Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,530
Reply with quote  #16 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeasOlc
Quote:
traditional monarchy

Like in the Middle Ages, centuries before the era of absolutism?


Yes. Like the monarchy of St Louis IX.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,530
Reply with quote  #17 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
Absolutism I think cut the branch off that the King was sitting on and paved the way for the French Revolution.   Absolutism came at the expense of the traditional corporate bodies and ranks of people that stood between the monarch and the people.   For example the French aristocracy formerly was a potent military force with great responsibility over the particular regions where they held title.   However, as the monarch became more absolute, the aristocracy was rendered less independent and treated more as fixtures of the royal court.   By the time of the revolution, they were less able to be of any use in defending the monarchy or themselves.  
   
So Absolutism contributed in leveling the society, which we have today.   I don't prefer an egalitarianism under a monarch (absolutism; or what you see mostly today, a symbolic monarch treated as a fixture of the democracy), but a hierarchy of traditional ranks and corporate bodies, in which the monarch acts partly as an arbiter between these individuals and groups.   


Well said!

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,462
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Well said!


Thanks!

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,463
Reply with quote  #19 
While we're at it, I've completed by 37-page, 20,000-word essay on various historical and current monarchist movements. And that's just the start of my writings on the topic.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 831
Reply with quote  #20 

I think I'm more in favor of some 19th century constitutional monarchies. Medieval times were not the only period when the position of the monarch was somewhere between being absolute and being only a symbolic figurehead. The kings of several German states, Spain, Portugal, etc. weren't almighty, but also weren't powerless.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #21 
And the prime example, is of course, England/United Kingdom....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,462
Reply with quote  #22 
The problem with most constitutional monarchies is that they have caused too much centralization - that is, the people and nobility are brought together into the capital to vote on the affairs that affect every minutiae of the realm.   I only see the value of the Lords and Commons acting in a legislature as a check on the monarch from leveling the society (to prevent centralization), but what we've seen is the ultimate triumph of the commons, and a heavy top-down bureaucracy, which actively inserts its grubby self into every power relationship, association, and political community in the realm with a proliferation of laws, regulation, oversight, and enforcement.



__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #23 
Oh, I've no problem with many more local Parliaments.

The Lords Act of 1911 was the 'end of the beginning of the end' marking the transition from slow march into the sunset to 'let us run and leap off the cliff'....


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 831
Reply with quote  #24 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
The problem with most constitutional monarchies is that they have caused too much centralization - that is, the people and nobility are brought together into the capital to vote on the affairs that affect every minutiae of the realm.   I only see the value of the Lords and Commons acting in a legislature as a check on the monarch from leveling the society (to prevent centralization), but what we've seen is the ultimate triumph of the commons, and a heavy top-down bureaucracy, which actively inserts its grubby self into every power relationship, association, and political community in the realm with a proliferation of laws, regulation, oversight, and enforcement.

The massive growth of the government is mainly a process of the 20th century. Traditional liberalism was much too strong in the 19th century for this to occur. I think constitutional monarchy and limited government can go hand in hand.

Also, in the German and Iberian states, the ultimate triumph of the commons occured only after the monarchies were abolished.

Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,462
Reply with quote  #25 
The centralizing of decisions made in a Parliament takes away power and legitimacy from the individuals and corporate bodies that acted more in the local areas.   I think these decisions could have been made more informally between people, including the monarch, rather than formally through a Parliament.   Also, there would be more deference given to custom about the way things are handled rather than by acts of Parliament.     

The concentration of power in the modern bureaucracy of the 20th century was made possible by the traditional liberalism of the 19th - it legitimized the notion that a majority in the Parliament should be in charge and could build a large bureaucracy if they had the votes.

I think the Parliament would be ok if it's purpose was to only veto something proposed by the monarch or to offer advice.   It would only meet to deliberate on a specific matter and not stay in session year-round.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,530
Reply with quote  #26 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
The centralizing of decisions made in a Parliament takes away power and legitimacy from the individuals and corporate bodies that acted more in the local areas.   I think these decisions could have been made more informally between people, including the monarch, rather than formally through a Parliament.   Also, there would be more deference given to custom about the way things are handled rather than by acts of Parliament.     

The concentration of power in the modern bureaucracy of the 20th century was made possible by the traditional liberalism of the 19th - it legitimized the notion that a majority in the Parliament should be in charge and could build a large bureaucracy if they had the votes.

I think the Parliament would be ok if it's purpose was to only veto something proposed by the monarch or to offer advice.   It would only meet to deliberate on a specific matter and not stay in session year-round.


Again, well said, Sir!

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #27 
I would have the Parliament's assent be required for changes to Law (repeal of old, or creation of new), or Taxation and be summoned only when the Sovereign wished new law or taxes be approved....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
NapoleonBonaparte

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 164
Reply with quote  #28 
I prefer the absolute monarchy like the reign of le Roi Soleil. However, from the state of the modern world, I propose a monarchy with a monarch that has power but is checked by a representative body elected by the people. Close to constitutional monarchy but not quite. Only, the power is leaning more on the monarch than the representative body.

Actually, I would have like it better if the role was the other way round in the constitutional monarchy. The monarch has power while the "parliament" or the representatives are the "figure heads."

__________________
"If you want something done right, do it yourself." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"L'etat c'est moi."- Louis XIV, Le Roi Soleil
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #29 
I still advance as the most reasonable in the majority of the world:
An Executive free to operate within the bounds of Law.

When law is to be revised, equality of veto in the Lords, Commons, and Sovereign.

Now, I know that in some few places there may be no need or fitness of the commons, and in fewer still, no fit Lords...


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
Absolutism I think cut the branch off that the King was sitting on and paved the way for the French Revolution.   Absolutism came at the expense of the traditional corporate bodies and ranks of people that stood between the monarch and the people.   For example the French aristocracy formerly was a potent military force with great responsibility over the particular regions where they held title.   However, as the monarch became more absolute, the aristocracy was rendered less independent and treated more as fixtures of the royal court.   By the time of the revolution, they were less able to be of any use in defending the monarchy or themselves.  
   
So Absolutism contributed in leveling the society, which we have today.   I don't prefer an egalitarianism under a monarch (absolutism; or what you see mostly today, a symbolic monarch treated as a fixture of the democracy), but a hierarchy of traditional ranks and corporate bodies, in which the monarch acts partly as an arbiter between these individuals and groups.   


Well said!

I agree.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.