The Current Status of Monarchism. [Archive]

Louis VI the Fat

04-23-2009, 13:23

Oh I know that Louis, Ireland also springs to mind. Somehow though I get the feeling that Mssrs. Blair/Brown/Cameron et al would see this as too good an opportunity to let pass.They would too, wouldn't they? Cheeky bastards. :wall:

Oh well. Always remember: no matter how insane the UK, one needs only to cross the channel to go one worse. Your PM's dream of presidency. Our presidents dream of being monarchs.

Little Sun Kings, the lot of them. They get away with it too. What's more, they are expected to. With the exception of Sarkozy, French presidents are of a very tall physical stature. Aloof of character. Refined, even affected, in manners. Building Grand Works in Paris to leave a physical mark. (Not that I mind the last, but it is 'doggy syndrome')

Fun fact: De Gaulle, Giscard d'Estaing, Mitterand, Sarkozy are all nobility, or have a major noble element in their family line. That's right, France prefers to elect noblemen to the throne. Uh, I mean, to the presidency.
Pompidou and Chirac are the only elected presidents of the Fifth Republic of overwhelming bourgeois origin.

Ireland also springs to mind
Ireland. I forgot about them. I simply can't keep up with all this devolution in Britain.

InsaneApache

04-23-2009, 13:59

Since they've had de facto independence since 1922 I understand how hard it is to keep up. :laugh4:

Ironside

04-23-2009, 17:52

Not much a movement here, support dropped to about 62% though.

The main party in power for about 70% of the time (Social democrats) have the abolishment of monarchy in their party program. They never touch that issue. :book:

Prince Cobra

04-23-2009, 18:04

Bulgaria:

Titular Tzar: Simeon II Saxe-Coburg Gotha . Born 1937. Ruled between 1943-1946 (he was minor then). Prime Minister (the first ex-monarch to become a Prime-Minister) between 2001-2005. His political party still participates in the ruling coalition (2005-2009) but has lost much of its sympathisers. There are even rumours it will not enter in the next Parliament.

Even between 2001-2005 the idea of restoring the monarchy was not seriously commented. Many Bulgarians were sceptic towards changing of the consitution and restoring the monarchy.

Sheogorath

04-23-2009, 18:04

The US had a monarch once.

I, for one, fondly miss Emperor Norton. He was a pretty cool guy.

Prince Cobra

04-23-2009, 18:09

The US had a monarch once.

I, for one, fondly miss Emperor Norton. He was a pretty cool guy.

Never heard about it... :dizzy2:

Lemur

04-23-2009, 18:25

It's true, and he was a good king (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton_I). As a judge ruled when he was arrested for the crime of lunacy: "Norton has shed no blood, robbed no one, and despoiled no country, which is more than can be said for most fellows in the king line."

Sarmatian

04-23-2009, 18:40

Ours decided to run to Britain. Apparently, it was cool to be a monarch there and people here wanted to kill him (who said that communists were all bad?). They've even given him a room in the hotel in London. Now the bastard wants to be a king again and he can't even speak Serbian properly. He's down here trying to speak Serbian with an Oxford accent and everyone's going "what the **** is he saying???" - "Wait, I think I understand some words. Baby Jesus... trees... blood... last emperor of China... Masai warriors... Oh, I give up!"

According to some polls a few years ago, about 5% of the people would want Serbia to be a monarchy again.

Brenus

04-23-2009, 19:01

"Sarkozy": Hungarian one. Doesn't count...:beam:
"He's down here trying to speak Serbian" Apparently mine is evenbetter than his... Can I apply for the job? I even probably lived longer in Serbia. I was there when it was still Jugoslavija the Federation one...:inquisitive:

Furunculus

04-23-2009, 20:07

Liz is doing just fine in Britain.

Che Roriniho

04-23-2009, 20:34

Liz is doing great, and Norton was a very cool guy.

HoreTore

04-23-2009, 20:52

Our king is bound and gagged, and everyone is quite happy that way.

Nobody really wants to abolish him, except on a principal basis, but nobody wants him to ever say anything either. And since he can't legally talk, we're doing fine....

His daughter and her husband, on the other hand.... :thumbsdown:

edyzmedieval

04-23-2009, 21:26

Commie bastards forced the Romanian Royal Family away. :thumbsdown:

My repulsion for communism cannot be even measured. And yes, I am a monarchist.

seireikhaan

04-23-2009, 21:34

I think the problem is that too many people don't have a queen like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania). :smitten:

edyzmedieval

04-23-2009, 21:36

So true Shinseikhaan. :beam:

Dîn-Heru

04-23-2009, 22:20

Coincidentally I was at a debate about the future of the monarchy today. Where one of the debaters presented som statistics.

In favour of the monarchy 66%, republicans 22 %. The percentage of republicans is almost the same as the percentage of votes against the monarchy in 1905. The support of the monarchy has risen some after a low-point in the late 90's.

What is interesting is a shift in who supports republicanism. Before republicans were more a rural phenonomen. But now the typical republican is a male, 40-60, with a high income, urban dweller and has a university education. Ie the elite in society.

(The typical, royalist is a female 60+ , low income, little education, and from the countryside.)

That the monarchy has lost some of its fundation can also be illustrated that the newspaper that has traditionally been the strongest supporter of the monarchy, (Aftenposten), has all but abandoned its covarage of the royal family and its program of duties.

The debaters made some "predictions" about the future of the monarchy. The royalist in the panel predicted the end of the monarchy in 2063, when the princess would have accended the throne if her father lives as long or longer than the rest of the family, he predicted that it would end in this year if the princess arrives at the conclusion that a life in a glass cage isn't for her.

And that was basically the conclusion of one of the other debaters, that it would either end because the publics opinin changed enough in favour of a republic (seeing as socity's elite is more republican than other people) or that the children decide that they want to live a normal life.

The current status of the monarchy in Norway is that a majority is in favour of it, but that it is unlikely that we are still a monarchy in 2100.

To HoreTore

His daughter and her husband, on the other hand....

Hehe, one of the debaters were Carl-Erik Grimstad, who argued with Ari in January, and he really dislikes him, he would not even utter his name...

He showed a picture of him and basically painted his as an antichrist who is the complete opposite of what the royal house is supposed to represent (dignity)..

Sarmatian

04-23-2009, 23:29

"Sarkozy
"He's down here trying to speak Serbian" Apparently mine is evenbetter than his... Can I apply for the job? I even probably lived longer in Serbia. I was there when it was still Jugoslavija the Federation one...:inquisitive:

You'd get my vote. Of course, according to Serbian custom of corruption, I expect to be compensated if royalist faction wins. Nothing too high profile, let's say position of minister of treasury...

I think the problem is that too many people don't have a queen like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania). :smitten:

She doesn't have anything on her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Madeleine,_Duchess_of_H%C3%A4lsingland_and_G%C3%A4strikland). Now there's a woman who can change man's opinion completely...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-24-2009, 01:15

History of Monarchism in Greece.

We created democracy. We do not have kings. Some bloody foreign German-Dutch inbred people tried to convince us otherwise and became our monarchy for a while. We sent them to live in London and good riddance to them. They can now inbreed peacefully and grow their tails as long as they like.

It is mostly a group of old men with Altzheimer's although not all of them really count because some probably think there is still a king...

You also created constitutional monarchy, and that first. Not to mention tyranny, Legalised autocracy...

The British Monarchy is, I think, often loved and loathed in equal measure.

The current Royal House is positively hated in Wales, Scotland is ambivilant at best and a significant element of the English rural population still want their land back after 1066.

Nevertheless, it has been this way for 800 years+.

Rhyfelwyr

04-24-2009, 02:01

The current Royal House is positively hated in Wales, Scotland is ambivilant at best and a significant element of the English rural population still want their land back after 1066.

Some Scots are very pro-monarchy. Strangely, its a working class thing, to do with the immigration of Ulster Protestants when they came over with their more numerous Catholic counterparts. 'Airdrie Loyal', 'Larkall Loyal' etc, football has helped to maintain the tradition as much as anything (yes, this is the only country in the world where people base their political affilliations on which football team they support). I'm not kidding on that bracketed point, the surge in membership of the Orange Order in Scotland has been attritbuted to the rivalry between Rangers and Celtic.

Brenus

04-24-2009, 07:52

"Commie bastards forced the Romanian Royal Family away": Nothing to do with the fact that they were allied with nazi during the WW2 so?:laugh4::laugh4:

Sheogorath

04-24-2009, 08:03

"Commie bastards forced the Romanian Royal Family away": Nothing to do with the fact that they were allied with nazi during the WW2 so?:laugh4::laugh4:

Judging by the Soviet's general treatment of their 'allies', I don't think it would have mattered either way.

lars573

04-25-2009, 05:16

"Commie bastards forced the Romanian Royal Family away": Nothing to do with the fact that they were allied with nazi during the WW2 so?:laugh4::laugh4:
King Michael was extremely popular for driving the pro-Nazi Iron guard out of government. But then the soviets came.....

Prince Cobra

04-25-2009, 08:49

King Michael was extremely popular for driving the pro-Nazi Iron guard out of government. But then the soviets came.....

Just for referance. The real Iron Guard (The Legion of Archangel Michael) created by Corneliu Codreanu (the fascist movement; closer to the Italian model; mainly popular amongst the peasants and extremely Orthodox one) under the leadership of the extreme Sima was destroyed by the German forces in winter of 1941. Marshal Antonescu (the King was in the shadow of the Marshal) was more moderate leader and therefore a better partner to bring a stability for the Germans. King Michael of Romania finally decided to remove the Marshal in 1944 and imprisoned him switching side to the Allies. There were even rumours about any plans of Stalin keeping the monarchy in the new communist order in Romania since the King seemed to be tame. Yet, the following events showed Stalin King Michael was a dangerous opponent of the new order and this put the end of his rule.

HoreTore

04-25-2009, 20:01

Yet, the following events showed Stalin King Michael was a dangerous opponent of the new order and this put the end of his rule.

Good. Very good.

The only good king is a dead king.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-25-2009, 20:47

Good. Very good.

The only good king is a dead king.

God forbid anything should stand in the way of the "glorious Revolution".

Maybe you'd like to exchange your priciples for a concience one day.

Rhyfelwyr

04-25-2009, 21:01

God forbid anything should stand in the way of the "glorious Revolution".

Maybe you'd like to exchange your priciples for a concience one day.

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDq26OhU5Y&feature=related) is the real Glorious Revolution.

OK I'll stop being such a Hun...

HoreTore

04-25-2009, 21:02

God forbid anything should stand in the way of the "glorious Revolution".

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

I can't believe why some people, who otherwise are democratic, choose to support feudal overlords.

The royal families are a bunch of inbred murderers. Better to be done with the lot of them.

Incongruous

04-25-2009, 23:06

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-25-2009, 23:24

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

I can't believe why some people, who otherwise are democratic, choose to support feudal overlords.

The royal families are a bunch of inbred murderers. Better to be done with the lot of them.

Kings are neither dictators, nor tyrants.

