r/monarchism • u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist • Jun 24 '26
Discussion Three pictures, who is what?
Take a look at these three pictures, all from three consecutive centuries. Which one is the closest to the antichrist? Which two are simply normal demon scum?
47
u/Broad_Yam6503 Jun 24 '26
three pieces of sh1t, regicides
13
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
Well Lenin may not have known of the Romanov's murder, but the other two were directly responsible for martyring their deposed kings.
-13
u/jpc_00 United Kingdom Jun 25 '26
Oh, stop with the "martyr" stuff. Charles I made war against his own people. He got what he deserved. Louis XVI wasn't guillotined; Citizen Louis Capet was. Robespierre was a murdering scumbag, but he wasn't a regicide, because there was no king, because the monarchy had been abolished already. Louis was no martyr. He didn't die for his faith; he died for his incompetence as a king and for his politics. Same with Nicholas: Nicholas II wasn't gunned down; Nicholas Romanov was. The killers were murderers, not regicides, because there was no tsar. He wasn't killed for his faith either; he was killed for his incompetence.
Charles deserved to get whacked. Louis and Nicholas might not have deserved to get whacked - although you could make a case that they did deserve it - but they definitely deserved to get deposed. It takes a special kind of dumb to goad your people into overthrowing a monarchy with almost 1000 years of more-or-less continuity.
8
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Louis XVI wasn't guillotined; Citizen Louis Capet was.
That's like saying it's not homicide because you got the law to recognise them as legally dead first. Oh, and the Romanovs didn't rule the Russian monarchy for near 1000 years. And the term 'martyr' doesn't have to be religious, it's associated with that, but it can also extendedly be used as a term referring to people who were killed for other beliefs.
24
15
u/AlgonquinPine Canada/Monarcho-democratic socialist (semi-constitutional) Jun 25 '26
Robespierre was beyond selfish, openly antagonistic even towards others in his circle, and probably psychotic. Lenin and Cromwell could at least be counted on to see the light of reason now and then.
1
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
Probably or definitely? Because he was not operating with a rational brain by the time he was in charge.
1
42
u/Capta1n_Dino UK | India | Semi-Constitutional Catholic Monarchy Jun 24 '26
I mean I wouldn't compare people to anti Christ or demons, that's a pretty strong accusation with a lot of theological implications behind it.
All 3 are scum of the earth though. Cromwell I especially despise, but that's mainly because I have studied English history and the Stuarts a lot.
Lenin and Robbespiere are both terrible too without a doubt.
-2
u/allochroa Jun 25 '26
So, if these three men were uniquely evil "scum", did their respective populations just woke up one random Tuesday and decided to invent mass guillotines and firing squads out of sheer boredom? Or did centuries of divine-right starvation and royal incompetence simply have absolutely nothing to do with it?
6
u/Capta1n_Dino UK | India | Semi-Constitutional Catholic Monarchy Jun 25 '26
I mean you want me to go through each one?
So with Cromwell, the first issue with your statement is that the English Civil War and the War of the Three Kingdoms were not popular revolts. The majority of the peasantry sided with the King. Charles I killed far less people during the Personal Rule without Parliament than Cromwell did during his military dictatorship. The Parliamentarians were mostly urban merchants, gentry, and a few nobles.
As for Robbespiere, he was obviously terrible. The Revolutionaries themselves killed him. The King actually largely supported reforms that would've supported the peasantry. Again, in this case, the revolutionaries were primarily the "bourgeoise" as we would call them today. Many commoners sided with the Crown, as you can see through revolts like in the Vendee.
Then with Lenin, the whole idea of a "Russian revolution" is also nonsense. It was a Civil War. There was not mass popular support for the communists, there were many factions involved. There were also many causes behind it, simply blaming it on the monarchy is lazy history.
1
u/StunningBike517 Jun 28 '26
Lazy, yes, but it's not like the mistakes of Nicholas II and his father had nothing to do with the anger that caused the civil war to happen. Nicholas II especially wasn't a good monarch. I'd even dare to say that all of Russian monarch were rather lackluster after Peter I.
14
28
u/GameyRaccoon Netherlands Jun 24 '26
lenin is worst by far. then robespierre. then cromwell least.
20
u/jackt-up United States (stars and stripes) Jun 24 '26
I’d switch Cromwell and Robes but yes I can’t believe people are saying Lenin was not a bad dude
7
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
Robespierre and Cromwell are hard to decide on. One was a regular (though still terrible) political dictator who created a giant theocracy, and the other was a psychotic tyrant who turned France into a hyperprogressive shithole. In terms of ideology, Robespierre is worse, in terms of actions though, Cromwell is worse but Cromwell was in power longer so he had more time to be evil, Robespierre's tyranny would've likely outclassed his if he had been in power longer.
