 after Queen Victoria died, her daughter Victoria II was passed up in favour of her younger brother Edward VII. If Absolute Primogeniture was instituted, Victoria II would have, after dying, passed the British Throne to *Drumroll please* Wilhelm II of Germany. How would this change history, assuming Victoria II dies of a heart attack a year later and Wilhelm keeps the throne with reluctant backing from the Parliament

So long story short I went from a duchy in a broken world to king of Bavaria then emperor of the holy roman empire. Up until that point it was all primogeniture with absolute laws mostly in place.

I made the empire and all of a sudden it was an elective type. Tried remaking my original kingdom of Bavaria but that was elective too! Couldn't change to primogeniture for ten years after that but i died before then. This mess basically ended my game a few years later after that.

Why did it become elective and how do I avoid it? I am mostly irritated because it did not make sense nor give me warning.

If I set succession laws to Primogeniture while having Absolute Crown Authority, can I still designate someone other than my first born as heir?

Whoever arguing for it, be it politicians wanting to score points, or supposed feminists, with “gender equality” as the reason should perhaps listen to their own bleeding argument - equality? You know what else is unequal in itself? It’s Monarchy. The argument itself is already rather irrelevant to begin with.

Secondly, whether it’s “unequal” is besides the point, what matters is the tradition that gives legitimacy to the monarch, which in most country is patrilineal descent as the basis of the dynasty, hence if the eldest daughter succeeds, unless she marries a distant relative of the same house or if her offspring is disqualified, in most kinds of primogeniture that those “egalitarian” pursue under such circumstance will effectively give the throne away to another dynasty, even if the law decrees that the monarch after that will adopt the same dynasty name, it’s just a burying one’s head in the sand, the patrilineal descent of the monarch will have been altered unless it somehow reverts to other members of the previous dynasty, which is fine if you’re prepared to have the patrilineal descent cut, especially if it’s as old as that of Japan, and change the dynasty, but I don’t think it makes any sense.

Unless only members of the same dynasty could succeed and not any offsprings produced by female members and men who are outside the royal house (thus without the patrilineal descent), which was the case in early medieval Japan where Empresses either married within the same royal family and had heir by them or simply passed the throne to another relative of the royal house, it is simply foolish to mandate an absolute primogeniture and misses the point of the monarchy itself.

I find it very interesting that Tolkien had the Numenoreans practise absolute (or cognatic) primogeniture, and especially interesting that it is instituted by Aldarion, a character whose story is so shaped by gender. The Lords of Andunie were, by this law (only enacted after they were ruled out of the successsion), the rightful rulers of Numenor, this cognatic right realised only after the Downfall. It's also interesting that the great tyrant of Numenorean history (Ar-Pharazon) seized power from the rightful queen. In Tolkien's later writings especially, a nuanced understanding of gender emerges, highly sympathetic to both men and women. I'm very glad that this material is likely to be incorporated into the upcoming telly series.

I created held the empires of Britain and Scandinavia which had succession of my female and empress followed by her sister and then male and female cousins. When I then created the empire of Francia the succession laws were supposedly the same, but the game said that my character's father was going to inherit (the khan of the Mongals). Is this an error or am I missing something with this form of inheritance.

Apart from keeping all my family members unlanded and at my court so that I can marry them off as I please (and thus marry every woman matrilineally to an unlanded man so she stays at court), is there anything that can be done -- while still remaining Absolute Cognatic Primogeniture -- to make it so these women marry matrilineally as much as possible? (Or is that the answer -- keep everyone at court and that way you can micro-manage all those marriages?)

My ruler ended up living to 103 and outlived all children, and -- before my ruler passed away -- I had to assassinate a female heir because she had already married patrilineally, was past child-bearing age (but had children who were of the father's house, because of the patrilineal marriage who would apparently inherit if she became Empress).

Fortunately after I assassinated her, a male became my heir.

Speaking of which, how does Primogeniture even work past children? Is it depth-first search, breadth-first search, or some strange hybrid? (Why did my female heir's children stand to inherit if she became Empress, but not if I assassinated her first?)

Nasty succession fight going on right now though because you wouldn't believe the Long Reign bonuses from living to 103.