A King is proclaimed by the people and rules through consent, and nowhere has this been more true than Scandanavia. Kings do not usually maintain large standing armies, heavily garrison their own domains, or employ huge secrect police networks.

Granted, there have been many bad Kings, but Europe's current crop of "elected"politicians are little better, sometimes worse.

Monarchy is the most popular system, ever. It can't be that bad.

In any case, none of this justifies the killing of a king. Generally when you kill a King you get something worse. Take a look at England or France, for a start.

Prince Cobra

04-25-2009, 23:40

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.

I can't believe why some people, who otherwise are democratic, choose to support feudal overlords.

The royal families are a bunch of inbred murderers. Better to be done with the lot of them.

In fact, monarchy excludes the exteremism. It's very hard to achieve a dictatorship in a monarchy. This is their greatest advantage + absolute monarchies are almost non-existent. The King/Queen interferes in the policy using his moral authority amongst the population and has limited rights.
------
Killing a King is indeed a madness. The King/Queen is a symbol of the nation and demonstrates the continuity with the past. Even Stalin allowed the Eastern European monarchs to withdraw in exile in Western Europe. He did not kill any of them.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-26-2009, 00:04

InsaneApache

04-26-2009, 00:18

C'mon guys, don't burst his bubble. :wall:

CountArach

04-26-2009, 00:51

A King is proclaimed by the people
:inquisitive:

Alright, you lost me.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-26-2009, 01:26

:inquisitive:

Alright, you lost me.

What do you think a coronation is?

Look at what happens in a contested succession, it only comes to bloodshed when it's too close to call.

True, foriegn regimes such as the Normans in England mess things up but by and large the principle is the same. Rarely do kings (or queens) sieze power. Look at William of Orange, invited to become king. He brought an army in case Charles wanted to contest the point, ultimately Charles was unable to drum up support.

That doesn't make it neat and tidy, but the reality is that a king or queen rules by consent.

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2009, 02:02

In any case, none of this justifies the killing of a king. Generally when you kill a King you get something worse. Take a look at England or France, for a start.

Must.... resist.....

In any case, talking about 'kings' as if they only come in one variety is stupid. You could have an absolutist monarch who thinks he is the Sun God incarnate, or on the other extreme you could have some powerless dummy like they had in Poland-Lithuania, while an oligarchy of nobles hold all the real power. King Billy was a good compromise.

I still prefer a republic though. :yes:

Caius

04-26-2009, 03:34

Whether its through revolution or whatever, a dead dictator is still a good dictator.
Indeed. The bad ones are living, thats why they are bad. :inquisitive:

CountArach

04-26-2009, 04:43

What do you think a coronation is?
A coronation sure as hell isn't the people proclaiming their Monarch, unless of course you expect every person to take an oath of loyalty. It is the Monarch taking over from their predecessor - and anything beyond that is just pomp.

Sarmatian

04-26-2009, 04:53

lars573

04-26-2009, 04:59

Good. Very good.

The only good king is a dead king.
Cept he's still alive, 87 years and still kicking. He got the boot not the bullet.

HoreTore

04-26-2009, 08:27

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

That is sooo awsome, you are talking about Stalin offing the rightful king of a nation (you clearly don't care what the people thought of him, you know best) and then prattle off some rubbish about dictators being killed is all good!!!:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

A swing and a miss.

I would love to see Stalin whacked as much as I'd love to see any King whacked. Probably more too. A lot more. And where did I praise Stalin, if I may ask? I said it was good when dictators are whacked. Stalin was a dictator. Just how is it possible to not understand that I think it would've good to have Stalin whacked?

If the people loves their King so, much then, HEY, I have a suggestion! ELECT THE BUGGER! We've already invented democracy, it honestly shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to elect someone(without rigging, of course..). Let him abdicate and then let him try to get elected. If he does, I wouldn't have anything against it(not more than any other politician anyway). I don't care about what the people thinks? You're the one saying that the people shouldn't get a say in who's ruling them, I'm saying let the people decide!

Kings are neither dictators, nor tyrants.

A King is proclaimed by the people and rules through consent, and nowhere has this been more true than Scandanavia. Kings do not usually maintain large standing armies, heavily garrison their own domains, or employ huge secrect police networks.

Granted, there have been many bad Kings, but Europe's current crop of "elected"politicians are little better, sometimes worse.

Monarchy is the most popular system, ever. It can't be that bad.

In any case, none of this justifies the killing of a king. Generally when you kill a King you get something worse. Take a look at England or France, for a start.

Right. I'm going to ignore this one because of historical and political ignorance. Sorry.

In fact, monarchy excludes the exteremism. It's very hard to achieve a dictatorship in a monarchy. This is their greatest advantage + absolute monarchies are almost non-existent. The King/Queen interferes in the policy using his moral authority amongst the population and has limited rights.
------
Killing a King is indeed a madness. The King/Queen is a symbol of the nation and demonstrates the continuity with the past. Even Stalin allowed the Eastern European monarchs to withdraw in exile in Western Europe. He did not kill any of them.

That inbred guy who can't even speak or read correctly is supposed to symbolize me? Please, someone kill him soon... Or me. The bright side is that he's unlikely to live for much longer, due the extreme number of hereditary diseases the guy has due to inbreeding....

I'll say it again, the only good king is a dead king. I can tolerate a bound and gagged king, though. If your King is so fantastic and everybody loves him, elect him already.

Kralizec

04-26-2009, 09:13

There's no real pro-monarchy movement here that I know of, probably because the anti-monarchy movement is almost non-existent as well. Most people don't care about the royal family as long as they manage to stay out of the media.
I'm technicly a "republican" but since my favoured model is that of Germany, it wouldn't make that much of a difference so it's not that important to me.

KarlXII

04-26-2009, 09:26

:inquisitive:

Alright, you lost me.

Naturally, a monarch is either proclaimed by the people or by a foreign power. In any case, a ruler rules with the mandate of the people, who have the ability to remove him. You seem to act like a King is no better than a Dictator.

Incongruous

04-26-2009, 10:36

A swing and a miss.

I would love to see Stalin whacked as much as I'd love to see any King whacked. Probably more too. A lot more. And where did I praise Stalin, if I may ask? I said it was good when dictators are whacked. Stalin was a dictator. Just how is it possible to not understand that I think it would've good to have Stalin whacked?

If the people loves their King so, much then, HEY, I have a suggestion! ELECT THE BUGGER! We've already invented democracy, it honestly shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to elect someone(without rigging, of course..). Let him abdicate and then let him try to get elected. If he does, I wouldn't have anything against it(not more than any other politician anyway). I don't care about what the people thinks? You're the one saying that the people shouldn't get a say in who's ruling them, I'm saying let the people decide!

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You began this with a response about Stalin removing a king from his throne, sorry but was it just bad timing?

"Any King whacked", oh we do love a bit of "off with his head" and dramatics aye? Lets go and murder, oh sorry execute, the king of Spain, better yet, the Queen of the U.K, what a bag, putting all of us under here boot and forcing us to live like peasants:furious3:

You should see it HoreTore, what she does to us, I'm living in a mud hut farming mud all day, its a joke... yes it is:yes:

Incongruous

04-26-2009, 10:40

Let's forget about Stalin and define rightful in this case. What does it mean? Person A is a rightful ruler of a country by being born???

"Hey mate, you've finished three universities, you speak 17 languages and your IQ is 2584267 but we're gonna have this guy as head of the state. He barely finished one university (with connections), can't speak one language properly and his IQ went down the toilet because it's a bad idea when cousins marry, but he's a rightful ruler..."

Thanks but no thanks. Even if it's just for show as all monarch in democratic European countries are, I still detest the principle behind it...

Well, that's all nice and good, but that don't make the bugger rightful in terms of being king does it?
A King is rightful because of what the rules say, funnily enough the rules tend to bend a bit when swords are drawn.

"detest the principle", well to be honest I don't have much time for principles in politics, in general principles are bollox and every politician has few extra sets handy for the right occasion.

lenin96

04-26-2009, 10:47

A King is rightful because of what the rules say, funnily enough the rules tend to bend a bit when swords are drawn.

What rules are you reffering to?

Incongruous

04-26-2009, 10:49

What rules are you reffering to?

The rules of succession which pertain to that particular monarchy and state.
Of coarse, they sometimes get disregarded and people get their heads chopped off.

lenin96

04-26-2009, 10:56

The rules of succession which pertain to that particular monarchy and state.
Of coarse, they sometimes get disregarded and people get their heads chopped off.

But can you tell me why we have these rules?

naut

04-26-2009, 11:06

but we're gonna have this guy as head of the state. He barely finished one university (with connections), can't speak one language properly and his IQ went down the toilet because it's a bad idea when cousins marry, but he's a rightful ruler..."
Hey now, let's leave McBroon out of this.

Incongruous

04-26-2009, 11:10

But can you tell me why we have these rules?

Why? Well in the U.K it is enshrined in law, the reason for that being the history of the U.K. Which is very, very long.

But basically we have rules of successon because it usually saves alot of strife when a King dies.

lenin96

04-26-2009, 11:15

Why? Well in the U.K it is enshrined in law, the reason for that being the history of the U.K. Which is very, very long.

But basically we have rules of successon because it usually saves alot of strife when a King dies.

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mentally_ill_monarchs), it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

Incongruous

04-26-2009, 11:28

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mentally_ill_monarchs), it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

Yes, indeed it would be, I cannot disagree, its just that such a system of government has not as of yet been invented.

lenin96

04-26-2009, 11:31

Well thats true, but we have invented some nice prototypes.

Now someone help me merge Meritocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) with Communism.

Sarmatian

04-26-2009, 11:33

Now someone help me merge Meritocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) with Communism.

Merimunism? Commitocracy?

lenin96

04-26-2009, 11:44

Meri-Communism? Less creative but tells people what it is.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-26-2009, 12:01

Communism is by it's nature anti-meritcratic, which is why it doesn't work.

HoreTore, care to point out where I'm so deficient?

I know I didn't make up the Terror, or the martil Law, repression, religious enforcements, or suspension of democracy under Cromwell.

He was a Tyrant.

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

I'm also very sure that from the time of Plato and Aristotle the "Good King" has repeatedly been put foward as the best form of government.

Sarmatian

04-26-2009, 12:36

Political thought advanced a bit in the several thousand years after Plato. Anyway, good or bad monarch - doesn't matter since they don't have any power. They're there just for show. The idea of someone being born into a position is contrary to meritocracy.

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2009, 12:40

I know I didn't make up the Terror, or the martil Law, repression, religious enforcements, or suspension of democracy under Cromwell.

He was a Tyrant.

OK, now you are doing this deliberately. Why do you think Cromwell abolished the Parliament in the first place?

lenin96

04-26-2009, 12:40

Communism is by it's nature anti-meritcratic, which is why it doesn't work.

If something works or not is decided by if it is mericratic or not then Monarchies can not work as the leader is decided by birth not merit, and the same with Democracy as it's more of a popularity contest.

