The good guys are a leftist Kingdom with gender-equality (sortof a matriarchy).
So I’m going with a deliberately girly name.
Wondering what comes to your mind when you hear this? Does it work as a name?
The good guys are a leftist Kingdom with gender-equality (sortof a matriarchy).
So I’m going with a deliberately girly name.
Wondering what comes to your mind when you hear this? Does it work as a name?
Yes and they also got rooted out by the inquisition. The concept of an enlightened monarch is a modern fairy tale invented by countries with constitutional monarchies. The most enlightened a country’s monarchy got was when resisting imperialism and genocide, then they went back to enslaving their own people when the imminent threat had passed.
No they didn’t. The radical reformation took place in the sweetspot between the end of the so called “Papal inquisition” and the beginning of the so called “Roman inquisition”, and the Spanish inquisition had little power to enforce catholic doctrine in the lands where it took place.
And by the time the Roman inquisition kicked off, Anabaptists had taken over entire towns and Protestantism taking over entire countries. The inquisition can’t do shit to you if you’re in a non catholic town…
Now they did kill a bunch of anabaptists, don’t get me wrong. But it was aristocrats, catholic and protestant alike that ended the radical reformation as a political (But not theological) movement.
Müntzer as a representive of what we might call the politial wing (Although they would make no distinction) of the radical reformation was killed by a protestant (Phillip of Hesse) at the behest of a Catholic bishop.
Incidentally Phillip of Hesse was also a patron of Anabaptists in his own lands. But only the ones, like Zwingli, who championed the aristocracy.
No. It was explicitly a counter to the idea of a constitutional monarchy. It grew out of enlightened absolutism as a political philosophy. Its champions include Frederick the Great, Catherine of Russia, and Denis Diderot (Of the slight misquote, although true in sentiment, “Men shall never be free until the last king is strangled with the entails of the last priest”)
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out if the man who wrote “Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre, Au défaut d’un cordon pour étrangler les rois” and two famous autocrats are fans of constitutional monarchism.
I know where the concept began. But there is a modern idea in fantasy literature that it is possible for kings and queens to be “good” and “moral” and could transform their countries singlehandedly to their “goodness” which is made up nonsense. All of those monarchs listed obviously thought they were good and moral, but very few people living in those times actually thought monarchs were that way and we have ahistorically thrusted the love of monarchs onto the masses back then. Nowadays, it seems that the all fantasy literature is obsessed with this entirely mythical concept.
No. People did love their autocrats. To a degree that was not rational. Even when the autocrat was objectively unfit or cruel to their subjects that got blamed on secondaries because people loved the autocrat. Countries with autocratic monarchies had borderline cultist devotion (And in Russia and Denmark, actual cultist devotion) to them among the peasantry and working classes
Earlier, before the rise of “modern” absolutism, people literally ascribed divine power to monarchs.
Thais love and adore their monarch IME
The current Thai monarch doesn’t have the popularity of the previous guy, but extremely harsh lese majeste laws are in force.
I was just trying to think of more “progressive” religious movements.
I suppose theres also some of the different monastic orders, sometimes. They’re all over the place, especially in the Americas.