Why does /his/ hate monarchs again?
>>18053487Gustavus Adolphus was based, smiter of papists and defender of Christendom
>>18053492A man of trvth and virtve, a most noble disciple of Christ
>>18053492For Christ and glory, Anon..
>>18053487He went to the battle with only leather armor because wearing proper armor was painfully hindering to him due to a prior injury.
>>18053487>monarchsMonarchy is by definition anti-christ. You shall have no Lord but the Son, etc.
>>18053487imagine if sweden had managed to form a union with russia... a million russian serfs getting drafted to go burn down central europe..... VGH>>18053574he got lost and surrounded, I don't think armour would have helped him much
Because some times you get monarchs like this
>>18053636wasn't his dad the bigger retard
>>18053636James II really wasn’t bad. His only crime really was being a Catholic and having a kid that he would try to raise as a Catholic. You could call him a retard, but hardly a reason why monarchs suck. If anything, his father is a better example of a shit monarch.
>>18053663trying those priests for simply partitioning him was a pretty stupid move. you could argue people were going to try to dispose him anyway but that gave everyone grounds for ousting him for tyranny.
>>18053487Monarchs are welfare leeches with extra steps. They live off stolen property.
>roll dice every single time ruler dies that you won't be ensnared to the whim of a literal retardor>give this family of randomers permanent forever money, because, uh, just because okay!monarchists are literal homosexuals, they only care about the aesthetics.
>>18053637That's an understatement. Only Charlie 2.0 was semi-redeemable, and even then de Ruyter was right to sail up the Channel and burn his precious flagship>>18053663>His only crime really was being a Catholic>His only crime>only crime>onlyAnd yet it was the most egregious one. You'd think those years in exile would have taught him a lesson about fucking with Protestantism in a world where his daddy got BTFO'd by a handful of Puritans.
>>18053703you are completely correct, but it'd be foolish to ignore the origin of a "monarch", the chief of the tribe, which was essential to its survival and well beingit seems that everyone forgot, including the monarchs
>>18053663>His only crime really was being a Catholicmind you this was in a time when catholic monatchs were as a rule hunting protestants for sport.
>>18054064You talk as though protestants didn't go full Viking on the churches and monasteries of every country they took over.
Monarchs cringe, historically speaking.
Where does George II fall for /his/ on the monarch scale? Jenkins' Ear and Seven Years War were both kino af
>>18053985Kings were just the leaders of raids originally I imagine. Makes sense when they got the largest cuts and their rule is defined by their personal material wealth tied to the legitimacy of the monarch
>>18053586In the earthly sense a monarch is properly a vassal of Christ, relating to Christ as a duke relates to them
>>18054337You mean they cleansed the churches of idols and liberated the people from idle-belly monks, as God intended
>>18054753Leaders are necessary but their role is to serve the body of Christ by leading and only in ways which ensure its eternal life. They are the least because they serve every member while they lead. Least is greatest in the kingdom, etc.
>>18054772>Leaders are necessary but their role is to serve the body of ChristThat's the role of church leaders, and doubtless civil leaders have a duty to protect and assist the Church, but the first duty of the civil government is to the natural nation of its borders, especially by ministering the law of God to them (Romans 13).