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

Aren't Monarchies and Democracy exclusive from each other?

InsaneApache

04-26-2009, 12:51

OK, now you are doing this deliberately. Why do you think Cromwell abolished the Parliament in the first place?

They stopped his expenses? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2009, 12:59

They stopped his expenses? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

In a way, yes. The decided to cut the pay to the New Model Army, despite the fact that there were wars being fought against the other two of the three kingdoms. Also, the dominant faction at the time had been plotting to restore the King, and had declared war on the Netherlands, despite the fact that they were a Calvinist nation and Cromwell had been planning to allow exiled Jews to return from Amsterdam for the first time since the 13th Century. Trade rights had overruled the whole principles of the Commonwealth.

In any case, the Army was much more reflective of the wishes of the common people anyway, Parliament still had a pretty archaic structure that meant you had to be fairly well off to vote. Cromwell had been trying to reform it, but never really got beyond the planning phase due to the constant wars being fought.

InsaneApache

04-26-2009, 13:32

He was pretty brutal towrds the Levellers as well.

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2009, 13:58

He was pretty brutal towrds the Levellers as well.

He was sympathetic with them. Look at the Putney debates for example, throwing off the Norman yoke etc. I don't understand why politicians today can't conduct themselves so respectfully. Heck, the first thing Cromwell did when he took his seat in Parliament was to campaign for the release of the Leveller leader, John Lillburne.

KukriKhan

04-26-2009, 14:19

I'm just a revolting colonial, so what do I know? Folks have asked "By what right does a King rule?".

Wasn't it, in ancient times, the right of the sword? You're the strongest dude in the area, with the largest following = you get to lord it over the locals. Kingdoms weren't all that huge back 2,000 - 3,000 years ago (ignoring empires).

Then, with religion (and the theory of an interventionist God) getting involved, "the strongest dude" must ipso facto have been picked by God to rule (according to the holy guys), hence his vetting via coronation. If God didn't want him to be King, He wouldn't allow the coronation.

In the big picture of history, Kings have been usually acclaimed, and populations happy with them. It's when they died that things got sticky.

So it comes down to: how do you change rulers? How often, and by what means, and under what circumstances?

The old way: Strong guy gets to rule for life (NB life expectancy 35-50), then the folks who have his blood in them, on the probability that the good times will continue, god willing.

The new way: we understand blood and god and individual consent differently now. And leaders get their right to rule, not from god, or a strong right arm, but from we, the ruled. And we've come to see that, no matter how good a ruler starts out, after a time in power, he won't be as good as when he started, and needs to be replaced.

The new way may not be any more accurate or correct than the old way, but it's how we understand stuff now. If people want to call their head guy king, or president, or chief decider, or number one kahuna, what do I care? Everybody has a big boss, it seems. I don't get the big opposition to monarchy, other than they sometimes don't get picked popularly.

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2009, 14:39

For the point Kukri made about God, remember that Kings can still betray the 'order established by God' just like anyone else. For example if a King abuses his powers to become absolutist, then it would be justified to rebel against him. There are a plethora of resistance theories based around such situations which emerged in early modern Europe, which laid the foundations for the ideas of natural law etc, from which many government systems today stem.

Kadagar_AV

04-26-2009, 14:54

I like the monarchy in sweden. As do most Swedes.

The king, in effect, has no power what so ever. He happily travels around representing Sweden. Some in the US and abroad seem to think the royal houses still have some kind of power, while this in fact is extremly rare.

About inbreeding... Contrary to popular beliefs the kings throughout the ages have had very little problems hooking up with babes. So the blood line is usually pretty strong.

Madeleine (http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,128557,00.jpg) the princess of Sweden is a good example, she's pretty much a babe if you haven't noticed. Inbred?

EDIT: The reason I support the monarchy is that it pays off. Lots of tourists flock around the royal castle and bring revenues to the capital.

Kralizec

04-26-2009, 15:05

The French murdered Louis XVI, but this doesn't stop tourists from seeing the Versailles palace. Besides, I'm pretty sure people would visit the White House too if it was open for tourists.

A president with mostly ceremonial duties can do the same things as a constitutional monarch. And without the outrage factor in the rare occasion that the head of state does have a modicum of power. The Dutch queen appoints mediators for coalition forming after the election for example. And if I recall correctly the Luxembourgers recently had some trouble when the archduke refused to sign an act of parliament.

lenin96

04-26-2009, 15:07

But if the king of Sweden can't do anything important why do people like him?

Kadagar_AV

04-26-2009, 15:47

lenin96, in some situations it's good to have a king. As an example we had a swede held in some african prison (forgot where), they refused to send him back to sweden. The state treid to get him back for years, but it wasnt untill the swedish king sent a personal letter to the dictator that something happened. I guess the dictators penis grows a little bit when they get a personal letter from a king.

Further, it gives things such as the Nobel Prize that little extra hint of being something special. To get medals and so on from a king is a little mroe special than getting it from whoever... If for no other reason then because of the protocol that must be followed (how to eat and dress and act and so on).

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-26-2009, 18:10

He was sympathetic with them. Look at the Putney debates for example, throwing off the Norman yoke etc. I don't understand why politicians today can't conduct themselves so respectfully. Heck, the first thing Cromwell did when he took his seat in Parliament was to campaign for the release of the Leveller leader, John Lillburne.

Initially yes, Cromwell was sypathetic to Freeborn John, ultimately though the levellers were brutally supressed, just like the High Church, the Catholics and anyone who enjoyed Shakespeare or Christmas.

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

Political thought advanced a bit in the several thousand years after Plato. Anyway, good or bad monarch - doesn't matter since they don't have any power. They're there just for show. The idea of someone being born into a position is contrary to meritocracy.

Has political thought really advanced since Plato, trying finding a philosophical system on wiki that is really different to something he, one of his contemporaries, or students first proposed.

I'm just a revolting colonial, so what do I know? Folks have asked "By what right does a King rule?".

Wasn't it, in ancient times, the right of the sword? You're the strongest dude in the area, with the largest following = you get to lord it over the locals. Kingdoms weren't all that huge back 2,000 - 3,000 years ago (ignoring empires).

Then, with religion (and the theory of an interventionist God) getting involved, "the strongest dude" must ipso facto have been picked by God to rule (according to the holy guys), hence his vetting via coronation. If God didn't want him to be King, He wouldn't allow the coronation.

In the big picture of history, Kings have been usually acclaimed, and populations happy with them. It's when they died that things got sticky.

So it comes down to: how do you change rulers? How often, and by what means, and under what circumstances?

The old way: Strong guy gets to rule for life (NB life expectancy 35-50), then the folks who have his blood in them, on the probability that the good times will continue, god willing.

The new way: we understand blood and god and individual consent differently now. And leaders get their right to rule, not from god, or a strong right arm, but from we, the ruled. And we've come to see that, no matter how good a ruler starts out, after a time in power, he won't be as good as when he started, and needs to be replaced.

The new way may not be any more accurate or correct than the old way, but it's how we understand stuff now. If people want to call their head guy king, or president, or chief decider, or number one kahuna, what do I care? Everybody has a big boss, it seems. I don't get the big opposition to monarchy, other than they sometimes don't get picked popularly.

I think that's a good point about perception Kukri, though I naturally maintain that the English always chose their Kings when not directly conpelled by outsiders.

Of course, there has not been an English King since 1066.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-26-2009, 18:20

But if the king of Sweden can't do anything important why do people like him?

Firstly, monarchs do have some power and do some good, as Kadagar_AV pointed out. Secondly, the President of Germany can't do much either, so why do we like (or dislike) him?

This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

That wasn't exactly a very big list. There have been a fair share of democratically elected leaders with some problems in the cranial department.

The French murdered Louis XVI, but this doesn't stop tourists from seeing the Versailles palace. Besides, I'm pretty sure people would visit the White House too if it was open for tourists.

It doesn't stop them, you are correct. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the reason many tourists flock to Great Britain is for the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy. It certainly is one of the things that the British government and travel websites most commonly advertise.

Sarmatian

04-26-2009, 19:14

Firstly, monarchs do have some power and do some good, as Kadagar_AV pointed out. Secondly, the President of Germany can't do much either, so why do we like (or dislike) him?

Yes, they hand out medals and awards, sometimes even read a speech for a national holiday. Swedish king is forbidden to talk about political issues.

It doesn't stop them, you are correct. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the reason many tourists flock to Great Britain is for the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy. It certainly is one of the things that the British government and travel websites most commonly advertise.

You advertise what you have. What is UK gonna advertise? Good food or nice weather?

I don't have the latest data, but I believe France still attracts more tourists than GB (if not, they're very close), even if GB has the advantage of having the same language as US.

HoreTore

04-26-2009, 19:46

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

The Kings introduced democracy here? Just what are you on? :inquisitive:

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2009, 20:16

Initially yes, Cromwell was sypathetic to Freeborn John, ultimately though the levellers were brutally supressed, just like the High Church, the Catholics and anyone who enjoyed Shakespeare or Christmas.

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

Of course he was not sympathetic to the mutineers, who decided to go rebel while on campaign in Ireland, despite the fact that Cromwell had allowed every division to elect representatives, effectively forming a democracy within the army in opposition to that at Westminster (which was occupied by the less radical landed interests).

And I'm glad the High Church was supressed, it was a political machine and had nothing to do with Christian religion. The disestablishement of the church was central to the idea of 'liberty of conscience', and Cromwell allowed Anglican services to take place, but without their previous status as the national church.

And I'm glad he banned Christmas too, it is a pagan practice and as such well without the scope of liberty of conscience within the Christian religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't run around telling children Santa doesn't exist (though that would be hilarious), but the religious element of Christmas should be removed, no Christian should wish to honour Baal's birthday.

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

Erm... ever heard of the killing times?

Of course, there has not been an English King since 1066.

Finally, you and the Puritans can agree on something! :beam:

Brenus

04-26-2009, 20:43

"The French murdered Louis XVI": The French executed Louis Capet after a Court proceeding where the in favor of the Death Penalty won by one voice for betraying the Country. Incidentally, this voice was from his own brother, the future Louis XVIII. He had lawyers and had times to prepare his case, things that most opponents to his regime never got.:beam:

Furunculus

04-26-2009, 22:19

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mentally_ill_monarchs), it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

because nobody has found a better way of governing a country. full stop.

there are lots of people in other countries who will say they prefer what they have, and good for them, but why change what works perfectly well for an unknown quantity which has frequently led to instability and revolution when tried in the past?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-26-2009, 22:52

Of course he was not sympathetic to the mutineers, who decided to go rebel while on campaign in Ireland, despite the fact that Cromwell had allowed every division to elect representatives, effectively forming a democracy within the army in opposition to that at Westminster (which was occupied by the less radical landed interests).

Freeborn John was not a rebel, he resigned his commission when the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant on the English.

Cromwell kept him in prison, when he was like to die the warden released him so he could visit his wife. Cromwell ordered him returned to prison, he was already dead.

Your great hero persecuted a man who had once been his friend because because he disagreed with him politically.

