>Do these people worship property?
Pretty much. All you have to do to be "based" is talk about property. That is what I thought when looking back at what that anon had said, "A monarchy that does not pay homage to a king, but to a crown. We serve Corona regni
Monarchy is personal, and these people appeal to impersonal, stupid objects... probably because they only cared about royal aesthetics in the first place. That anon in particular was cozy about the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as libertarian paradise (probably wants buffed noble oligarchy and weak king).
>"The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is Personal, the ruler is a King; when according to the rules of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a Statesman."
^If you understood this, you'd know royal monarchy better than most Internet monarchists. Because like Bossuet says here--
>"I do not call majesty that pomp which surrounds kings or that exterior magnificence which dazzles the vulgar. That is but the reflection of majesty and not majesty itself. Majesty is the image of the grandeur of God in the prince."
But instead they only care about the pomp and crowns, the mere appearance of a royalty rather than actually monarchy... that it comes to the point where they value the institutionalism and a crown shaped for a person's head
rather than the royal person.
It comes down to aesthetics + light conservatism for most Internet royalists.