Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 10      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #46 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
I'm sorry, I guess certain fellow monarchists and supposed monarchists, not just on here, have exasperated me a little too much of late.


I assume you agree with what I wrote above about "monarchists" who refuse to support any currently existing monarchies. As you know I insist that criticisms of Democracy and Americanism/the USA are entirely legitimate, but that must not translate into support for vile or dubious anti-monarchist or post-monarchical regimes just because they're anti-American.  I don't see why you should feel exasperated with monarchists in general though. I think compared to other internet subcultures, the monarchist subculture remains admirably relatively civilised.

 

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #47 
Well it is wrong to assume all gays are in the same boat. I know of gays who are very left-wing, but I've known gays who are quite conservative, even monarchist... and there have even been gay neo-Nazis (some of whom have figured quite prominently in that movement, rumours about certain leading figures not withstanding).
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
I'm sorry, I guess certain fellow monarchists and supposed monarchists, not just on here, have exasperated me a little too much of late.


I assume you agree with what I wrote above about "monarchists" who refuse to support any currently existing monarchies. As you know I insist that criticisms of Democracy and Americanism/the USA are entirely legitimate, but that must not translate into support for vile or dubious anti-monarchist or post-monarchical regimes just because they're anti-American.  I don't see why you should feel exasperated with monarchists in general though. I think compared to other internet subcultures, the monarchist subculture remains admirably relatively civilised.


It's not about that at all. It's about monarchists who make fuss even about things like succession, like someone suggesting that the Brazilian monarchy had no reason to exist because it would be like creating a new monarchy for, say, Australia.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #49 
Oh yeah, that. Well I agreed with you there. Not worth getting upset about though. I'm afraid having actually been there (unlike many of the countries I pontificate about) it's my impression that Brazilian monarchists have a monumentally uphill battle and this would be the case even if there were no succession disputes or silly alternative proposals.
KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #50 
Marriage equality is a high priority among my generation, and 70% or so of youth today support full rights for gays. Monarchists should perhaps consider whether or not it is worthwhile to oppose gay marriage when it is the youth who will determine the future of monarchy. 

Also, what if Prince George of Cambridge turns out to be gay? What will you do then?

I cede the floor to Peter now.
Jonathan

Registered:
Posts: 185
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
Marriage equality is a high priority among my generation, and 70% or so of youth today support full rights for gays. Monarchists should perhaps consider whether or not it is worthwhile to oppose gay marriage when it is the youth who will determine the future of monarchy. 

Also, what if Prince George of Cambridge turns out to be gay? What will you do then?

I cede the floor to Peter now.

It wouldn't matter by tradition he'll have to marry a woman.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #52 

It's inevitable that at some point a prince of a reigning European royal family will "come out" as gay. I don't think it's going to be Prince George, but I'm almost surprised it hasn't happened yet. (There are already princes of non-reigning European royal families, for example Serbia's, known to be gay.) My guess is a gay prince is somewhat more likely than a lesbian princess, mainly because gay men are more numerous in general, though I also just somehow find it easier to imagine. It's highly unlikely in the present climate that he will feel any obligation whatsoever to marry a woman, unless he is more accurately described as bisexual. Obviously gay monarchs have existed in the past, but not in Europe since the emergence of the gay rights movement, which potentially changes everything. I believe that the same-sex marriage law in the Netherlands specifically excluded members of the royal family. I would hope that a future gay monarch would simply remain officially single (like Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II, who is sometimes alleged to have been gay) for the sake of tradition. Certainly a same-sex marriage by a monarch or heir would put traditional Christian monarchists, whose numbers may be dwindling but who are not going to disappear entirely, in an awkward position. His private life is another matter. This is an unpopular opinion on both Left and Right today, but I believe there is something to be said for old-fashioned discretion. Since same-sex marriage obviously cannot fulfill the primary purpose of marriage for a monarch, namely producing a biological heir, there is an argument for excluding monarchs and potential future monarchs from it even if it is accepted for the general public. For monarchs not to have as much "Freedom" as their subjects is nothing new. Hereditary monarchy cannot exist without certain special restraints on the royal family.

 

I think it would be important to remember that while republicans who support gay marriage will never change their minds and support the monarchy just because there is a gay monarch, there are broadly but not fanatically monarchist conservatives, possibly tolerant of a discretely gay unmarried king, who would abandon the monarchy if their sovereign or future sovereign were to contract a same-sex marriage that would have to be publicly recognized. And what would the same-sex spouse of a King be called? How could this couple act as hosts or guests of heads of state of countries that do not accept homosexuality at all, let alone same-sex marriage? What if they wanted to adopt children and insisted that they be granted succession rights, which would destroy the whole idea of hereditary monarchy? There are all kinds of problems, even from the perspective of someone like me who is not as firmly reactionary on the issue as some monarchists.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #53 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
Marriage equality is a high priority among my generation, and 70% or so of youth today support full rights for gays. Monarchists should perhaps consider whether or not it is worthwhile to oppose gay marriage when it is the youth who will determine the future of monarchy. 

Also, what if Prince George of Cambridge turns out to be gay? What will you do then?

I cede the floor to Peter now.


We may bite our chains, if we will; but we shall be made to know ourselves - Edmund Burke.

You miss the most important issue - what is the correct viewpoint. Besides, I don't think many of today's youth - and I am twenty-five - have thought hard about sexual morality. They have simply imbibed certain assumptions from the cultural zeitgeist.