I personally don't see a problem with a woman inheriting. History has proven that women can be just as good rulers, and when a child is properly prepared for their tasks as a monarch, i think it doesn't matter if the child is male or female.

What is your stance on this?

Absolute primogeniture is the passage of power to the eldest child without regards to gender.

Let's say the new timeline continues as is until at least December 1861. In OTL's December, Prince Albert died, and Victoria blamed Edward (Victoria II's younger brother, the eventual king) because the ailing Prince Consort had traveled to chastise his son for carrying on an affair with an actress. The POD then would be that she is so displeased with her son that she moves to make sure he doesn't take the throne.

Had Victoria I established absolute primogeniture during her reign, her daughter Victoria II would have come to the throne in 1901. She was the wife of Friderich III of Germany, mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II.

So what impact would this have on the run up to World War I, with a mother on the throne of England and her son on the throne of Germany and Prussia? What impact might Victoria II's death 7 months after her mother have had, leaving Wilhelm II as Kaiser of the German Reich, King of Prussia and the United Kingdom?

Assume that I’m Robert Baratheon, first of my name, and I’ve just been crowned king on this day, 283 AC.

As in the current timeline, I appoint Jon Arryn as Hand and pardon Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Jamie Lannister. I immediately get set to work rehabilitating Jamie’s image in the public eye, assuring the people that Aerys would’ve burned King’s Landing if not for his heroic actions.

Who I don’t pardon, is the Mountain and Tywin Lannister. Ser Gregor would be executed as soon as humanly possible via beheading. Period. Even barring the butchering of Ella and her children, the man is too dangerous to be kept alive. Both his head, and his lands in the Westerlands would be given to the Dornish as a peace offering. As well as the bodies of Ella, Rhaenys, and Aegon for a proper burial. With Tywin it’s more complicated. Obviously he won’t be too happy about the death of his top knight and the loss of Gregor’s Keep, but hopefully not enough to declare arms(?). With that in mind I’d strip Tywin from his position as Lord of Casterly Rock and any other titles and make Jamie ruler instead for his heroism in the Rebellion. This will piss him off, but Jamie is his favorite son, and at the end of the day the Lannisters are still in power. Thus making my first reform; members of the Kingsguard can now hold land. I would also marry Cersei, as in the current timeline, and tell her that I know about the incest and don’t care as long as she is willing to produce a legitimate heir. (Notice the lack of specifically a legitimate “male” heir, more on this later)

Obviously I’d try to make amends with Eddard as soon as possible, and appoint him as the first to hold a new position on the Small Council; the Master-of-War. The defense minister, head of national security, and commander of Westeros’s new standing army, second only to the King. The position of “Warden” is abolished, instead replaced with an elite corps of career soldiers paid a salary with a dedicated infrastructure of command. At the lowest rank, there would be Squires. They would intern for Knights for a year, trained in both sword combat and archery, never deployed in combat unless in the most dire of circumstances. They would be equipped with padded leather, a bow, and the most basic of swords. Above them, there would be Esquires. The everyday soldiers, they would be outfitted with boiled leather worn under some mail, three bows and the standard issue sword. Next woul

Just wanted to share my ideal set-up for a new ruling house.

1. Matrilineal Succession (mostly). I firmly believe this would be a good alternative to today's quandary over male-preference or absolute primogeniture. It proves unbroken descent and really can't be argued with and will prevent squabbles over the throne. (It's really hard to argue illegitimacy when the current monarch literally came out of the previous one.) If of course, issues arise, then we default to closest fertile relative, preferably the sister of the current monarch. If that doesn't work then we can go through the nearest male line. And no, I'm not a radical feminist. Just a guy that thinks it's an idea that might work. There has never been a king of Britain more popular than a queen of Britain. Nationalism and patriotism was at its highest during the reign of Victoria. I think there is something to be said in the psychology as well: "mother of the nation" and whatnot.