And I'm glad the High Church was supressed, it was a political machine and had nothing to do with Christian religion. The disestablishement of the church was central to the idea of 'liberty of conscience', and Cromwell allowed Anglican services to take place, but without their previous status as the national church.

So it's freedom of Calvinism then, is it?

Had I been alive at that time I would not have had the money to flee, I would probably have had my head stoved in when I tried to stop them desicrating the cathedral by dividing it in half, or closing 7 of the 11 churches in the city. Measures taken by parliament and supported by the army.

The Book of Common Prayer, was banned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer

You might want to take note of the quoted diary entry,

"Christmas Day 1657. I went to London with my wife to celebrate Christmas Day. . . Sermon ended, as [the minister] was giving us the holy sacrament, the chapel was surrounded with soldiers, and all the communicants and assembly surprised and kept prisoners by them, some in the house, others carried away... These wretched miscreants held their muskets against us as we came up to receive the sacred elements, as if they would have shot us at the altar."

So, I might have been shot as well.

And I'm glad he banned Christmas too, it is a pagan practice and as such well without the scope of liberty of conscience within the Christian religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't run around telling children Santa doesn't exist (though that would be hilarious), but the religious element of Christmas should be removed, no Christian should wish to honour Baal's birthday.

Yes, invoking pointless suffering in the name of his personal religion.

Erm... ever heard of the killing times?

Had they not tried to (sometimes violently) force their religion on others, including the King, things might have been different. That doesn't make it right, but it's worth remembering.

We restored the monarchy because, frankly, everyone hated the Republic.

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2009, 23:24

Freeborn John was not a rebel, he resigned his commission when the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant on the English.

Cromwell kept him in prison, when he was like to die the warden released him so he could visit his wife. Cromwell ordered him returned to prison, he was already dead.

Your great hero persecuted a man who had once been his friend because because he disagreed with him politically.

First of all, the Scots did not force the Solemn League and Covenant on anyone. The Puritans were very happy to sign it, otherwise they would have fought the Covenanters in the 1640 invasion. Both Covenanters and Parliament were happy with the document, although conflict would later arise over their interpretation of it

To be specific, the Scots interpreted it as a static agreement which stated at the time of its signing the relationship between church and state; the Parliamentarians on the other hand believed that God's providence was shown by the successes and failures of the army, justifying the victors. Obviously, this propaganda related back to the defeat of the Engagers, which was taken by the English as a sign of God's preference of the congregationalist church model over Presbyterianism. Of course, the Kirk did not see things that way and hearkened back to the covenant. I sympathise more with the Parliamentarians on this (since the Solelm League and Covenant was far from clear on the issue), however something which was not considered by either side is that defeats could also be a result of God's providence to punish the elect, rather than justify them - just a little thought of my own to add confusion to a very confusing issue.

As for Lillburne, I sympathise with his cause but the means with which he was promoting it were unacceptable. He took advantage of Parliament's refusal to pay the troops and caused rebellion in the Army while on campaign. To take advantage of the fragile government at the time was just not on, especially given the importance of the wars being fought.

So it's freedom of Calvinism then, is it?

Had I been alive at that time I would not have had the money to flee, I would probably have had my head stoved in when I tried to stop them desicrating the cathedral by dividing it in half, or closing 7 of the 11 churches in the city. Measures taken by parliament and supported by the army.

The Book of Common Prayer, was banned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer

You might want to take note of the quoted diary entry, "Christmas Day 1657. I went to London with my wife to celebrate Christmas Day. . . Sermon ended, as [the minister] was giving us the holy sacrament, the chapel was surrounded with soldiers, and all the communicants and assembly surprised and kept prisoners by them, some in the house, others carried away... These wretched miscreants held their muskets against us as we came up to receive the sacred elements, as if they would have shot us at the altar."

So, I might have been shot as well.

No, it is freedom to practice the Christian religion. When people hear about how Cromwell spoke of 'liberty of conscience', they do not understand what he was referring to. He was pointing to Chapter XX Part II of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."

So, if you are not a Christian, then you cannot even have liberty of consience, since you are in effect a slave to sin. This goes for the pagan elements seen in many branches of Christianity. If you celebrate Christmas, you are wishing Baal happy birthday. If you celebrate Easter, you are acknowledging the pagan godess Ashtar, and it is a grave sin to have the name of any false God on your lips!

The Book of Common Prayer was used to reinforce such un-Christian beliefs, and as such falls without the liberty of conscience Cromwell spoke of. You could be an Arminian and believe in free will, you could support the Episcopalian church polity, but when you start worshipping pagan God's something is going wrong.

Also, don't forget is was Charles' attempt to force the Book of Common Prayer on the Scots that caused the British Wars of Religion in the first place.

Yes, invoking pointless suffering in the name of his personal religion.

LOLWUT? What's that got to do with the stuff about Christmas? Can anyone actually defend this pagan practice?

Had they not tried to (sometimes violently) force their religion on others, including the King, things might have been different. That doesn't make it right, but it's worth remembering.

We restored the monarchy because, frankly, everyone hated the Republic.

The landed interests united with some of the superstitious English peasantry and that is why the Republic came to an end. I'm ashamed to say the landed interests in Scotland, even within the Kirk, did the same.

Don't forget the Restoration was much to the disgust of the New Model Army, sadly it was so busy defending the Republic from foreign threats that it could not handle the domestic pressure. The common Scots were absolutedly disgusted with the Kirk for supporting the King, I am still angry about it today! The ideals didn't die with the Restoration though, the Galloway Levellers were still revolting in 1723, good for them!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-27-2009, 00:34

First of all, the Scots did not force the Solemn League and Covenant on anyone. The Puritans were very happy to sign it, otherwise they would have fought the Covenanters in the 1640 invasion. Both Covenanters and Parliament were happy with the document, although conflict would later arise over their interpretation of it

To be specific, the Scots interpreted it as a static agreement which stated at the time of its signing the relationship between church and state; the Parliamentarians on the other hand believed that God's providence was shown by the successes and failures of the army, justifying the victors. Obviously, this propaganda related back to the defeat of the Engagers, which was taken by the English as a sign of God's preference of the congregationalist church model over Presbyterianism. Of course, the Kirk did not see things that way and hearkened back to the covenant. I sympathise more with the Parliamentarians on this (since the Solelm League and Covenant was far from clear on the issue), however something which was not considered by either side is that defeats could also be a result of God's providence to punish the elect, rather than justify them - just a little thought of my own to add confusion to a very confusing issue.

As for Lillburne, I sympathise with his cause but the means with which he was promoting it were unacceptable. He took advantage of Parliament's refusal to pay the troops and caused rebellion in the Army while on campaign. To take advantage of the fragile government at the time was just not on, especially given the importance of the wars being fought.

The Covenanters sought to force their particular form of Christianity upon England in return for military help. For them religion was more important that the excesses of the King. Would the Covenanters have invaded anyway in 1640 and sought to impose that theology on the embattled English?

As to Freeborn John, he pointed out the iniquitiues of parliament. They should have payed the army, then it would not have rebelled. They were as corrupt as John said they were.

No, it is freedom to practice the Christian religion. When people hear about how Cromwell spoke of 'liberty of conscience', they do not understand what he was referring to. He was pointing to Chapter XX Part II of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."

So, if you are not a Christian, then you cannot even have liberty of consience, since you are in effect a slave to sin. This goes for the pagan elements seen in many branches of Christianity. If you celebrate Christmas, you are wishing Baal happy birthday. If you celebrate Easter, you are acknowledging the pagan godess Ashtar, and it is a grave sin to have the name of any false God on your lips!

I would not sign the Westminster Confession if you were to put a gun to my head, I could not. I therefore do not meet your definition of a Christian. Worse, I celebrate Easter and Christmas with the rest of my City, in an ancient Church, before a Bishop.

You define Christianity as Calvinistic, the Confession is Calvinistic.

You are using your interpretation of Christianity to justify the violent, and it was violent, supression of divergant views.

Catholics did the same to the Lollards.

The Book of Common Prayer was used to reinforce such un-Christian beliefs, and as such falls without the liberty of conscience Cromwell spoke of. You could be an Arminian and believe in free will, you could support the Episcopalian church polity, but when you start worshipping pagan God's something is going wrong.

Also, don't forget is was Charles' attempt to force the Book of Common Prayer on the Scots that caused the British Wars of Religion in the first place.

Un-Christian? I suppose that makes Jesus un-Christian because he celebrated passover, which is exactly what Easter is. We use a Pagan word to ifentify the festival just as we use a Pagan word to identify God. It's going to be that way unless you want us to learn Hebrew.

Still, just because you don't like it why should I have my prayer book taken at gunpoint? What gives you that right?

LOLWUT? What's that got to do with the stuff about Christmas? Can anyone actually defend this pagan practice?

Cromwell decided what HE didn't like and supressed it, he justifyed his brutality with a deterministic religion.

He decided he knew what God wanted and he forced it upon others.

That is why he was hated, he was as bad as the King.

The landed interests united with some of the superstitious English peasantry and that is why the Republic came to an end. I'm ashamed to say the landed interests in Scotland, even within the Kirk, did the same.

Don't forget the Restoration was much to the disgust of the New Model Army, sadly it was so busy defending the Republic from foreign threats that it could not handle the domestic pressure. The common Scots were absolutedly disgusted with the Kirk for supporting the King, I am still angry about it today! The ideals didn't die with the Restoration though, the Galloway Levellers were still revolting in 1723, good for them!

The Restoration was a restoration of Parliament as well as of Monarchy. It saw the disolving of the army districts and the end of Martial Law.

lenin96

04-27-2009, 03:06

That wasn't exactly a very big list. There have been a fair share of democratically elected leaders with some problems in the cranial department.

Yes, elected leaders have had those problems as well, but those insane monarchs came to power because of their birth, they wouldn't have came to power if it wasn't a Monarchy.

because nobody has found a better way of governing a country. full stop.

Trusting that your leader will be good when they are decided by birth and nothing else isn't a good government, merit and ideology matter.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-27-2009, 03:17

Yes, elected leaders have had those problems as well, but those insane monarchs came to power because of their birth, they wouldn't have came to power if it wasn't a Monarchy.

Not specifically them, perhaps not, but someone equally inept or insane, certainly.

Rhyfelwyr

04-27-2009, 12:59

The Covenanters sought to force their particular form of Christianity upon England in return for military help. For them religion was more important that the excesses of the King. Would the Covenanters have invaded anyway in 1640 and sought to impose that theology on the embattled English?

As to Freeborn John, he pointed out the iniquitiues of parliament. They should have payed the army, then it would not have rebelled. They were as corrupt as John said they were.

I would hope religion is more important than the excesses of the king! But the two had become inseperable, and the King's attempts to force religious uniformity are what led to the Scottish invasion. Also, I do not know where you get this idea that the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant upon the English, the Puritans were quite happy with it (in fact, a majority of the Puritans supported a Presbyterian polity under the king at this stage - although the situation reversed, the Covananters started off as the more radical faction).

