The Current Status of Monarchism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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"

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.

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]

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.

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"

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

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

He was right.

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]

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 .

[Meneldil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[lenin96]

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. ---------> --------->

[Furunculus]

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. ---------> --------->

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

[Furunculus]

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...

no, but neither are we finland.

the point stands, why change what has no net-deficit compared to any other system when the only result will be an increase in social instability.

[lenin96]

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]

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. ---------> --------->

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

???

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.