2. The monarch's powers would be similar to the current King of Bhutan: ^(The King may, by) ^(Royal Prerogative)^(, command bills and other measures to be introduced in Parliament. Furthermore, bills of Parliament are ultimately subject to veto and modification by the King, however he must assent to bills resubmitted after joint sittings and deliberations. In addition, the King is the protector of) ^(all religions in Bhutan)^(.The King is also the) ^(Supreme Commander in Chief) ^(of the) ^(Armed Forces and the Militia of Bhutan)^(. The King is) ^(not answerable in a court of law) ^(for his actions, and his person is sacrosanct. However, the King is mandated to protect and uphold the Constitution "in the best interest and for the welfare of the people of Bhutan." Furthermore, there are Constitutional provisions for involuntary abdication in the event the King violates the Constitution.The King appoints most of the upper Judicial branch through actual choice, not on the advice of parliament.  However, governors of provinces are appointed by recommendation and election. And army and executive positions are appointed from a list determined by parliament. The Constitution provides that the King must abdicate the throne for willful violations of the Constitution and law or for suffering permanent mental disability.  Such a motion must be passed with 2/3 majority in parliament and then will go to national referendum.​)

3. Ultimate sovereignty resides with the monarchical house. They are the focal point of the nation's right

This is an extended and enhanced version of a ranting comment on a post here.

Also reposting to get more criticism. I want to get to 20,000 words.

For those who disagree, please comment. I plan on expanding this exponentially.

Edits will be made from time to time to improve coherency. I can’t do this all at once since I am really quite busy. I do hope that a large debate develops in the comments though.

Warning. This is very long.

Context: someone posted a stupid post about China being good and I threw a fit.

Do me a favour and upvote. I need as much criticism as possible so exposure would be great.

I’m beginning to see an awful lot of people on this use the recent success of a certain authoritarian state, alongside a variety of others, to make the case that democracies do not work and that absolute monarchies under an enlightened leader would be the best option for us all. This sub has been no stranger to those who advocate the rule of absolute monarchs, who often look to historical success to justify their opinions. Recently though, this has started to shift to a reverent view of autocracies, with this position being justified with Rapid GDP growth figures, moral stability compared with democracies and the nice continuation of a line of leaders who can plan in the long term. I staunchly disagree with this view, and below I have outlined why this view is not only flawed, but dangerous.

Highly developed nations (of which most constitutional monarchies are) are far more likely to be democratic than developing and least-developed nations. The slow nature of growth in highly developed nations due to their advanced state which creates a lack of an opportunity to copy those who went before them (as there aren't any) and the effect industrialisation has on the expansion of output in developing nations means that growth is far more likely to be slow relatively speaking. Democracy is likely to speed up this process if strong institutions are established. Botswana is by far the best example of this. Botswana started out as the 3rd poorest state in the world upon independence from the British, however it is now one of the richest states in Africa and by far the most stable. This is due to the  rule of a man called Sir Seretse Khama, the tribal chief and de facto King of the area who created extremely strong democratic and meritocratic institutions. He also based his country on the rule of law, which has contributed to almost non-existent corrup

Primogeniture is one aspect of monarchism I'm not very knowledgeable about. As a Commonwealth subject my monarchy adheres to absolute primogeniture and I don't really see why it shouldn't, what are your thoughts?

View Poll

Official Name: The Divine Dual Monarchy of Xysus

Common Name: Xysus

Adjective: Xysusan

Capital: Xuzzyn (located in present-day Heraklion, Crete, Greece)

Color/s: Green

Economy: Opt-In

Population: Opt-In

Claim Type: Centralized/State

Tech Age: Bronze

Key Techs: Spoked Wheel, Writing

Map: Here!

The Basic History Of The Xysusan Dual Monarchy So Far:

• The Xysusan Dual Monarchy consists of 2 cultures as of late: The coastal (and seafaring + trading) Xyt (Sea in English) and the inland (and agricultural + hunting) Zyt (Rock in English).
• The 2 Xysusan cultures inhabit the entirety of Crete (or Xysus in Xyz, which is primary language of the Dual Monarchy; words from this language like Xyt and Zyt for example are used in this claim) since 8,000 BCE in the form of settlements that sometimes interact with each other (they were migrants from Bys Tassus, or South/Southern Turkey in English).
• The settlements, as well as the 2 cultures, peacefully united and became the dual monarchy that it is today since 2,000 BCE, founding its current capital around the same date.
• The Xysusan people believe in a duotheistic pantheon representing the Earth and Rock and the Sky and Sea. The god of the Earth and Rock is named Zas (He/Him, literally means Earth in English) and the goddess of the Sky and Sea is named Xas (She/Her, literally means Sky in English), and according to their creation stories they were born from nothing, married each other, and created the world (humanity included) after a quarrel for some unknown reason (they both make amends and forgive each other afterwards; not long after the soon-to-be monarchs of Xysus was chosen by Zas and Xas; they were destined to lead, they were hand-picked from the rest of humanity, and they were blessed with great health, strength, and wisdom).
• One of the monarchs (preferably a male, but females could do as well) represents Zas and one of the monarchs (preferably a female, but males could do as well) represents Xas.
• The Xyssyn (Good Family in English) Dynasty, which consists of the deities’ “chosen” (including the said monarchs), currently rules Xysus since the dual monarchy's inception at 2000 BCE. The Xyssyn Dynasty is currently seated at the Dual Monarchy's capital, Xuzzyn (or Great Settlement in English).
• The Divine Dual Monarchy of Xysus is, obviously, rul

1. In the summer the monarch is a figurehead and Parliament rules, in the winter the monarch rules, in the spring and autumn they share power.
2. The monarchs have been secretly controlled for centuries, possessed by the spirit of the first monarch who is in the coronet they wear.
3. Two kings, both with veto power over the other.
4. If things are going really badly, the monarch is sacrificed to the Gods.
5. The Monarch is elected by the people for a year at a time and then a new one is chosen.
6. The Monarch has his or her own political party in Parliament and only has power when it is the largest party.

SpringPfeiffer·2 hr. ago

7-The tallest person rules. There are a lot of arranged marriages in this nation. A dwarf/gnome/halfling rebellion is brewing. An unusually tall dwarf is trying to broker peace. A hill giant is claiming they are the rightful ruler.

8-There are two sovereigns, but if they disagree on a policy a sacred chicken pecks at a chart to make the final descion. The Chicken Keeper is a very revered and sought after office.

9-Whoever can tell the hardest riddle rules until the riddle is solved. Then all eligible nobles and the riddle solver compete to tell the hardest riddle and become the next ruler.

10-Whomever gives away the most money rules.

11-The monarch is a mostly ceremonial title, except on nights with the full moon. Those nights they pass judgement, and their judgement is absolute.

12-In daytime, the monarch is a devout worshiper of a God. At night, they are a devout worshiper of a completely different God. The monarch doesn't sleep.

13-To maintain their office, the monarch must eat a part of themselves once a year. The King Butcher is the monarch's most trusted advisor. The current monarch still has most of one arm, but that's about it.

14-The monarch derives power from speaking as little as possible. People who can speak less than the monarch can challenge them for the leadership. The court is full of people not speaking and trying to usurp the monarch if they ever do speak.

perhapsthisnick·3 hr. ago

15-A kingdom whose ruler rules so long as the Royal Advisors determine their rule bene

Hi all! I posted these last year but they got deleted when the sub shifted. I'll start reposting them but fair warning - they may be a bit out of date! Please feel free to add anything important from the last year. Also, some stuff copy/pasted weird and I'm too lazy to fix it (sorry!).

Oh, and I am not sure how to place the proper Swedish characters in the Swedish names of things (i.e. locations) so my apologies to my scandinavian friends here.

Edit: Looks like some links here are broken. Working on updating them.

If you want to follow:

Royal Family Instagram

Prince Couple Instagram

Princess Madeleine Instagram

King Carl XVI Gustaf

King Carl Gustaf ascended the throne at age 27 (in 1973) on the death of his grandfather. His father, the heir to the throne, died in an airplane crash when Carl Gustaf was 9 months old. Due to the 1974 Instrument of Government, signed by his grandfather, he has no role in governmental affairs. He no longer appoints the prime ministers, does not sign off on legislation, and is not commander-in-chief of the military.

• Marriage: King Carl Gustaf is married to Silvia Sommerlath. They met at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich where she was an interpreter and host. Fun fact: it was rumored that Carl Gustaf courted Princess Anne for a time! They kept their relationship secret until they were photographed driving together in 1973, she moved to Sweden in 1974, and their engagement was announced in 1976. Read about their relationship and wedding here

Here's his official bio and a pic if you've never seen him (sorry, Reddit's not letting me link today): https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/royalfamily/hmkingcarlxvigustaf/biography.4.396160511584257f2180006110.html

Queen Silvia of Sweden

Silvia was born in Germany to a German father and Brazilian Mother. She attended the Munich School of Interpreting, majoring in Spanish. She speaks Swedish, German, Portuguese, French, Spanish, and English, as well as some Swedish Sign Language.

Please google pictures of her because she is a stunning woman: [https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/queen-silvia-of-sweden

After playing the game for a while, I have some tips to share, mostly for newer players but also to struggling players on how to be successful at the game and by result make it boring for you. Most of these tips come from playing in Europe, North Africa and Persia, in general these tips should apply to wherever you choose to play.

Choosing a start point

Start either as a count or a duke. The reason is that starting as a King or Emperor makes the game more confusing and harder to understand, if you start at the bottom you will better understand the base mechanics of the game. Avoid playing with Clan government, they are more difficult and many tips below require playing as feudal. Clan is great as a challenge though, if you feel comfortable with the game, give them a try.

Culture

Culture is also an important choice. Your character culture mainly drives two things:

• The units available when creating your men-at-arms retinue.
• Discovered innovations unlocking buildings and laws.

The best men-at-arms units in the game are heavy infantry units because they generally work well everywhere and have great stats. There are other threads explaining more and cases when heavy infantry is not the best, but I'm sure that if it's not the best it'll easily be the second best. Cultures that give you access to stronger heavy infantry are great cultures to play as. Cultural units are listed in this wiki page.

Culture influences the speed at which innovations are discovered by the average development of counties that are of the culture. In order to make the most of innovation speed you want a culture that is fairly small and centered in a small region.

The most powerful culture in the game is Norse or any North Germanic, the reason for this is:

1. They have access to really strong men-at-arms units. Particularly Varangian Guards and Huscarls. I personally go with Huscarls, but Varangian Guards are great too.
2. They have access to the Pillage dynastry tree, which is an amazing tree. The second tier gives you +2 units on your heavy infantry units and the third tier gives you a higher chance to capture enemies during sieges, potentially ending wars really fast.
3. Astaru is a great religion because the Warmongering tenet is one of the best tenets in game. The Conquest CB and Invade Kingdom CB are really strong CBs that are available thanks to this tenet and you won't have to deal with the "Offensive War" negative modifier.

1/8/22: Trying to get all of these posted so here is some light reading on this fine Saturday. Other than some small updates, some links may be broken and this information is now about a year old.

Author's Note: The Belgians are kind of hard to find information on, so this recap may be a bit light. If you're more familiar with them please feel free to add additional info below. Also, I went back a few more generations than usual to set up the reign of the current King.

Belgian Royal Family Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/belgianroyalpalace/?hl=en

Christmas 2021 official photo: https://www.newmyroyals.com/2021/12/the-belgian-royal-family-released-2021.html

King Leopold III (1901-1983)

King Leopold III surrendered to German forces during the war in 1940. We’ll get more into this another time, but this caused a huge rift between Leopold and his government, with his government fleeing to live in exile in London while the King remained under German control in Belgium. In 1944 Leopold and his family were deported to Germany by Henrich Himmler, and were held there until liberated by Allied Forces in 1945. Due to the years-long conflict between Leopold and his government, while he was in exile they had set up his brother (Prince Charles) as regent and refused to allow Leopold back into Belgium. In 1951, he abdicated in favor of his son, King Baudouin.

Note – this is a long and complicated story best explained another time but I want to include some background here.

King Baudouin (1930-1993)

Reined as King of the Belgians from 1951 until his death in 1993. He and his wife, Queen Fabiola, had no children, so after his reign the crown passed to his younger brother, King Albert II.

King Albert II (b. 1934)

Became King of the Belgians upon the death of his older brother. His mother was Queen Astrid, a Princess of Sweden. His older sister was Grand Duchess Josephine-Charlotte (basically a Queen, but they’re not called Queens) of Luxembourg.