Also, parliament had become iniquitous, and was threatening the principles of the Godly Republic. Cromwell was just as disgusted with Parliament as Lilburne, the Political Presbyterians (not actually Presybterian by this point, yeah confusing) had gained a majority and were far less radical than the Independents that were dominant in the New Model Army. Lilburne wasn't persecuted for his criticism of Parliament, but for encouraging rebellion in the army while on campaign.

I would not sign the Westminster Confession if you were to put a gun to my head, I could not. I therefore do not meet your definition of a Christian. Worse, I celebrate Easter and Christmas with the rest of my City, in an ancient Church, before a Bishop.

You define Christianity as Calvinistic, the Confession is Calvinistic.

You are using your interpretation of Christianity to justify the violent, and it was violent, supression of divergant views.

Catholics did the same to the Lollards.

I didn't say you had the agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith to be Christian. But I do agree with its definition of what could be reasonably said to come within the boundaries of Christian religion. It is fine to believe in Arminian doctrines of free will, or support the Bishops if you like them. However, by no stetch of the imagination does the worship of false gods and the celebration of pagan festivals have anything to do with Christianity.

Calvinism is just one branch of Christian thought and I wouldn't claim to believe with certainty that it is correct. But where does the freedom to believe other doctrines extend to completely un-Christian practices?

I am not justifying the supression of Anglicanism through my Calvinist views, I am justifying it through Christianity. It is no longer Christianity when people worship Baal and Ashtar. :no:

Un-Christian? I suppose that makes Jesus un-Christian because he celebrated passover, which is exactly what Easter is. We use a Pagan word to ifentify the festival just as we use a Pagan word to identify God. It's going to be that way unless you want us to learn Hebrew.

Still, just because you don't like it why should I have my prayer book taken at gunpoint? What gives you that right?

Jesus was Jewish messiah, remember our other debate going on in the other thread about the significance of the customs of ethnic Israel. As Gentiles, why would we keep Jewish customs? Or invent our own to run parallel to them? Also, I don't consider God to be a name in place of Yahweh, to us 'God' is a concept used to identify the one who says that he is 'I am'. Praising 'I am' by a festival called Easter is a bit like giving someone a birthday cake with someone elses name on it, its completely different from using a word to describe our idea of Yahweh.

As for what gives me the right to take a prayer book... well that is a whole other can of worms. Dare I say God?

"I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things" :beam:

Cromwell decided what HE didn't like and supressed it, he justifyed his brutality with a deterministic religion.

He decided he knew what God wanted and he forced it upon others.

That is why he was hated, he was as bad as the King.

He was right. :shrug:

I still can't see a reasonable defence of how these pagan festivals could be said to come within the realms of the Christian religion.

The Restoration was a restoration of Parliament as well as of Monarchy. It saw the disolving of the army districts and the end of Martial Law.

And attempted to plunge Britain back into absolutism, leading to the events of 1688. The New Model Army was a better voice for the people than Parliament ever was.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-27-2009, 15:33

I would hope religion is more important than the excesses of the king! But the two had become inseperable, and the King's attempts to force religious uniformity are what led to the Scottish invasion. Also, I do not know where you get this idea that the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant upon the English, the Puritans were quite happy with it (in fact, a majority of the Puritans supported a Presbyterian polity under the king at this stage - although the situation reversed, the Covananters started off as the more radical faction).

Also, parliament had become iniquitous, and was threatening the principles of the Godly Republic. Cromwell was just as disgusted with Parliament as Lilburne, the Political Presbyterians (not actually Presybterian by this point, yeah confusing) had gained a majority and were far less radical than the Independents that were dominant in the New Model Army. Lilburne wasn't persecuted for his criticism of Parliament, but for encouraging rebellion in the army while on campaign.

Freeborn John was no longer an officer by this point. He complained, rightly, that the Army was not being paid while the generals had comfortable livings.

He was not a soldier, he could not mutiny, nor be held responsible for the conduct of soldiers. He was scapegoated because, as always, the officers tried to screw the Poor Bloody Infantry.

I didn't say you had the agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith to be Christian. But I do agree with its definition of what could be reasonably said to come within the boundaries of Christian religion. It is fine to believe in Arminian doctrines of free will, or support the Bishops if you like them. However, by no stetch of the imagination does the worship of false gods and the celebration of pagan festivals have anything to do with Christianity.

Calvinism is just one branch of Christian thought and I wouldn't claim to believe with certainty that it is correct. But where does the freedom to believe other doctrines extend to completely un-Christian practices?

I am not justifying the supression of Anglicanism through my Calvinist views, I am justifying it through Christianity. It is no longer Christianity when people worship Baal and Ashtar. :no:

There is no worship of Ba'al or any other God in Anglicanism, nor in any similar denomination. Those festivals were replaced by Christian ones, root and branch. I celebrate both, and I don't recall sacrificing any babies or animals. Nor do I recall any naked dancing or public fornication.

If you want to attack my religion you'll need more that one word and a few dates.

Right now this is just sanctimonious dross, and has already crossed the line into being personal.

Jesus was Jewish messiah, remember our other debate going on in the other thread about the significance of the customs of ethnic Israel. As Gentiles, why would we keep Jewish customs? Or invent our own to run parallel to them? Also, I don't consider God to be a name in place of Yahweh, to us 'God' is a concept used to identify the one who says that he is 'I am'. Praising 'I am' by a festival called Easter is a bit like giving someone a birthday cake with someone elses name on it, its completely different from using a word to describe our idea of Yahweh.

If Jews can keep their customs, why can't others? Is this not what Acts and the Epistles Establish? Why can't Gentiles celebrate Christ's birthday on what used to be a pagan Holy Day?

Surely that just makes life easier for everyone.

As for what gives me the right to take a prayer book... well that is a whole other can of worms. Dare I say God?

"I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things" :beam:

So you're Jesus now? How about this one,

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain"

He was right. :shrug:

I still can't see a reasonable defence of how these pagan festivals could be said to come within the realms of the Christian religion.

Maybe he was, but that gives him no right to enforce his view upon others with violence, an entirely pointless and ineffective stratergy in any case.

And attempted to plunge Britain back into absolutism, leading to the events of 1688. The New Model Army was a better voice for the people than Parliament ever was.

The majoriety of the people supported the restoration, overwhelmingly, because they were tired of muskets shoved in their faces.

Rhyfelwyr

04-27-2009, 16:30

Freeborn John was no longer an officer by this point. He complained, rightly, that the Army was not being paid while the generals had comfortable livings.

He was not a soldier, he could not mutiny, nor be held responsible for the conduct of soldiers. He was scapegoated because, as always, the officers tried to screw the Poor Bloody Infantry.

He continued to promote propaganda about a domsetic issue while the soldiers were on an important campaign... there is no excuse for that. It must have seemed even more unforgivable at the time, given the fact that the Puritans thought they were fighting an apocalyptic war in anticipation of the Second Coming, in their minds they were living out the Book of Revelation. Of course they turned out to be wrong, but there was good reason to believe it at the time, the only piece in the puzzle missing was Israel, although plans were underway to gather together the Jews into the Commonwealth.

There is no worship of Ba'al or any other God in Anglicanism, nor in any similar denomination. Those festivals were replaced by Christian ones, root and branch. I celebrate both, and I don't recall sacrificing any babies or animals. Nor do I recall any naked dancing or public fornication.

If you want to attack my religion you'll need more that one word and a few dates.

Right now this is just sanctimonious dross, and has already crossed the line into being personal.

I didn't know there was such a thing as a Christian festival, where does the scripture mention it?!

Also, I don't see how it is personal, I am talking about an established national church here.

If Jews can keep their customs, why can't others? Is this not what Acts and the Epistles Establish? Why can't Gentiles celebrate Christ's birthday on what used to be a pagan Holy Day?

Surely that just makes life easier for everyone.

There is a verse where Jesus clearly states not to acknowledge days and years, although I can't find it now, gah.

So you're Jesus now? How about this one,

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain"

Jesus always has a better answer at hand than I do, the scripture is there so we can apply his wisdom.

Maybe he was, but that gives him no right to enforce his view upon others with violence, an entirely pointless and ineffective stratergy in any case.

So you are asking what gives him the right to spread the Gospel? Jesus didnt' walk into the temple and say to the money changers, "please do not do that". Jesus didn't tell people it was OK to go about blaspheming, least of all in a church. No 'rights' about it, every Christian should seek to see the word practised, and not lost under a mountain of traditions, festivals, and church hierarchies.

According to the Anglican take on resistance theories, Cromwell and his government was the power appointed by God, and so everything they do is by God's providence. If they tell you not to celebtrate Christmas, you should not. Of course, such propaganda was designed before the Interregnum, and was supposed to keep the Puritans in check - kind of backfired when the government it was supposed to uphold collapsed.

The majoriety of the people supported the restoration, overwhelmingly, because they were tired of muskets shoved in their faces.

Not really, the government collapsed and the opportunists were waiting to pounce. It was a military state, Cromwell was a soldier and after he died his son didn't have the ability to hold the army together. It was not collapsing due to royalist support, but its own internal struggles - between the levellers, the diggers, the Political Presbyterians, the Independents, the Political Independents, Parliament v Army etc etc. It was the first time in English (even world) history that the average person became seriosuly involved in the political scene. The period was a golden age for political movements when universal suffrage and communism (in a form) first appeared, complemented as well by unparalleled advancements in theology given the short space of time. There was just too much going on for it to be held together, so the kings came back and we went back to the feudal :daisy:.

Meneldil

04-27-2009, 20:23

In any case, none of this justifies the killing of a king. Generally when you kill a King you get something worse. Take a look at England or France, for a start.

lolwut ?

While Louis XVI was actually a decent king, and probably did not deserve to be shortened the way he was, his familly was on a general basis and by all accounts, a bunch of inbred morons responsible for most of the wars that plagued Europe for centuries.
If anything, the Restauration (1815-1830) shown us that the royal family was nothing but a lot of idiots.

I mean, you can admire the Sun King's military and political achievements. That doesn't change the fact he caused thousands of deaths. He probably killed as many people as Napoleon, yet he did not bring with him the ideas of equality, freedom and republic.
And I'm not even talking about Louis XVIII, Charles X, and the rest of the gang.

So yeah, I'm glad we got rid of them all. I'd take Napoleon or Robespierre over any of them at any time.

Furunculus

04-27-2009, 22:22

Trusting that your leader will be good when they are decided by birth and nothing else isn't a good government, merit and ideology matter.

you are confusing an absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy.

that really isn't going to be a problem for the UK.

lenin96

04-28-2009, 03:51

you are confusing an absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy.

that really isn't going to be a problem for the UK.

I was mostly talking about an absolute Monarchy, but even a constitutional one, they haven't done anything great to deserve the treatment that they get.

Furunculus

04-28-2009, 08:44

Ours hasn't done anything wrong either, and given that there is no absolute advantage to any other sort of governance yet devised why introduce instability into the system for zero benefit?

lenin96

04-28-2009, 11:05

Ours hasn't done anything wrong either, and given that there is no absolute advantage to any other sort of governance yet devised why introduce instability into the system for zero benefit?