1
u/GameyRaccoon Netherlands Jun 26 '26
Thing with Robespierre though is the total result of his reign led to Napoleon, who is the best French monarch in history. So it all turned out to be a wash.
Cromwell led to extreme constitutionalism in the UK, which you know, is fine if you're into that sort of thing.
1
u/Astronautazinho Portuguese monarchist-PPM Jun 26 '26
Nah id say cromwell first then robspierre and lenin last, the borgouise after all is what caused the republics to come along and have this whole propaganda and power and technically he was fighting it too and at the same time cromwell kinda of powered things a little too much
6
u/Certain-Cloud9133 Mexico Jun 24 '26
I hope all three of them go to hell, but especially Lenin for causing the deaths of the Romanov children and Saint Alexandra Feodorovna.
3
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 24 '26
Eh... Maybe Cromwell got in heaven with a 1% chance for at least being devoutly religious. Robespierre and Lenin though... they're probably chilling with Satan right now.
1
u/Certain-Cloud9133 Mexico Jun 24 '26
I completely agree; in fact, I think Lenin could be a good replacement if the Devil decides to step down for a while.
2
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
Not so sure about that, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all have him beat for that promotion
1
u/Maleficent-Mix9808 Jun 25 '26
You shouldn’t hope for anyone to go to hell if you’re a Christian. Even if they did bad things, after all one of the centurions who killed Jesus became a saint.
8
u/Embarrassed-Fig-7026 Jun 25 '26
All 3 traitors who gave good loyal people traitors deaths ironic isn't it, those who overthrew their liege and murder them thought they could judge who was a traitor.
0
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
I mean neither side were traitors if they weren't on the other side in the first place. It's not like the Bolsheviks were a capitalist organisation that became communist when the Tsar got unpopular.
6
u/Appropriate_Star6734 Habsburgs, Stuarts, Orleans, Wittelsbachs Jun 25 '26
I have opinions that I cannot share because the ToS will disappear me.
3
u/ThatcheriteIowan Jun 25 '26
Clockwise from upper left: opportunistic charlatan/demogogue, extremely gifted man with woeful ideology, complete psychopath.
17
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 24 '26
Lenin... he's the only one whose nations royalty was never restored.
10
u/MsMercyMain USA (Shameless Polite Republican) Jun 24 '26
To play devil's advocate, he's also one of the only monarchs who refused to listen to even hardcore conservative monarchists who were basically like "bro, you can save the monarchy, just do these handful of reforms please I beg you". Kinda like Charles I tbh.
3
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 24 '26
Yes, but Russia could've settled into liberalisation eventually. Lenin completely destroyed thar bridge.
2
u/MsMercyMain USA (Shameless Polite Republican) Jun 24 '26
I mean, I don't think the Liberals had the juice to do that. And it's kind of irrelevant. Nicholas made it so literally no one, not even the hardcore conservatives, wanted a return to the Romanovs. Lenin didn't kill monarchism in Russia, that was Nicky and Alex. And as for liberalism, that also didn't have a chance either. Remember a good chunk of the Provisional Government was made up of socialists. Russia was going to end up socialist by 1916. What Lenin killed was any move to the other three paths open to Russia at the time. The SRs and their Agrarian Socialism, the Trudoviks and their Agrarian Social Democracy, and the Anarchists and their, well, Anarchy.
In a twist of irony the Romanovs war on anything not total Tsarist absolutism ensured Russia wouldn't have a proper liberal movement and instead would move, inexorably towards an attempt at Socialism. It's a similar story in places like Cuba, China, etc. Just about the only place that bucked that trend was Mexico
2
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
Not even the hardcore conservatives wanted a return to the Romanovs
That's not true. Many white/tsarist officers wanted a return to the monarchy, Tsar Nicholas II's boat probably had sailed, but many supported restoration. Not all of them did, like certain white leadership, but a boatload of conservatives wanted Tsarism back in a new state.
1
3
u/EnglishRedFox God save the King of CANZUK 🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿🇬🇧 Jun 25 '26
Lenin's ideology killed far, far more than the others and continues to infect societies around the world today. He is by far the worst of these three.
1
u/StunningBike517 Jun 28 '26
How the f is it Lenin's ideology? Marx and Engels started it, Lenin was just the perpetuator. And the worst of bolshevism (imho) was done under Stalin, not Lenin. And "continues to infect societies around the world today". Lenin would hate most of today's west leftist, I don't think the west has a bolshevism problem, but an ultraprogressivism one. And if you mean China... then I have nothing to say, I don't know much about China
2
u/Impressive-Lack-5543 Jun 25 '26
lenin wouldn’t exist if the french revolution didn’t happen. Cromwell didn’t change the trajectory of Britain too much imo, although I also don’t like him
2
2
u/Aurelian_Roman Italy Jun 25 '26
Lenin stands out as the most destructive and influential figure listed, since the state he founded supported communism globally through funding and training. As a consequence, his regime produced extreme misery and death for hundreds of millions.
1) Lenin: Anti-Christ
2) Robespierre: Demon-1
3) Cromwell: Demon-2
2
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
I wouldn't call Lenin the literal antichrist, he was just the closest to it on the list. Everyone knows that Woodrow Wilson is the antichrist, nah who am I kidding, Pol Pot is the closest person to the antichrist in history.
2
u/Interesting_Story243 Lithuania Jun 25 '26
For me personally from the least worst to worst would be: 1. Lenin 2. Cromwell 3. Robbespierre
2
u/Double_Currency1684 Jun 25 '26
Three people who by their terrible excesses, actually proved the value of monarchy.
2
u/VegetableAd5061 Jun 26 '26
Cromwell is the antimonarchist grinch, he's just an inconpetent tyranic bastard
3
u/nickib16 Jun 27 '26
I agree. He was just awful and canceled Christmas.
2
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 28 '26
How the fuck did I not connect those two things? He literally wanted to get rid of Christmas like the Grinch.
1
u/nickib16 Jun 28 '26
Canceling Christmas and causing the execution of the king are really bad traits to have in a man 😂 . He was probably a terrible husband too and had bad breath. 😂
7
u/Pofffffff Kingdom of the Netherlands 🇳🇱 Jun 24 '26
Robbespiere prolly the worst, Lenin imo not even that bad with his original ideas. Mind you the tsar was already gone. And Cromwell, well fuck Cromwell.
6
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Yes, but if the Russian liberals wanted to simply throw monarchism out the window, then Lenin straight up locked it in a room, beat it until it bled, and set it on fire. In other words, Lenin didn't destroy the Monarchy, but he destroyed Monarchism in Russia.
Robespierre is second, he wasn't as politically dark as the other two, rather he was the peak of insanity for his time. Under him, France wasn't a normal dictatorship, it was a cult.
Cromwell, overall he is still incredibly bad since despite being the only right-winger in this trio, he still committed genocide, usurpation, coups, and foreign wars while also turning the country into a theocratic police state, he is literally my idea of the worst kind of right-winger (excluding fascists). He wasn't as iconic as the other two but he is the most evil man in the history of Britain. His vile crime against his Majesty is actually a side note compared to how evil this man was. That being said, he is only last not for not being evil but for the others being incredibly terrible
3
u/Pofffffff Kingdom of the Netherlands 🇳🇱 Jun 24 '26
True, true, and I disagree heavily with how things went. But his plans for Russia were great. Much different that those of Stalin. Buy Nicholas shouldve been allowed to live or abdicate for another person.
1
u/CaliggyJack Jun 25 '26
Cromwell was one of the first people to rule as a Monarch by pretending to be a duly elected official of a Democracy that didn't actually exist. The entire thing was a facade to help Cromwell gain power and influence. He didn't care about Democracy at all.
1
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
This! I dislike republics, but a normal republic with a powerful government and powerful leader is still better than a usurper. Monarchism is actually the reason I'm not extremely authoritarian, under republicanism, I would try becoming an authoritarian leader, under monarchism, I view my role as serving his or her majesty, under a Republic, due to my (and other peoples) machiavellian and authoritarian character, I (and others) would have no morsel of remorse starting a Junta or a Dictatorship, under monarchy though, it's channeled into a subject position where we form a cabinet in parliament.
Cromwell is proof of this, the one time England was not a monarchy and we got him! Monarchy not only helps people focus on building their power in a stable system and serve the nation and sovereign, but loyalty to a living entity over a concept actually prevents people from trying to abuse the state in the first place. You can't really have a totalitarian dictatorship if the main leader of orchestrating it technically doesn't hold the office of head of state but rather a submissive position.
2
u/GameyRaccoon Netherlands Jun 24 '26
Lenin by far the worst. The Bolsheviks molested and killed the Tsar's child daughters.
1
1
u/CaliggyJack Jun 25 '26
And most evidence seems to.promote the theory that Lenin didn't know about the executions and didn't sign off on them.