During WW2 was exiled to France and Spain with his family, however they returned to Belgium in 1944. A year later they were deported by the Germans to Germany and later Austria until they were liberated by the United States Army forces in 1945. After liberation, his father (the King) was not allowed to return to Belgium, so the family moved to Switzerland where A

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Royal Family Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/courgrandducale/?hl=en

Tessy's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tessy_from_luxembourg/?hl=en

In summer 2020 two accounts have surfaced appearing to be Maria Teresa, however they are not verified at this time.

MT Twitter (unverified): https://twitter.com/MariaTeresa_Lux

The family together on their 2021 summer vacation: https://www.hola.com/us/royals/20210830g1wor07ilo/baby-prince-charles-luxembourg-royal-family-summer-vacation-1/

Grand Duke Henri (b. 1955)

Henri is the son of Grand Duke Jean and his wife Princess Josephine-Charlotte of Belgium. Through his mother he is a first cousin of King Philippe of Belgium, and a third cousin to King Carl Gustaf of Sweden and Queen Margrethe of Denmark.

He was born the second child and first son of his parents, meaning he surpassed his elder sister to become Grand Duke of Luxembourg. He became heir apparent at age 9 when his grandmother, Grand Duchess Charlotte, abdicated.

He was educated in Luxembourg and France, attending military officer training at Sandhurst in England. He studied political science at the University of Geneva.

He became Grand Duke in 2000 after his father abdicated the throne.

Marriage:

While studying at the University of Geneva he met Cuban-born Maria Teresa, a fellow political science student. They were married in 1981.

It is said that Henri’s parents expected him to marry a royal or a noble. As a young man he was linked to many of the available young royals across Europe, including Princess Caroline of Monaco. His parents did not support his choice of bride and it is rumored he threatened to renounce his claim to the grand ducal throne to marry Maria Teresa. Henri’s parents finally relented to the match, however the relationship between Maria Teresa and Henri’s mother, Josephine-Charlotte, was strained for the rest of Josephine-Charlotte’s life.

About their wedding

Deep dive into her dress

[See Henri giving a speech (in Engl

Royal Family Instagram https://www.instagram.com/detnorskekongehus/

Crown Princess Mette Marit Instagram https://www.instagram.com/crownprincessmm/?hl=en

Princess Martha Louise Instagram https://www.instagram.com/princessmarthalouise/

Princess Martha Louise Instagram #2 https://www.instagram.com/iam_marthalouise/ (I believe she was asked to no longer use the Princess title)

King Harald V (b. 1937)

Ascended the throne in 1991 after the death of his father, King Olav V. He was the third child of the King, however his older siblings were both females. At the time of his birth he was 16th in line to the British throne as a descendant of Queen Victoria - he and Queen Elizabeth are second cousins. He spent part of his childhood in Sweden and the US after his family went into exile during WW2.

Harald has executive power granted to him by the constitution, however he is not politically responsible for exercising it. His acts must be countersigned with a member of the Council of State (generally the Prime Minister). He also has the power of veto, however no Norwegian King has exercised it since the dissolution of union of Sweden in 1905.

Interesting Facts:

Represented Sweden in the 1964, 1968, and 1972 Olympic Games in the sport of sailing.

Marriage: Harald married commoner Sonja Haraldsen in 1968. They dated (in secret!) for 9 years prior because his father, King Olav, would not allow him to marry a commoner. Olav only relented when Harald told him he would remain unmarried for his lifetime unless he was allowed to marry Sonja. They met at a dinner party.

See photos from their wedding here:.

As part of his official visit to Washington and Alaska in May, His Majesty King Harald V of Norway spoke at Pacific Lutheran University’s Commencement ceremony, where he received a Doctor of Laws jure dignitatis.