The British queen doesn't deserve what she has, should she have all of that wealth? Can you imagine her giving money to poor people or even caring about them? And what instability would occur?

LittleGrizzly

04-28-2009, 11:32

I think the instability argument may have had some merit going back a while but in the modern world i highly doubt UK would be less stable without a monarchy...

Im against the monarchy on prinicple but i have got to be honest the Queen ain't all that bad and she does a fairly good job... i predict the death of the monarchy not long after our next bad monarch...

Furunculus

04-28-2009, 12:21

The British queen doesn't deserve what she has, should she have all of that wealth? Can you imagine her giving money to poor people or even caring about them? And what instability would occur?

political instability always results from tinkering with the constitutional mechanisms of governance. you add additional entropy to system that is already perpetually seeking equilibrium.
we can consider finland as this fictional example of equilibrium, and we might equally consider rwanda as an excellent example of the entropic extremes of the pendulums swing.

so you are happy to create a less stable society just so you can remove a few palaces from the person who we call our head of state?

we have a working system, which is no worse than any other system, and significantly better than the vast majority.

again, why change it?

LittleGrizzly

04-28-2009, 12:30

lenin96

04-28-2009, 12:43

again, why change it?

Becaue it is people living with money and "happiness" without doing any work, in this case they do not deserve it so they cannot have it.

We might have to agree to disagree as I am bent on getting rid of the aristocracy.:rifle: :crowngrin: --------->:smg: :crowngrin: :hmg:--------->:hanged:

Furunculus

04-28-2009, 14:13

Furunculus

04-28-2009, 14:14

lenin96

04-29-2009, 06:31

the queen and phil work harder than you ever will, by an order of magnitude.

What do they work towards? And we might have to agree to disagree here as well, in my oppinion any member of the working class is far more important or good than any monarch will ever be.

Incongruous

04-29-2009, 07:09

Becaue it is people living with money and "happiness" without doing any work, in this case they do not deserve it so they cannot have it.

We might have to agree to disagree as I am bent on getting rid of the aristocracy.:rifle: :crowngrin: --------->:smg: :crowngrin: :hmg:--------->:hanged:

So it would seem that the core of modern western communism is...
Hatred of a certain class?

Without doing any work? I fear you may have a very simplistic and outright wrong impression of our Monarchy. Monarchs have never been able to simply do nothing and slack off the duties given to them.

more...good? Is this a claim of moral superiority over another? Sounds dangerous to me, probabaly sounded dangerous to alot of thinking Russians before they got ventilated heads.

lenin96

04-29-2009, 07:34

So it would seem that the core of modern western communism is...
Hatred of a certain class?

Of course not all rich people are bad, but a lot of them don't respect the working class, ignore the problems of people less fortunate than them and/or don't work enough for good.

Without doing any work? I fear you may have a very simplistic and outright wrong impression of our Monarchy. Monarchs have never been able to simply do nothing and slack off the duties given to them.

I know that, but what good are those duties? There are probably other people who can do the job better who have more merit.

more...good? Is this a claim of moral superiority over another?

Seeing that we shouldn't have Monarchies, then the work they do is less important than the working class. Also I'm curious if the queen respects the working class.

Sounds dangerous to me, probabaly sounded dangerous to alot of thinking Russians before they got ventilated heads.

Dangerous to Monarchies of course! (And the last part makes no sense.)

Incongruous

04-29-2009, 07:46

Dangerous to Monarchies of course! (And the last part makes no sense.)

Yes it does, such ideas of moral superiority were dangerous not just for aristocrats but for everyone whom disagreed with it, i.e those who think and in many cases in Russia (when communist) these people had their brains splatterd against concrete walls byt those men whom believed that the moral superiority of their class meant they could do no wrong.

lenin96

04-29-2009, 08:01

Yes it does, such ideas of moral superiority were dangerous not just for aristocrats but for everyone whom disagreed with it, i.e those who think and in many cases in Russia (when communist)

It depends, I disagree with the execution of the Tzar's family, I am unsure about the Tzar himself as if he were to be captured by the royalists then it was necessary. I mainly believe that aristocrats be taken out of power and made to be productive like everyone else. Not be killed.

...these people had their brains splatterd against concrete walls byt those men whom believed that the moral superiority of their class meant they could do no wrong.

Thats irrelevant because I would generally disagree with that.

Incongruous

04-29-2009, 08:17

It depends, I disagree with the execution of the Tzar's family, I am unsure about the Tzar himself as if he were to be captured by the royalists then it was necessary. I mainly believe that aristocrats be taken out of power and made to be productive like everyone else. Not be killed.
Thats irrelevant because I would generally disagree with that.

It does not matter what you may think, that is what Communism does, it is an extremism and those who lead communists revolutions are dangerous ideologues.

BOT:

I agree that the abolishment of the Monarchy by anything than a massive majority would lead to civil unrest, since you are unlikely to get that majority anytime soon. Such an action if undertaken within the next fifty of so years would probably be taken by the current ruling clas, that very unpopular lot in the Commons. They would lack almost any kind of support and I wonder if they would face resistance from the military?

No, an imposition of a Republic upon a U.K similar to today's would be a disaster.

lenin96

04-29-2009, 08:24

It does not matter what you may think, that is what Communism does, it is an extremism and those who lead communists revolutions are dangerous ideologues.

I have no problem being labeled "extremist". Communism may be "extreme" but that is irrelevant as the cause matters. Why is more important than what.

I agree that the abolishment of the Monarchy by anything than a massive majority would lead to civil unrest, since you are unlikely to get that majority anytime soon. Such an action if undertaken within the next fifty of so years would probably be taken by the current ruling clas, that very unpopular lot in the Commons. They would lack almost any kind of support and I wonder if they would face resistance from the military?

Civil unrest, what would the civil unrest be targeted at and what would it want to achieve?

No, an imposition of a Republic upon a U.K similar to today's would be a disaster.

A disaster to who?

Furunculus

04-29-2009, 08:51

What do they work towards? And we might have to agree to disagree here as well, in my oppinion any member of the working class is far more important or good than any monarch will ever be.

you are still spouting rhetoric that was demonstrated to be cretinous nearly twenty years ago, wow.

civil unrest would be directed at whoever tried to make the UK a republic, and rightly so because those who directly wield the cratos would not be reflecting the will of the demos.

lenin96

04-29-2009, 09:03

you are still spouting rhetoric that was demonstrated to be cretinous nearly twenty years ago, wow.

I was being serious.

civil unrest would be directed at whoever tried to make the UK a republic, and rightly so because those who directly wield the cratos would not be reflecting the will of the demos.

I'm not interested in the fact that most people would like the monarchy, but that the people who don't want one (and I don't blame them) shouldn't have to put up with it.

Incongruous

04-29-2009, 09:28

I'm not interested in the fact that most people would like the monarchy, but that the people who don't want one (and I don't blame them) shouldn't have to put up with it.

???

Wait, are you saying that the minority which agrees with your ideals, the right ones, it more important than the mass of people whom disagree with you?
Haven't you just been arguing for Democracy? Or rather, the democracy of the workers? The workers who in the u.k are the greatest support base for the Monarchy?

lenin96

04-29-2009, 09:50

Wait, are you saying that the minority which agrees with your ideals, the right ones, it more important than the mass of people whom disagree with you?
Haven't you just been arguing for Democracy? Or rather, the democracy of the workers? The workers who in the u.k are the greatest support base for the Monarchy?

If all the workers supported the monarchy then I wold leave them alone. But rightiousness is one of the most selective things there is. I wasn't arguing for democracy, I'm mostly against Democracy (at least western Democracy). I was mostly arguing for anti-monarchism as well as Socialism. Some workers don't like the monarchy, and seeing that nobody should have to put up with a monarchy I would stand up for them.

HoreTore

04-29-2009, 09:52

???

Wait, are you saying that the minority which agrees with your ideals, the right ones, it more important than the mass of people whom disagree with you?
Haven't you just been arguing for Democracy? Or rather, the democracy of the workers? The workers who in the u.k are the greatest support base for the Monarchy?

I said it before, but I'll happily say it again:

If the people loves their king so much, the solution is obvious to us living in a democracy: ELECT HIM!

The lack of hereditary rule is one of the top reasons why democracy is better than other systems. In a democracy, people come to power because of their abilities. If the King/Queen is so loved, then it shouldn't be a problem getting them elected. So, that a people wants to keep their monarchy isn't a reason to keep the monarchy at all, in fact its a good reason to abolish it.

Incongruous

04-29-2009, 10:10

I said it before, but I'll happily say it again:

If the people loves their king so much, the solution is obvious to us living in a democracy: ELECT HIM!

The lack of hereditary rule is one of the top reasons why democracy is better than other systems. In a democracy, people come to power because of their abilities. If the King/Queen is so loved, then it shouldn't be a problem getting them elected. So, that a people wants to keep their monarchy isn't a reason to keep the monarchy at all, in fact its a good reason to abolish it.

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

lenin96

04-29-2009, 11:50

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

But you don't vote for your monarch.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-29-2009, 13:58

lolwut ?

While Louis XVI was actually a decent king, and probably did not deserve to be shortened the way he was, his familly was on a general basis and by all accounts, a bunch of inbred morons responsible for most of the wars that plagued Europe for centuries.
If anything, the Restauration (1815-1830) shown us that the royal family was nothing but a lot of idiots.

I mean, you can admire the Sun King's military and political achievements. That doesn't change the fact he caused thousands of deaths. He probably killed as many people as Napoleon, yet he did not bring with him the ideas of equality, freedom and republic.
And I'm not even talking about Louis XVIII, Charles X, and the rest of the gang.

So yeah, I'm glad we got rid of them all. I'd take Napoleon or Robespierre over any of them at any time.

Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?

Brenus

04-29-2009, 14:32

Furunculus

04-29-2009, 14:52

But you don't vote for your monarch.

Is that a problem if no better form of governance exists?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-29-2009, 16:52

"Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?"

Napoleon was not a monarchist. By definition.:beam:

How they wrere better: They never pretended it was a right by God's will...

Caputs? or Kaput?

How was Napoleon not a Monarch?

He was the sole (mono) ruler (arche) of France. He saw himself as a Roman Emperor and he made his brother of king of Spain!

He got as many Frenchmen killed as any of your kings, and he wanted his son to suceed him.

Rhyfelwyr

04-29-2009, 17:03

I think this discussion is pointless. You can have absolute monarches, lame duck monarchs, and everything inbetween. The same goes for whatever other person/group of people might be in charge, whether they are populist dictators, oligarchs, or whoever.

The real question is whether or not the hereditary asepct of monarchy is of any value.

HoreTore

04-29-2009, 19:54

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.

Furunculus

04-29-2009, 21:59

speaking as a brit to a norwegian; no you shouldn't.

you can comment, but to have a say is to imply to have some effect of change.