Also, I'm somewhat sceptical of the acceptance of homosexuality. I think there is a lot more unease than is often assumed because the media says little about it, the official culture , establishment, and authorities denigrate it, and those for whom there is no articulate outlet largely suppress it. I know plenty of those my age, in Britain and Australia, who hold at least some views about homosexuality which would stop them winning the Stephen Fry award for political correctness, but they would never express them to the general population.


Jonathan

Registered:
Posts: 185
Reply with quote  #54 
You know what I hate, how people portray some royals in movies, as people, who don't like their status  and want to be "free" like the other poor people.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #55 
My Austrian monarchist friend who I met in Vienna in March 2013 told me he actually dislikes the cult of Empress Elisabeth ("Sissi") for that reason: she is revered in modern republican Austria as a proto-feminist who did what she wanted and as a proto-republican who chafed at the restrictions of the imperial court.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Oh yeah, that. Well I agreed with you there. Not worth getting upset about though. I'm afraid having actually been there (unlike many of the countries I pontificate about) it's my impression that Brazilian monarchists have a monumentally uphill battle and this would be the case even if there were no succession disputes or silly alternative proposals.


They are, however, not invisible but in fact quite visible and active especially in the online sphere and thus require full support. And in the modern era, that cannot be ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
Marriage equality is a high priority among my generation, and 70% or so of youth today support full rights for gays. Monarchists should perhaps consider whether or not it is worthwhile to oppose gay marriage when it is the youth who will determine the future of monarchy.


You do realise that this may be the case in Western Europe and North America, but not in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Asia or Africa? This is why Moral Relativism is the new Absolutism and in effect a religious creed for "progressives".
House_of_Luxembourg

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 151
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
Marriage equality is a high priority among my generation, and 70% or so of youth today support full rights for gays. Monarchists should perhaps consider whether or not it is worthwhile to oppose gay marriage when it is the youth who will determine the future of monarchy.


70%? How many of those would support "gay rights" if it weren't pracitcally forced on them, i.e., "gay rights" getting so much undeserved and biased media attention, and the education system wasn't run by left-wing progressives? Probably less than 5% Maybe 10.
The progress "gay rights" has made can be taken away in a generation, and it is very likely that it will be, because hardly anyone is having children, save traditionalist Catholics, conservative evangelical and Orthodox Christians, Conservative and Orthodox Jews, and conservative and radical Muslims. As for most everyone else,
their total fertility rate is below replacement level, with minor exceptions.

So even though I do not doubt that the youth will determine the future of monarchy, I think there is a very good chance that they will be on our side, in many cases(such as same-sex 'marriage').
As for supporting monarchy, well, we can convert them to our side, if need be!

In any case, the future belongs to opposition to same-sex 'marriage'.
And people like Sherif Girgis:



If anyone cares to watch.

__________________
"With God's help it will never be that a Bohemian king would run from a fight!"
- John the Blind
(according to an account in the Cronica ecclesiae pragensis Benesii Krabice de Weitmile)

ECH WUNN
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #58 

I'm not sure that's quite as true as social conservatives would like it to be. I know young people who are generally quite right-wing, and don't necessarily buy into the whole "LGBT" ideology, but whose attitudes regarding homosexuality itself are definitely more liberal than would have been normal in previous eras, even compared to the 1990s when I was a teenager. This is probably even more true in Western Europe, where the interests of gay Europeans are becoming a rallying point for the so-called "far right" (e.g. Marine Le Pen) against Islamization, than in the United States.

 

Straight white liberals may not be having 4+ children, but they're still having one or two or even three and will continue to do so. And many people no longer see acceptance of homosexuality as particularly left-wing.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #59 
If you actually read all of the Romans passage, it specifically condemns people turned homosexual by God as punishment for pagan religious practices. I assure you that I have never engaged in such, so the passage does not apply to me. Or to any gay people today, I would imagine. In the other two passages you cite (one of which is most unlikely to have been authored by Paul, but that is another matter) the word translated as the equivalent of 'homosexual men' is, in transliteration, arsenokoites. It is in fact untranslatable; its literal meaning is 'manbeds', but what its actual meaning was we do not know, as it is never encountered outside of Paul (and forgers using his name in the next century) and he gives no explanation. You can certainly assume from the context that it means something bad, as it occurs in a list of different kinds of grievous sinners, but there is no clue to the meaning other than that. Perhaps Paul did indeed mean homosexual men by it, though it could just as easily be homosexual prostitutes. Or something else not so obvious. There are other problems with these two passages in particular, but I think I have said enough to show that they do not amount to clear condemnation.

I will make one more attempt to explain to you what is offensive in your stance, but I want to word it carefully and as I am rather tired, having spent the day struggling successfully but exhaustingly to identify the relationships, remote and surprising in all cases, of James I of Scotland with his fellow sovereigns of the day, it won't be today, and probably not until the weekend.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 288
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I must say that I have to value the the friendship of anyone who could describe me as "tolerant and accepting" after reading my above post. [smile]

It depends on what is being discussed, I suppose...

I would love to be Pope. I already have my name picked out: Adrian VII, in honour of Adrian IV, the only English pope. People who thought Benedict XVI was too ostentatious or too traditional would be in for a rude awakening. Bye bye guitars, hello triple tiara...

I know that this comment is a few days old now, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian_the_Seventh 

Your comment immediately made me think of the above short story by Baron Corvo, AKA Frederick Rolfe. 

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: