"L'etat, c'est moi" types. Unabashed supporters of what some would call despotism, and what is in practice quite simply whatever the King says.
A form of monarchy with three branches/estates of government: King, Nobility, and Clergy. These branches place each other in a system of checks and balances, although often the checks and balances are created and maintained through an emergent process, not necessarily through an explicitly written procedures and contracts that might make it more of a constitutional monarchy. Usually supporters of l'Ancien Regime place emphasis on the traditional elements that the theocratic estate brings to the table.
"This is absurd. Anarchism is 'without hierarchy' and how can you say--"
Look, I'm just trying to be a messenger of what's on the board. If it upsets you, make a thread about it. If you want to understand it, this now defunct website is the best that I can find., see also the timestamps next to the video "What Must Be Done" in the links below. I'm not going to pretend to understand the syncretic position, but I think it's something like, "The natural leaders that arise in the absence of government create a system not unlike an aristocracy, but which maintains a voluntary nature."
There seems to be a different meaning of 'Anarcho-Monarchism,' which seems to be almost a compromise position. If I could capture it in a slogan would be, "Anarcho-Capitalism first, but for now I'll take Monarchy."
A final meaning is just simply Anarcho-Capitalists who like Hoppe's anti-Democratic arguments and admire some Kings, or cross-posters from /liberty/ trying to avoid the complete lack of moderation there.
A form of hereditary rule that focuses on plurality of individual leaders chosen by birth as opposed to a unitary individual leader. Aristocrats differ between supporting "A Natural Aristocracy," which I'm not going to attempt to define, a system where power is shared between a council of Aristocrats or Vassal lords and a King, and a system which is controlled by a parliament of Aristocrats (the historical example here is the Polish Sejm).
There are folks who are just fine with having a monarch fulfill a ceremonial role.
Just because you're on a chan doesn't mean you have to have the most edgelord political philosophy available to you.
Sometimes we like to get worked up about succession law. This can delineate different forms of monarchism (especially in elective or tanistric succession mechanisms), bring out the dormant Jacobites into discussion, or get suggestions about using succession law to solve other problems of Monarchism (e.g., should children of an incestuous marriage (Charles II) be considered legitimate?).
People who think that the King should rule, but it should still be restrained by checks and balances and an explicit written contract that is a constitution.
An incredibly hierarchical society that is organized almost completely by birth and through ties to specific plots of land. Some appreciate either the incredibly hierarchical structure, or they appreciate the 'simple life.'
Supporters of Monarchy, but either in very specific roles in government, or people who view Monarchism as inherently illegitimate enough that a Monarchist would in practice delegitimatize the State enough to serve as a means to induce a limited government.
More or less supporters of the Liechtenstein system, and in particular as described in ''The State in the Third Millennium''. Where political support for the Monarch and the power of the Monarch is simultaneously tempered by legitimizing secession, and secession is used as a political tool to support and foster Monarchy.
Socialists who are maybe admirers of the Incan system, but in short see Monarchy as a way to foster Socialism or at least vast economic planning.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a Monarchy."
This is for those who view egalitarianism as a corruptible ideal in society.
Having a monarchy around helps combat the idea of equality, which is inherently opposed to liberty. When people look at their society and see someone who has power (ceremonial or executive), simply because of their birth, it means you have to at least do a bit more mental gymnastics to say "All men are equal," let alone, "All men should be equal." Monarchs help create an important cultural counter-current to "equality."
"Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?" (1Sa 10:1)
If you look at the hierarchical structures of primates, it's no surprise that human tribalism emerged. If you look at human tribalism, monarchy makes perfect sense. It fits our evolutionary heritage. It reflects the very way our brains were programmed.
Democracies and Republics are a revolt against nature.
Father (The "Family" Argument)
The monarch embodies the universal "father" archetype and having married the nation and become father of its people, he is more than a normal human being and he has become destiny itself, while the monarchy isn't just some weird bureaucratic system, but the most natural of hierarchies - the family.