Alexander the Pretty Good

04-29-2009, 22:15

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.
That's the essence of the state - forcing your will on others. Autocrats and democrats alike follow that model.

Incongruous

04-30-2009, 00:51

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.

WTF?
What do you not understand about the popularity of our monarchy and the structure of constitutional monarchy?

No crap we don;t get a vote in terms of who is monarch! It is a :daisy: monarchy! Stop acting as if you cannot comprehend any other form of government which does not require people to vote in a bunch of idiots into parliament.

But you don't vote for your monarch.

Correct, that is why it is a monarchy...

InsaneApache

04-30-2009, 03:06

So Britian would be as instable like Rwanda if we tried to remove the head of state ?!

We have a functioning first world democracy, removing the monarchy would cause neither revolution nor instability, infact i suspect the country would function pretty much along the same lines... the Queen is a figure head... no more than that...

I'm not sure about chaos and civil war but do remember this, the members of the armed services take an oath to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, not the government of the day. They also take this oath very seriously.

We are where we are after a thousand years and we have become one of the most stable countries in the world. Like I said in my earlier post, I'd rather have Brenda as head of state than an oily politician* any day of the week.

*Apologies to those members here who have oily politicians as thier head of state. :sweatdrop:

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 07:21

speaking as a brit to a norwegian; no you shouldn't.

you can comment, but to have a say is to imply to have some effect of change.

Uhm.... I'm pretty sure everyone else understood that I didn't mean myself when I said "the rest of us", it should be blindingly obvious that I was referring to the general population.

That's the essence of the state - forcing your will on others. Autocrats and democrats alike follow that model.

Not quite. In a democracy, you get to choose who's enforcing their will. Having someone in charge without electing them is the direct opposite of what a democracy is.

WTF?
What do you not understand about the popularity of our monarchy and the structure of constitutional monarchy?

If he's so popular, then a vote shouldn't change a thing. So, I honestly can't understand why a vote will hurt. If he's popular, nothing changes. If he's not, well, what happens then is the will of the people, and that's what democracy is all about, right?

@InsaneApache: we do the same thing in our military. I'll happily swap sides as I please, however, no way am I going to fight and die for an inbred dolt I don't agree with...

lenin96

04-30-2009, 07:41

Is that a problem if no better form of governance exists?

There are many better forms of governments. A goverment that has the potential to let an idiot become a leader has a problem, whether there is no better goverment or not. Such a major problem has to be fixed. Why not have a republic (Not necessarily reffering to Democracy).

Correct, that is why it is a monarchy...

But why have a monarchy then?

Furunculus

04-30-2009, 08:28

There are many better forms of governments. A goverment that has the potential to let an idiot become a leader has a problem, whether there is no better goverment or not. Such a major problem has to be fixed. Why not have a republic (Not necessarily reffering to Democracy).

But why have a monarchy then?

show me a more successful form of governance as exhibited by any other other country which compares favourably to Britain, when outcomes for the population are taken into consideration. and quantify those more favourable outcomes.

i await with no little anticipation.............................

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 08:44

show me a more successful form of governance as exhibited by any other other country which compares favourably to Britain, when outcomes for the population are taken into consideration. and quantify those more favourable outcomes.

i await with no little anticipation.............................

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

lenin96

04-30-2009, 08:48

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

True, but there are many different forms of Republics... Like a Socialist one.

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 08:50

True, but there are many different forms of Republics... Like a Socialist one.

I said democracy, not republic. And the great thing about it, is that there is no need to specify whether a democracy is socialist, religious, capitalist, liberal, conservative or whatever. It can be any of them, and change between them peacefully.

lenin96

04-30-2009, 08:59

I said democracy, not republic. And the great thing about it, is that there is no need to specify whether a democracy is socialist, religious, capitalist, liberal, conservative or whatever. It can be any of them, and change between them peacefully.

I would discuss further on that but then we would get off topic. It could be an interesting discussion, maybe a separate thread?

Furunculus

04-30-2009, 10:06

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

so how are they better?

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 10:21

so how are they better?

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

Incongruous

04-30-2009, 11:07

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 11:11

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Oh dear.... Do we have another Tribesman?

Except the old Tribesman usually have some solid argument beneath the surface...

Incongruous

04-30-2009, 11:15

Oh dear.... Do we have another Tribesman?

Except the old Tribesman usually have some solid argument beneath the surface...

Nope I have no good argument, I just point at yours' and almost die of laughter, that was such an awsome post HoreTore:2thumbsup:

Phew, ok...

It was an erroneous distinction HoreTore, it was great, you were levelling the accusation of corruption against a specific form of government as if it was some great evil which demonstrated clearly the ill sof constitutional monarchy. I laughed because corruption is an institution of all governments, no matter their contruct, tbh the idea that a gut may buy his way into the Lords is alot less frightening than people being elected Senator because of fat manila enevlope changing hands.

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 11:40

It was an erroneous distinction HoreTore, it was great, you were levelling the accusation of corruption against a specific form of government as if it was some great evil which demonstrated clearly the ill sof constitutional monarchy.

Uhm, no. A fail on every front.

Try again.

As your doctor, however, I'm authorized to give you a bottle of these "makes me understand irony, sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek-comments and humour in general"-pills :yes:

InsaneApache

04-30-2009, 11:49

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

Are you taking the piss?

Incongruous

04-30-2009, 11:51

Uhm, no. A fail on every front.

Try again.

As your doctor, however, I'm authorized to give you a bottle of these "makes me understand irony, sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek-comments and humour in general"-pills :yes:

Oh I see it was one of those, oh bugger that was wrong but I'll just paint it a different shade of red and no one will notice, type things was it?

Yes, you were levelling the accusation of corruption at a specific form of government, bribing in exchange for titles, is corruption. They do very similar things in Italy I'm told they also tried to do it in the U.S not too long ago.

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 11:56

Yes, you were levelling the accusation of corruption at a specific form of government, bribing in exchange for titles, is corruption. They do very similar things in Italy I'm told they also tried to do it in the U.S not too long ago.

Can't bribe someone for a noble title without the government being a monarchy, hence that will not happen in countries without a monarchy.

I wasn't talking about corruption in general, I was talking about a very specific form of it you will never see outside monarchies.

Irrelevant? Oh my yes. But that was kind of the point, aye?

InsaneApache

04-30-2009, 11:59

You are aware that it is politicians not the monarch who doles out awards and suchlike. Seems as though you're arguing against elected politicians here HoreTore.

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 12:04

Seems as though you're arguing against elected politicians here HoreTore.

That's the joy of living in a democracy, you know ~;)

But no, without the monarchy, they wouldn't have any hereditary titles to give out.

InsaneApache

04-30-2009, 12:09

Just lots of cash instead. :dizzy2:

Fragony

04-30-2009, 12:36

Happy queensday http://www.breakingtweets.com/2009/04/car-attacks-queen-beatrix-on-queens-day.html

4 dead many wounded, head on a plate please, thx

Furunculus

04-30-2009, 13:32

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

let me be the third person to roll on the floor laughing my behind off.

but back to the figures, is there any facts or figures you would like to bring to the table regarding types of government and corruption, perhaps using western europe as a typical sample set?

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 13:46

let me be the third person to roll on the floor laughing my behind off.

but back to the figures, is there any facts or figures you would like to bring to the table regarding types of government and corruption, perhaps using western europe as a typical sample set?

Nope.

lars573

04-30-2009, 18:53

That's the joy of living in a democracy, you know ~;)

But no, without the monarchy, they wouldn't have any hereditary titles to give out.
France, Italy, and Germany (with all their hereditary counts, dukes, and princes) and Sweden (with none) would like to have a word with you....

Also democracy has nothing to do with the construction of government. Ancient Athens had a king/emperor don't forget.

Are you taking the piss?
I hope he is otherwise he's gone completely off the rez. If you know what I mean.

HoreTore

04-30-2009, 22:32

France, Italy, and Germany (with all their hereditary counts, dukes, and princes) and Sweden (with none) would like to have a word with you....

Also democracy has nothing to do with the construction of government. Ancient Athens had a king/emperor don't forget.

I hope he is otherwise he's gone completely off the rez. If you know what I mean.

Sweden has no nobility? Well that's pretty wrong, they have lots of them... Or were you referring to us, Norway? In which case you would be almost correct, outside the royal family, we've only got one noble...

France, Italy and Germany's nobility are a leftover from their days as monarchies.

And no, I wasn't being serious ~;)

Rhyfelwyr

04-30-2009, 22:41

I've heard some people say the monarchy will protect us if the Commons becomes too despotic, but I just can't see it happening tbh.

Meneldil

05-09-2009, 11:26

Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?

Because, I don't know ? They cared about the whole nation rather than only for a few people that supported their rule ?

Robespierre and Napoleon were indeed dictators (Robespierre being probably the forefather of Lenin, Stalin and other left-wing nutjobs), but they are not in any way similar to the inbreed dynasty that ruled France for so long.

Napoleon took power through sheer political skill, not because he was supposedly chosen by god (and the same applies for Napoleon III). He then tried to secure France's position in Europe, while - more or less - protecting the principles that emerged during the Revolution (as long as it did not oppose his rule).

Robespierre was at first elected by the people, and that gives him more legitimacy than any of our kings ever had (lol@ "A King is proclaimed by the people and rules through consent" btw). He killed people not to increase his prestige, or to be remembered, but because he believed in the ideals of the Revolution and did everything he could to protect them (even though he ended up betraying these same ideals).

And Sarmatian, France is - or was a few years ago - the most visited country in the world. You certainly don't need a monarchy to attract tourists.

Now, something bothers me. People are opposing Democracy and Monarchy, while both terms may work together. The UK is a Democratic Monarchy. People get to vote, and the monarchs are mostly here for the show.

If anything, monarchy should be opposed to republic, not to democracy.

Incongruous

05-09-2009, 14:20

I think Nappy rather thought he was chosen for the job as did old Robeysspear, it is constant among dictators, The Chosen One!

Both of them killed far more Frenchmen, indeed far more men, than any Capet, Valois or Bourbon ever managed to do in a lifetime, utterly horrid little men.

Napoleone didn't give a toss for France, he gave every toss for himself, the idiot bled France white and left it crushed for about 25 years thereafter.

He then tried to secure France's position in Europe, while - more or less - protecting the principles that emerged during the Revolution (as long as it did not oppose his rule).

So basically he didn't care for the Revolution but was perfectly willing to keep whatever parts did not conflict with his Dictatorial rule, and his wars brought about the largest death toll ever seen in Europe until WWI.

Meneldil

05-13-2009, 14:10

Wut ?

Both of them killed far more Frenchmen, indeed far more men, than any Capet, Valois or Bourbon ever managed to do in a lifetime, utterly horrid little men.

That is actually quite wrong. The Terror (caused not only by Robespierre but by a whole bunch of radicals) deathtoll is estimated at around 50k.
Louis XIV killed much more than that through his several wars, and I'm not even talking about the people who died indirectly through the various famines and riots his reign caused in the kingdom (I would have to find the estimates, but IIRC it was ranging from 100K to 600K).

