u/Valuable_Storm_5958

To be honest am getting tired of them using republican propaganda and American view points as an argument.

The first one is tunisia, I made a comment that tunisia would be better off as a constitutional monarchy and a commenter said that constitutional monarchy are a oxymoron then it replied look at morocco and oman were both are stable countries but most Oman which hasn't been in any war since the cold war and what i find funny is that to them monarchy are oppressive and unelected people but also them you have a dictator that you democratically elected and will destroy your constitution and then you complain.

Then a commenter was a moroccon like the monarchy is a israeli puppet in reality morocco play both sides of anything because geopolitics and anything that benefits them.

The same commenter said that criticizing the king lead you to jail but because the commenter is a hypocrite the same happens in tunisia but again most anti monarchist think that republics are democratic which in real most of them are not even close to a democratic nation and most are just unstable mess just like the first franch republic, the Russian republic, Weimar republic and my favorite the frist Brazilian republic.

Then you have a commenter which his from Brazil saying that Brazil under the monarchy was a backward society, so I replied that is not true. Brazil under pedro ii was a regional power in south America and had modernized like other countries in the Victorian era. But he also said many were uneducated even though pedro ii funded school and universities in Brazil which the republican government don't want to accept it, he also claimed the monarchy was incompetent of modernizing brazil, that when I realized that he must had read republican propaganda.

So I replied that under pedro ii brazil was a regional power and was one of the most modernize countries in the Americas and he was also very enlightening and he built his country and had more plans to reform his nation. Then he brought up slavery and then it reipled that the slaves were own by the elites and rich business families. Most of the elites supported the republican coup because pedro ii wanted to abolish slavery and because his daughter had some progressive views and would be the first queen of Brazil. Imagine being a supporter of the Republican coup only to figure out the people who supported it are slave owners and sexist.

Then he said that Brazil was a great power under the republican era which is very laughable because the only thing Brazil was fighting is just uprising and if Brazil under the Republican era was a great power why does it have many republics and many uprisings.

I also commented that many black brazilian were monarchist and supported the House of braganza and many of them saw the coup and the republic as a illegitimate nation and even indigenous groups supported the monarchy.

Honestly it sad that pedro ii is a forgotten man who wanted the best for brazil and in the end he is mostly forgotten and replaced by ​years of republican nonsense

Just like what happened to great monarchs like napoleon iii, augustin iturbide and maximilian habsburg who tried to make their nations developed and help the country but most of their achievements have been forgotten today.

So yeah that what happened and what are your thoughts.​​​

In my opinion primogeniture is more better and less confusing than most salic law because it just the first child will be the future ruler while salic law is just only the male can rule but the is a problem what if the male hier dies or the king and his family mostly have daughters instead of sons.

so which is your preferred one and your options.

We can all agree that communism and nazism are both evil and should burn in hell.

Dom Afonso de Bragança almost look like his great grandfather pedro ii.

Also princess Angela is american.

He is one of the most underrated French king and the only hope for the French monarchy to have survived. But he had no children and was in bad health. He established the french semi constitutional monarchy or the charte constitution that helped both balance parliament and the monarchy. He reminds me of napoleon iii who created modernize france but was forgotten by history.