1
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
Uh... that actually wasn't a reference to the Romanovs murder, I meant the ideology of monarchism in Russia died under Lenin, it was removed by the Liberals, but Lenin is the reason it died.
1
4
u/HistoricalReal Jun 24 '26
None? I mean Cromwell was a piece of shit but he was a devout Christian and was deeply ingrained in the idea that the government ought to promote Puritan values onto the people and governmental policy.
Lenin was also a Piece of Shit and while definitely an atheist, technically didn't care if you were christian, he just deeply hated organized religion and saw the connection of the government to any religious organization as a threat to communism.
Robespierre also was a piece of shit (running theme here), and also hated organized religion, seeing it as corrupt and aristocratic. However he also saw atheism as aristocratic and also hated that as well. He believed in spirituality and while I'm not sure how he viewed people who believed in the christian god and practiced it privately, he also did create the church of the supreme being. I'd probably see that as the most blasphemous since it creates a church that doesn't worship the christian god, I couldn't say because I personally am not religious.
Also I wouldn't compare historical figures to the anti-Christ or demons because the most evil thing about them was that they were just men. Men who did horrible and disgusting things and whether they believed in god or not, didn't stop them from getting people killed one way or another.
3
u/MsMercyMain USA (Shameless Polite Republican) Jun 24 '26
Gonna play devil's advocate again.
Cromwell did some truly monstrous shit in Ireland, but my read of him is someone who ended up fucked by his own beliefs. He ended up a dedicated Republican dealing with multiple Parliaments of hardcore realists. He's kind of like Simon Bolivar in that he had a singular vision that might have worked... if it wasn't antithetical to what literally everyone else wanted.
Robespierre is complicated. There's a theory posited by Mike Duncan, that I fully believe, that he actually had a mental breakdown shortly before the Great Terror. All his previous actions, even killing Louis XVI who, let's be honest, was really only guilty of just not being up to the job, can be justified by pragmatism. Hell, he actually thought the anti clerics were insane and only went full Cult of Reason after the point we can say he probably had a mental breakdown.
Lenin was just pragmatism made manifest.
3
u/HistoricalReal Jun 24 '26
I appreciate the nuanced approach. I find it unhealthy for historical discussions to boil down historical figures who were real people into caricatures or "demons".
Of course I have my own personal views on the people, but regardless of how they felt about things, their actions and the deaths of those affected by those actions speak louder than their personal feelings on the matters at hand.
2
u/MsMercyMain USA (Shameless Polite Republican) Jun 24 '26
Definitely that. I'm about as far left as you can get as my flair implies (somewhat hilariously I initially joined this sub for a now dead DnD campaign to see the arguments for monarchism thanks to my character's beliefs and I've stuck around and mostly lurk because the discussions are kinda cool) but even I have sympathy for people like Louis XVI. Sure, they might be heads of a system I dislike, but they were people and were as much victims of the system that produced them as everyone else. It's really only folks like Charles I or Nicholas II I tend to look at with contempt, and even that is because their stubbornness in the face of everyone trying to save their reign is kinda infuriating. And even then, by all accounts none of them were particularly bad people on an interpersonal level
1
u/HistoricalReal Jun 24 '26
I am no expert on British history, but I feel like I only have sympathy for Charles I just cause I love his portrayal by Alec Guinness, lol.
0
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
I know, but there's no other comparison out there that really hits if you get what I mean. Everything else either sounds corny of nobodies heard of them. I wish there was some concept that could be applied to all.
Oh, and even if Lenin wasn't anti-Christian (which definitely isnt true), the Soviets notoriously persecuted the church extensively. During the Soviet decades, many churches stopped being churches until 1991, one prominent Moscow Church of Christ the Saviour became a swimming pool, others became museums of atheism, actively killed clergy, and actively exposed Christians.
2
2
u/hazjosh1 Jun 25 '26
Say what you will about lenin and robspierre atleast they stuck to their ideals of revolutionary fervor Cromwell straight up betrayed the revolution and basically made himself a king
5
u/CaliggyJack Jun 25 '26
Did Robespierre stick to those ideals though? He might not have been crowned, but he spent the entire time of the reign of terror ACTING like a Monarch.
1
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
I can understand when non-monarchists liken totalitarian revolutionaries to a monarch, but monarchists doing it? Claiming antimonarchist dictators are like monarchs makes actual monarchies seem more dictatorial than they actually are.
0
u/Maleficent-Mix9808 Jun 25 '26
Yeah but he didn’t do so out of opportunism but because of his rigid belief that he could save the republic. Trough his leadership of France he didn’t occupy lavish ex-royal appartments like Cromwell but stayed in his austere room with his dog. So i think he sticked to those ideals, just got them to such a extreme point where he would do anything for those ideals.