To put things into perspective, the War in Vendée (started by the Royalists, while Robespierre was a minor politician), widely considered as the bloodiest part of the Revolution, caused between 100k and 450K deaths (both sides). Probably still less than what happened during Louis XIV's reign.

Napoleone didn't give a toss for France, he gave every toss for himself, the idiot bled France white and left it crushed for about 25 years thereafter.

Typical anglo-saxon perspective. Too bad it lacks any support. The vast majority of historians, whether they worship or despise Napoleon, would disagree with you.
Napoleon cared about France probably just as much as the French royal family did. The difference was that Napoleon never used up to 25% of the treasury for his own fame (Louis XIV effectively bankrupted the kingdom for the next century by using that amount of money to build Versailles).

And though I don't think Napoléon was "teh awesome" (he certainly was ambitious, selfish, and sent a whole lot of people to their death), he quite frankly does not qualify as an idiot. Or if he does, all his contemporaries should be called complete retards.

I think Nappy rather thought he was chosen for the job as did old Robeysspear, it is constant among dictators, The Chosen One!
Once again, you think wrong. Show me one proof, one source supporting this claim, whether it is for Robespierre, Napoléon, Lenin, or any other dictator and I might reconsider your opinion as somewhat valid.

Louis VI the Fat

05-13-2009, 14:36

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...I do not see what is so odd about this?

As I understand it, the reasoning is that 'one can not bribe politicians by bestowing them with titles when there are no titles to begin with'. Not 'it is impossible to corrupt politicians if there are no titles'.

The first makes perfect sense. However, I do think that some non-monarchies hand out titles too, mostly non-heriditary ones.

France, Italy and Germany's nobility are a leftover from their days as monarchies.For the sake of interest: France does not have a nobility.

Rather confusingly, France does have noble titles. The legal status of a noble title is - in some very complicated manner that I don't really understand - that of a protected part of the family name.

A Terribly Harmful Name

05-13-2009, 19:02

Those that say a Republic is better immune to idiots in power than a Monarchy should look at GWB and learn. An idiot can be bred as much as be elected for power.

At least the Monarch does not have to be concerned with public opinion, and therefore the means that manipulate public opinion. The notion that all governments should be elected and empowered by the people is not written in stone, neither it is necessarily the best; if the people are stupid, and if the people are easily manipulated by Big Money and Big Media into being swayed for demagogues or a certain candidate, then it's best to take away their right.

Which is probably one of the biggest problems out there. A perfect Democracy exists only in the realms of dream; in the United States the power of the top guys effectively enforces a two-party oligarchy ran by the same old interests.

Incongruous

05-15-2009, 23:00

Wut ?

That is actually quite wrong. The Terror (caused not only by Robespierre but by a whole bunch of radicals) deathtoll is estimated at around 50k.
Louis XIV killed much more than that through his several wars, and I'm not even talking about the people who died indirectly through the various famines and riots his reign caused in the kingdom (I would have to find the estimates, but IIRC it was ranging from 100K to 600K).

To put things into perspective, the War in Vendée (started by the Royalists, while Robespierre was a minor politician), widely considered as the bloodiest part of the Revolution, caused between 100k and 450K deaths (both sides). Probably still less than what happened during Louis XIV's reign.

Typical anglo-saxon perspective. Too bad it lacks any support. The vast majority of historians, whether they worship or despise Napoleon, would disagree with you.
Napoleon cared about France probably just as much as the French royal family did. The difference was that Napoleon never used up to 25% of the treasury for his own fame (Louis XIV effectively bankrupted the kingdom for the next century by using that amount of money to build Versailles).

The Vendee? How does that equal the Royal house? It does not.

The wars of Napoleon were the biggest and greatest Europe had ever seen by miles, nothing compared to their scope and destructive impact, whereas the Sun King conquered areas within the vicinty of France, Nappy went everywhere and killed everyone, for what? He set up Kings and Dukes and happily put down popular uprisings in the true spirit of the Revolution, take a look at the Vendee or Spain...

Hmm, how much of France's money did Nappy spend on his absurd quest for personal glorification via European dominance? How many Frenchmen did he kill? How many Europeans did he kill?

Anyway, you keep him as a hero, we have our bloody heros too...
But I feel he is a good example to bring up, as is the French Revolution, when discussing the true good of Republican (or any) revolution. I feel that far from being the epitome of Enlightenment (which so many Europeans regard it as) it is in fact nothing of the sort. There is nothing Enlightened about that episode in my OPINION...

KarlXII

05-16-2009, 01:51

whereas the Sun King conquered areas within the vicinty of France

Yeah, what a great guy :juggle2:.

Civil Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_civil_code)

Concordat of 1801 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801)

Organic Articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Articles)

From what I read, Napoleon emancipated Jews, especially since many lived in ghettos.

Yes, Napoleon ("Nappy" as he is strangely referred to) is probably better studied as a commander than a govenor, though he did set back much progress in Europe, it is undoubtable that he made many contributions to numerous fields. Though he did recieve a good licking at the hands of Welly and Bluchy, how about Joyes? Would we call him Joyoyoyoys? :dizzy2:.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-16-2009, 01:59

Yeah, what a great guy :juggle2:.

Civil Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_civil_code)

Concordat of 1801 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801)

Organic Articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Articles)

From what I read, Napoleon emancipated Jews, especially since many lived in ghettos.

Yes, Napoleon ("Nappy" as he is strangely referred to) is probably better studied as a commander than a govenor, though he did set back much progress in Europe, it is undoubtable that he made many contributions to numerous fields. Though he did recieve a good licking at the hands of Welly and Bluchy, how about Joyes? Would we call him Joyoyoyoys? :dizzy2:.

Generally he should be reffered to as "Boney" as he was at the time. Hence, "Boney and Nosey have a bust up."

Anyway, when Napoleon invaded somewhere he let his men rape, kill and despoil. Nosey made his men pay, in France they paid in silver franks, if they raped or stole they were executed.

Incongruous

05-16-2009, 02:00

:laugh4:

Never said he was a great guy did I? Stop attacking shadows...

Never said he never did any good, otherwise I would not realise why the French love him, however the other thinsg he and the Revolutionaries did mean that I cannot.

Oh dear, not liking "Nappy" are we, don't worry yourself about it, you could call him Boney and Wellington, Nosey, alright?

KarlXII

05-16-2009, 02:15

Oh dear, not liking "Nappy" are we, don't worry yourself about it, you could call him Boney and Wellington, Nosey, alright?

No, I'd rather refer to them as their, you know, proper names. Sorry if it's a radical idea, like Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get used to it, Defaulty.

Incongruous

05-16-2009, 03:19

:laugh4:

Oh dear, name calling and deriding again is it?

Well, lets to it then.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You have not yet put up a decent argument against those of us whom agree with the UK's cosntitutional monarchy, all you have done is attack a position no one upholds, so it seems that you have thus far done bollox all to advance the position of Republicans in this thread.

Instead it now appears that you are over touchy on the silly and meaningless names people call very old and very dead men:2thumbsup:

Yay for a pointless argument.

Now, come at me with a very sharp and deady Republican argument so we can get back on track.

KarlXII

05-16-2009, 05:12

:laugh4:

Oh dear, name calling and deriding again is it?

When did I call you a name? I simply used the variation of one you use.

Leave the laugh smiley's to Tribes, I think he has it handled.

You have not yet put up a decent argument against those of us whom agree with the UK's cosntitutional monarchy

Never even made an argument about Britain's consitutional monarchy.

so it seems that you have thus far done bollox all to advance the position of Republicans in this thread.

Never even made an argument about Republicanism.

:juggle2:

Instead it now appears that you are over touchy on the silly and meaningless names people call very old and very dead men

And it seems you are over touchy about a member disagreeing and lampooning your use of demeaning names for people.

Now, come at me with a very sharp and deady Republican argument so we can get back on track.

I, for one, find Consitutional Monarchy the best choice of government. A monarch acts in the interest of his or her nation, if he/she does not he/she must be removed. However, with the addition of a democratic legislature, we find that the people's voice is heard in matters, thus creating a middle ground of monarchy and republicanism. I find, especially in the USA, the current two-party Republic simply voting for the less of two evils. President's, even if they promise to stop devisive exchange, stick to the party and not the people when deciding matters of the State.

Brenus

05-16-2009, 07:31

"A monarch acts in the interest of his or her nation, if he/she does not he/she must be removed". Er, that is the point, isn't it? Because it is exactly what happened to the Constitutional Monarchy in France. The French tried it(and not only once), it always failed because Kings don't think about the Country's interests but his, then revolution and Republic is now in DNA.:book:

Don't argue with English about French. We are the last political correct enemy they've got and most of the times their knowledge about history is coming from Sharp or other similar books.
They tried the Polish few months ago but it is less fun...
Yesterday I heard on a Radio Station as example of oxymoron "French Military Victory"... Do you see the level?:2thumbsup:

Incongruous

05-16-2009, 07:32

I, for one, find Consitutional Monarchy the best choice of government. A monarch acts in the interest of his or her nation, if he/she does not he/she must be removed. However, with the addition of a democratic legislature, we find that the people's voice is heard in matters, thus creating a middle ground of monarchy and republicanism. I find, especially in the USA, the current two-party Republic simply voting for the less of two evils. President's, even if they promise to stop devisive exchange, stick to the party and not the people when deciding matters of the State.

So, your main gripe with the U.S Republic, and others I assume, is the divisive politics it creates? Are you also advancing the idea of more power for a Monarch in state affairs? To what standard would you hold the Monarchs actions as being within the interest of the nation?

I would add that divisive and utterly corrupt politics are also part of Constitutional Monarchy, along the Westminster line at least. These are things which I also doubt would be solved by Republicanism, but I don't agree (I don't know if you do either) with increased Monarchical power, simply more power for the Lords, the upper house and stricter control over that den of rats in the Commons.

KarlXII

05-16-2009, 07:42

So, your main gripe with the U.S Republic, and others I assume, is the divisive politics it creates? [quote]

Yes.

[quote]Are you also advancing the idea of more power for a Monarch in state affairs?

If it becomes necessary, sure. Naturally, these powers will be limited strictly and defined by the legislature.

To what standard would you hold the Monarchs actions as being within the interest of the nation?

Well, pretty self explanatory. If they Monarch is using tax money to host large parties and build private castles, then they are obviously acting in their own interests.

I would add that divisive and utterly corrupt politics are also part of Constitutional Monarchy, along the Westminster line at least.

All governments are more or less corrupt.

I also doubt would be solved by Republicanism, but I don't agree (I don't know if you do either) with increased Monarchical power, simply more power for the Lords, the upper house and stricter control over that den of rats in the Commons.

I'm not quite familiar with how the British houses work. A monarch can create a cultural image and represent his or her nation, a monarch is someone I can rally behind without party affiliations. With a president, it's more of a "I'll be here for a couple of years trying to enact bills MY party wants me to, then someone else can do it. And we'll keep doing it until the other party get's in, and then they'll do it too."