Gave a speech that publicly supported LGTBQ+

Queen Sonja (b. 1937)

Born to a clot

To preface, I want to make one thing very clear. I am by no means an idealist when it comes to politics. In fact, I'm highly skeptical of any and all idealistic, or utopian ideologies, such as Communism and most of all Nazism, for quite obvious reasons. Not one human being, or group of humans, is wise or provident enough to devise a "perfect" form of government, let alone a "perfect" society. It is practically a law of nature that that endeavor is impossible, and any attempt therein is inherently highly dangerous. Besides, one form of government may work just fine in one culture, location or time period, and utterly fail if one of the circumstances were different, and I'm not going to pretend that I understand which cultural, societal, economic or geographic factors exactly affect this. In short; when I say "ideal form of government", that's precisely what it is - an ideal.

Also, I have to admit that my perspective and worldview are markedly Western-centric, both due to my lack of knowledge and desire to understand non-Western cultures up to a particularly noteworthy degree.

Now, how would I even call this "ideal" form of government? Well; semi-constitutional federative monarchy. So let's go over each one of these terms briefly.

Semi-constitutional - I do not believe in absolute monarchy, but at the same time, what's the point of having a monarch if they have no real power, like the constitutional monarchies of Northwestern Europe? What I'm aiming at here is essentially a semi-presidential government, like modern France or the Weimar Republic, where the president (or head of state) and the prime minister (head of government) are more-or-less equals, and exist in order to check each other's power, but the president serves as the "symbol" of the country. The only difference is, the "president" is unelected, and is, in fact, a monarch, who assumes power through hereditary succession, specifically through absolute primogeniture, as is the case with modern Northwestern European monarchies.

Federative - This is a point that is perhaps most dependant on the country; there isn't much sense in a place like Liechtenstein forming a federation, but I do see federalism as an idea appealing, and noble, as I recognize that many nation-states aren't very homogenous; people in one region may speak a different language from the rest of the country, or the geography may be different enough to impact the day-to-day lives of the inhabitants in a way that others won't

THE 6 XYSUSAN ELEMENTS

• The Xysusan people believe that the world (humanity included) consists of 6 elements, namely Earth, Rock, Sky, Sea, Fire (Vyt in English), and Life (Lyt in English).
• Earth consists of mud, sand, soil, earth, and dust, Rock consists of stone, rock, gems, crystals, and metals, Sky consists of day, night, wind, clouds, and lightning, Sea consists of freshwater, seawater, steam, snow, and rain, Fire consists of fire, wildfire, smoke, ash, and charcoal, while Life consists of fungi, flora, fauna, and humanity.
• It is in a constant state of balance for most of the time, but maladies, sickness, and disasters occur if any one of them suffers an imbalance (a wildfire erupting if there is too much Fire, a storm if there is too much Sky, a drought if there is little Sea, a plague if there is too much Life, etc.). Hey, Zas and Xas are imperfect and does make mistakes sometimes just like us, and that includes making the world, as well as humanity, imperfect and prone to imbalance (something burning if there is little Fire, some water to put out fires if there is too much Fire, etc.).
• To remedy this, the people must sacrifice something related to the imbalance to Zas and Xas (and give that sacrifice to at least one member of the clergy, more about them later), as well as to alleviate the situation as soon as possible by reconstructing buildings, rescuing people, and the like in order to remind them of the imbalance and fix it immediately. They will almost always notice it, but if they do not, then even greater sacrifices and/or work (or simply patience) are needed.

THE MONARCHS & THE CHOSEN

• Only the monarchs themselves, as well as the rest of the “chosen” ones (also known as, simply, Taz Kuzzythyz in Xyz or The Chosen in English), own slaves, kill cattle for leather and meat (among other things), make leather from cattle, tan cattle hide for leather, lead the military of Xysus, and rule and manage Xysus and its provinces, cities, and settlements. Also marriage and childrearing is more or less expected among the Chosen as well.
• All past, present, and upcoming monarchs of Xysus (as of now) came from the capital of Xuzzyn.
• The reason why the Chosen are only allowed to do these things is that Zas and Xas hand-picked the Chosen, trusting them to lead the country well. Betraying the Chosen, not recognizing the Chosen, and the like is like not trusting the will of the gods at all, and you do not like what happens if you do n

Do your worst!

They were cooked in Greece.

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

Don't you know a good pun is its own reword?

This is an extended and enhanced version of a ranting comment on a post here.

For those who disagree, please comment. I plan on expanding this exponentially.