If you were born into a job that you had to do, and you already have incredible wealth, there's a large incentive to try to shirk as much responsibility as possible. In other words, monarchs have a large incentive to reduce the scope of government because they already have job security and they know that if they assent to another government agency that they are the ones who are going to have to help run the damn thing. To hell with more workload. Therefore, the task gets thrown on at worst a parliament to administer. If parliament administers it (incidentally, the U.S. Congress used to administer a lot of agencies directly), they have less time and energy to pursue legislative agenda. In either case, the scope of government naturally diminishes.
In a Democracy, those who are in power necessarily had to have ''wanted power'', and are inflicted by a libido dominandi. At least in a monarchy there is a chance of a leader recognizing their own hubris, as opposed to the literally 0% chance in a Democracy. In short: would you rather be ruled by someone who maybe wants power, or who definitely wants power?
Which one would you rather have: a person that has taken up politics late into their life, or someone that's been raised from birth to be a leader and trained to run a country? Lately, some posters have been taking the tack of arguing for a genetically-engineered King and talking about whether this represents an entirely 'new' form of government.
Monarchy's Irrationality (De Comte)
Democracies are rational polities, since they rely on a fairly logical system of operation (elections, representation, greatest good for the greatest amount etc., as well as derivative issues like female rights, equality before the law, freedoms of speech, press, assembly etc.). However, as they are rational, they can be attacked rationally. What can be built up with reason can be just as easily dismantled by it, to the point where they themselves become increasingly tyrannical, elitist and dynastic.
Contrast this with monarchy. A man is appointed by God, to rule with complete authority over a whole nation, and because of this his son gets to succeed him and his whole line gets to rule for centuries, millennia even. And yet this most irrational system has lasted for untold millennia and has only very recently given way to the aberrations of democracy and secularism which are buckling under their own rational weight. Irrationality such as this is basically formless and cannot be properly rebutted, especially when monarchies are basically earthly microcosms of the Kingdom of Heaven. For the believer, what God decrees is settled, but what man decrees has to be endlessly and "logically" justified.
Monarchist Time Preference (The Hoppe Argument)
Elected officials have a short time frame to enact their campaign promises, a monarch is under no such time frame. A politician seeking reelection spends the last years of his term shmoozing around for more votes from the elite, and thereby serves the interests of the affluent while leaving everyone else in the rain. A monarch will probably love his people, their culture, and history and won't seek to replace them with foreigners. A politician might latch onto foreigner votes and the two will empower each other and turn the country to chaos.
The monarch can basically act as a giant red emergency button. Politicians are short sighted. Have no view of state or long term, to enmeshed in campaigns and elections. A sovereign is not. So when things are ok, the sovereign can act as a glorified ambassador. If things get messy, he steps in. Not a purely ceremonial, neither a fully administrative. A "semi-presidential" one, one might say. It curbs the worst traits of both, monarch and politicians. Monarchs can do stuff. C.f. Spain during the 1981 coup attempt or the Belgian political crisis in 2007-2011.
Given a long enough dynasty, the claim regarding the Monarch to its rule becomes ever more hardened, granting the government legitimacy, continuity, and stability.
Many Monarchs spend a majority of their time performing ceremonial or religious functions. The purposes of these functions are born over the slow course of cultural evolution, and thereby have access to a higher order of knowledge cognizant of the corresponding society. Therefore, the functions of the Monarch is one of a conservative traditionalism serving to preserve the culture or religion of a given society.
Test of Time
It's time-tested. Actually, from all systems, monarchy has the best track record. No contest. A bad king is no worse than a Democracy, in the end, and still a lot better than, say, Chinese Communism. A good king, however, is absolutely god-tier. Nothing else comes close. It's like playing a strategy game - all of them are monarchies.
See the reading sticky on the board for more details.
Some book dump links, use at your own risk.
Of course, individual monarch websites that I could find (not listed by house as of yet):