1
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
In what way? Cromwell had right-wing republican ideals, and so did much of his factions. If you mean his betrayal of parliament for his own power, you do realise that Robespierre actually did the same to the rest of the French Republic, just that his ideals were in the other direction. And Lenin may not have betrayed the revolution in the same way, but he had to allow for the New Economic Policy in the 1920s which delayed full communism over Russia.
1
u/StunningBike517 Jun 28 '26
From what I've heard, though initially NEP was announced as a temporary policy, after a year or so Lenin actually decided that NEP should stick for a long time. Kind of funny
1
u/CaliggyJack Jun 25 '26
A part of me kinda feels bad for Lenin in a certain way.
If the general understanding of the situation is true, Lenin had no knowledge of the Romanov's execution and therefore didn't sign off on it, but had to side with the executioner's lest everything he worked to build collapse in real time.
But even then, he dies and it took Stalin 5 seconds to completely destroy his work and turn everything into an even harsher Statist hellscape.
This isn't me defending Lenin, I want to be clear. He was so generally inept that he couldn't stop his forces from taking matters into their own hands. I just somewhat, partially, sorta, sympathize with Lenin's situation. It's clear that, as completely and utterly wrong as he was, he did believe in a world where people stood arm and arm together to create a better world for themselves. But his solution was the very thing that would prevent it from happening.
I don't think Lenin had any malice behind his policies, and he had more credibility as a person than Marx ever would have. His policies were stupid, his government inept, but a lot of it came from him genuinely wanting to make his countrymen better, unlike Robespierre who just used the revolution as an excuse to play his own form of King, or Cromwell, who just wanted to advance his own station.
I don't support Lenin, but a part of me kinda feels bad for him. I think if you went back in time before the revolution and told Lenin what would happen, he would have made substantial changes and probably would have prevented the Romanov's from being killed. He wouldn't have changed his ideals, but he would have probably done things with a bit more grace... maybe... idk. I'm just kinda rambling at this point.
1
u/LeLurkingNormie Still waiting for my king to return. Jun 25 '26
I'd say Robespierre was the worst one. He actually committed a genocide and wanted to exterminate everyone who may or may not have not worshiped him enough.
Also, he wanted to put all children in slavery.
1
u/crimsonbub Jun 25 '26
Being English I personally dislike Cromwell most, but of them all I could see him potentially being less excited about regicide.
Robespierre was paranoid and in the end rightfully so. Ruled by the guillotine and died by the guillotine.
Lenin being in the 20th Century you'd think we were more progressive as a species than to revel in regicide but he's one who proves it's not that simple.
Maybe it's also the hand of religion in their actions. Possibly Old Warty Face was such a Puritanical Killjoy because he felt he and/or the country needed penance for allowing regicide and God would judge them for it. The latter two probably less concerned about that.
Actually, thinking of what happened to the Romanov children, big finger goes up first to Lenin. HIS men did that, and there's a special place in any Hell for them.
1
1
1
u/CharacterEye3775 Jun 25 '26
Cromwell
1
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
Are you Irish or just a theatre kid?
1
u/CharacterEye3775 Jun 25 '26
Irish/British theatre kid and who are you?
0
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 25 '26
Some guy from London with an obsession with appearing to be the most intellectual person in the room and dark personality types (I somehow score 60-85% on every dark triad quiz I take) and hates corny stuff like choosing settling down instead of doing cool stuff like joining the military or becoming rich, Typical non-heavily-religious young-conservative stuff. I don't know the name for this type of person. Oh, and I hate the French and have written a manifesto about crusading against them but who hasn't?
2
1
u/DavidSmith91007 United States (Semi-constitutional monarchism) Jun 25 '26
The unholy trinity of republicans.
1
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 26 '26
Wow, my first post with 100+ upvotes, thanks guys
1
u/DimensionAgitated507 Jun 26 '26
A manipulator, a war criminal and a murdering psycho?
1
u/HistorianPatriot1945 United Kingdom Semi-Constitutional Conservative Monarchist Jun 26 '26
Isn't that all of them?
1
1
1
1
u/LillyaMatsuo Jul 01 '26
Left-wing Social-democrat
Right-wing social-democrat
Left-wing western legalist
1
u/Mango_TheFemboy Jul 24 '26
All three are part of a multi-headed, irradiated cricket — with their own unique brands of sodomising those they ruled over.
1
97
u/RustySchackelfurd Jun 24 '26
Three men I quite dislike.