Edits will be made from time to time to improve coherency. I can’t do this all at once since I am really quite busy. I do hope that a large debate develops in the comments though.

Warning. This is very long.

Context: someone posted a stupid post about China being good and I threw a fit.

Do me a favour and upvote. I need as much criticism as possible so exposure would be great.

I’m beginning to see an awful lot of people on this use the recent success of a certain authoritarian state, alongside a variety of others, to make the case that democracies do not work and that absolute monarchies under an enlightened leader would be the best option for us all. This sub has been no stranger to those who advocate the rule of absolute monarchs, who often look to historical success to justify their opinions. Recently though, this has started to shift to a reverent view of autocracies, with this position being justified with Rapid GDP growth figures, moral stability compared with democracies and the nice continuation of a line of leaders who can plan in the long term. I staunchly disagree with this view, and below I have outlined why this view is not only flawed, but dangerous.

Highly developed nations (of which most constitutional monarchies are) are far more likely to be democratic than developing and least-developed nations. The slow nature of growth in highly developed nations due to their advanced state which creates a lack of an opportunity to copy those who went before them (as there aren't any) and the effect industrialisation has on the expansion of output in developing nations means that growth is far more likely to be slow relatively speaking. Democracy is likely to speed up this process if strong institutions are established. Botswana is by far the best example of this. Botswana started out as the 3rd poorest state in the world upon independence from the British, however it is now one of the richest states in Africa and by far the most stable. This is due to the  rule of a man called Sir Seretse Khama, the tribal chief and de facto King of the area who created extremely strong democratic and meritocratic institutions. He also based his country on the rule of law, which has contributed to almost non-existent corruption in a state that should be rife with it. The country had the highe

With the current succession crisis, how would the people react to this?

How does royal power pass in your world? Is it absolute primogeniture, like in England? Does the monarch pick a successor, like in Rome? Does it pass to a different relative, like the son of the eldest sister? Or maybe only those with certain royal traits (white hair? Magic power?) can rule. Maybe a prophecy determines the ruler.

For example, if Princess Amalia were to adopt a child could that child become King/Queen?

I am from the US so I’m not familiar on Dutch laws but I heard there was an adoption act of 1956 which allowed adopted children to be equal to biological children, does this still work with the succession laws in the constitution? And does this still follow the rules of absolute cognatic primogeniture and proximity by degree of kinship?

Thanks in advance

This is an extended and enhanced version of a ranting comment on a post here.

For those who disagree, please comment. I plan on expanding this exponentially.

Edits will be made from time to time to improve coherency. I can't do this all at once since I am really quite busy. I do hope that a large debate develops in the comments though.

Warning. This is very long.

Context: someone posted a stupid post about China being good and I threw a fit.

I’m beginning to see an awful lot of people on this use the recent success of a certain authoritarian state, alongside a variety of others, to make the case that democracies do not work and that absolute monarchies under an enlightened leader would be the best option for us all. This sub has been no stranger to those who advocate the rule of absolute monarchs, who often look to historical success to justify their opinions. Recently though, this has started to shift to a reverent view of autocracies, with this position being justified with Rapid GDP growth figures, moral stability compared with democracies and the nice continuation of a line of leaders who can plan in the long term. I staunchly disagree with this view, and below I have outlined why this view is not only flawed, but dangerous.

Highly developed nations (of which most constitutional monarchies are) are far more likely to be democratic than developing and least-developed nations. The slow nature of growth in highly developed nations due to their advanced state which creates a lack of an opportunity to copy those who went before them (as there aren't any) and the effect industrialisation has on the expansion of output in developing nations means that growth is far more likely to be slow relatively speaking. Democracy is likely to speed up this process if strong institutions are established. Botswana is by far the best example of this. Botswana started out as the 3rd poorest state in the world upon independence from the British, however it is now one of the richest states in Africa and by far the most stable. This is due to the rule of a man called Sir Seretse Khama, the tribal chief and de facto King of the area who created extremely strong democratic and meritocratic institutions. He also based his country on the rule of law, which has contributed to almost non-existent corruption in a state that should be rife with it. The country had the highest GDP growth rate in the world for about 20 years too due to the extremely competent rule of Seretse.