Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 808
Reply with quote  #16 
I would say it's quality that matters, not quantity. Even if there are less posts that doesn't matter as long as they are interesting, and I still find this forum a very interesting place to visit. 

KYM, it does surprise me a bit that you are worried about the forum and then suggest a member with more than 1000 posts should be banned when he gives his opinion! The best way to kill off this forum would be to ban people with different opinions, I would say... 

That said, I don't really understand where Contra's active dislike of constitutional monarchies comes from. Isn't it true that even powerless monarchs like the King of Belgium and the King of Spain are still much closer to the Catholic religion than say, the presidents of France? 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 911
Reply with quote  #17 
As far as I know there is only one active social liberal on this board, maybe two. Whilst it would be nice if that poster supported his assertions more, and I wonder how well social liberalism and egalitarianism squares with monarchism, I can't see what the problem is with monarchists of different types.

Some have mentioned bickering, and I will just say that the most popular political forums tend to be those with the most clashes of opinion, within reason. They are essentially those with a wide range of debate and frequent heated debates. That might not be best for the most constructive monarchist discussion, but it is how great activity is generated.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 289
Reply with quote  #18 
I agree that Contra's post doesn't warrant removal from the forum. However I feel their criticisms are entirely unjustified. I don't think it's unnatural for an English speaking forum to focus on the British and other Commonwealth monarchies, nor do I think activity here is limited to discussion of the House of Windsor or the Catholic Church. I don't think it's unreasonable for a private site run by a monarchist for monarchists to restrict criticism of existing monarchies, constitutional or otherwise. I have no idea what is meant by "political correctness" in these forums, which is full of decidedly non-PC points of view. And I don't know what Contra's problem with Anglophiles is. Is it so wrong to appreciate English or more generally British culture?
__________________
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
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchMonarchist
That said, I don't really understand where Contra's active dislike of constitutional monarchies comes from. Isn't it true that even powerless monarchs like the King of Belgium and the King of Spain are still much closer to the Catholic religion than say, the presidents of France? 


The bar is set awfully low.  I believe in monarchy as an anti-liberal -- that is to say, natural and real -- institution.  Men are not equal, people generally are mediocre, there is a strong inclination towards indulgence, unruliness, overreaching, greed, hatred of one's neighbour, resentment of authority, everybody wants what he cannot have, etc. Monarchy is beautiful because it represses these chaotic forces and establishes order in the world -- order based on reality.  Liberalism denies all human experience with feel-good claims about equality of all persons, truth being unable to be known, etc.  Monarchs that have abandoned their right to rule and made peace with liberalism -- that is, the philosophy of the revolution -- seem to thus be something monstrous.  It's like an anti-monarchical monarchy. They have kept their thrones at the expense of all the reasons such thrones exist in the first place.

Now, they still have top hats and garden parties and concert music and a certain gravitas.  Sorry, but that's just meaningless window-dressing.  In almost no way does it establish order in society, since those things are nothing but the crown (no pun intended) on a pre-existing order that was once established (and is now drowned out).  These are just the external appearances being clung to, but society has moved on.  The real meat and substance of any monarchy is a King that rules. I don't think that ancient political philosophers would even recognise constitutional monarchies as being real monarchies, since it can hardly be said that such a system is characterised by the rule of one.

In a way, the president of France is more of a monarch than Felipe VI is.  He actually rules with real power.  He therefore has more of the essential function of a monarch than Felipe VI, unless we think "the rule of one" means wearing medals and waving at parades.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
As far as I know there is only one active social liberal on this board, maybe two.


KYM is relentless and everywhere, though.  There are a few others, Peter being a notable example of somebody who can seldom restrain himself from a barb at the Church whenever it comes up, or else talking about his personal views in favour of human rights, etc.  That's a conversation that gets quite heated, too, for obvious reasons.  The tone of the forum is affected by the most vocal members who wield the most influence.  KYM wields influence because, despite having no moderator position, he operates with impunity despite saying the most ridiculous things.  Peter wields influence because of his genealogical knowledge, long standing as a member, and his moderator status.  

I don't know what happened to Baron, but he used to be omnipresent, too, and a fanatical Anglophile who mocked other positions regarding legitimacy, etc.  One could not defend one's positions in kind, however, since the two were often diametrically opposed and stating certain positions is against the rules. 

Quote:
Some have mentioned bickering, and I will just say that the most popular political forums tend to be those with the most clashes of opinion, within reason. They are essentially those with a wide range of debate and frequent heated debates. That might not be best for the most constructive monarchist discussion, but it is how great activity is generated.


Well, there are certain topics that would generate a lot of interest in monarchy as well as a lot of heated discussion, but they are not very welcome any more like they once were.  Carlism, for example, is not allowed except in a form that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of legitimate Carlists.  Jacobitism is not allowed.  Not liking constitutional monarchies is not allowed.  Anyway, this limits the amount of activity significantly.  I know that I would be more active if we could talk more about how to get monarchs who actually rule on thrones and wielding the scepter not in vain.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
I don't think it's unnatural for an English speaking forum to focus on the British and other Commonwealth monarchies, nor do I think activity here is limited to discussion of the House of Windsor or the Catholic Church.


Well, Baron used to hold up the British monarchy as the greatest form of government there ever was or ever will be.  It got old.  As for Catholic matters not coming up very often, I think you would be surprised at how things once were here.  But that was almost ten years ago now, I find it strange to say.

Quote:
I don't think it's unreasonable for a private site run by a monarchist for monarchists to restrict criticism of existing monarchies, constitutional or otherwise. I have no idea what is meant by "political correctness" in these forums, which is full of decidedly non-PC points of view.


Equality of all men, women's rights, freedom of expression, etc. etc.  A lot of the monarchists here seem to be very comfortable with our contemporary society, which is of course consistent with widespread support for constitutional monarchies.  I guess I just don't see the point of it all.  And, needless to say, I don't agree with it.  KYM is especially outspoken, such that he gets away with making the forum's atmosphere bear his scent, despite the fact that his beliefs more or less directly flow from French and English revolutionary principles.  It's tiring to be here with his outbursts.

Anyway, like I said, I will continue to be a member here. If somebody wanted to understand why some posters have posted less, including members of long standing, I can speak for myself.  The forum rules changed and people like KYM made the forum unwelcome because the rules were in their favour such that they didn't restrain themselves.  So, I had far less interest in posting, whereas before I posted quite frequently.  And I imagine I'm not the only one : Traditional Catholics like myself are probably one of the most ardent groups of monarchists in the Western world today.  But, it's not my forum.  If the forum changes, I might post more frequently again.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 808
Reply with quote  #22 
But Kings do so much more than wearing medals, even if not openly. Most of the kings in Europe have weekly talks with prime ministers and regular meetings with other ministers in which they can be quite influential. They perform state visits to countries abroad in which they can have considerable discretion. 

Perhaps more importantly, let's look at their actual behavior. The presidents of France openly glorify their adultery. They openly show all kinds of undignified behavior like being drunk (Sarkozy), fraud, making populist statements. With some exceptions the crowned head of Europe have been angels compared to them. If you really detest the sorts of human behavior you mentioned as much, should this not be important to you? I could never imagine someone like Felipe IV getting divorced or getting drunk in public because of his values. 

If the rule of one is really the one key characteristics of monarchy in your eyes, that would make even people like Lennin and Stalin more monarch than someone like Felipe VI. Surely that can't be all there is to it? You have to take the heriditary aspect into account as well. Monarchs represent a living link to the past. You say you are a traditionalist, so I would say that is important.  

For my part you have all the right to be against constitutional monarchy. In fact, you have been saying as much and you won't get banned for it. To argue for the actual overthrow of ruling monarchs would be another thing though. In the current circumstances, that would lead to a republic, period, and it is reasonable for a monarchist forum to be protective of what little monarchies are still left. 
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchMonarchist
But Kings do so much more than wearing medals, even if not openly. Most of the kings in Europe have weekly talks with prime ministers and regular meetings with other ministers in which they can be quite influential. They perform state visits to countries abroad in which they can have considerable discretion.


Well, their conversations seem to not be very effective.  It's a bit like the Japanese Emperor's role, I suppose, without the mystique.

Quote:
Perhaps more importantly, let's look at their actual behavior. The presidents of France openly glorify their adultery. They openly show all kinds of undignified behavior like being drunk (Sarkozy), fraud, making populist statements. With some exceptions the crowned head of Europe have been angels compared to them. If you really detest the sorts of human behavior you mentioned as much, should this not be important to you? I could never imagine someone like Felipe IV getting divorced or getting drunk in public because of his values.


That's not my point.  Don't get me wrong; I despise the French presidents.  I am merely saying that at least they rule, which seems to be the key function of a King.  As for Felipe VI, well, it's good that he shows public discretion, of course.  I can only suppose that he has similarly upright private conduct.  He inherited a bad situation from his father, who violated his oath on the Holy Gospels after Franco decided that he should be the King and gave him the Spanish throne.  I can't fault him for trying his best in his circumstances.  Even so, one can hardly say that the situation is ideal (for a host of reasons) : Felipe VI has no ruling power and his father more or less single-handedly ruined Spain.  So what is the man supposed to do ?

Quote:
If the rule of one is really the one key characteristics of monarchy in your eyes, that would make even people like Lennin and Stalin more monarch than someone like Felipe VI. Surely that can't be all there is to it? You have to take the heriditary aspect into account as well. Monarchs represent a living link to the past. You say you are a traditionalist, so I would say that is important.


Of course it is important.  I am in favour of monarchy, not tyranny, as per Aristotle's definitions of those words.  As much as I think tradition should be preserved, it shouldn't chain us from action when the situation arises.

Quote:
For my part you have all the right to be against constitutional monarchy. In fact, you have been saying as much and you won't get banned for it. To argue for the actual overthrow of ruling monarchs would be another thing though. In the current circumstances, that would lead to a republic, period, and it is reasonable for a monarchist forum to be protective of what little monarchies are still left. 


Well, the current circumstances are quite complicated.  That is why I think they are worthy of discussion.  If Henri d'Orléans were to be elected King tomorrow by the revolutionary assembly, I would not support him just because he's a crowned head.  He's not the Eldest of the Capetians, he's a citizen-king, he has no right to rule, he accepted the crown from a people that claims sovereignty, etc.  The whole thing would be a mess.  Yet, some monarchists would accuse me of working against monarchy because I would want to uphold the fundamental laws of the Kingdom and the dignity of the bloodline.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #24 
If the French monarchy were restored tomorrow, and you did not support it, you would be spitting on the entire monarchist cause, Contra. And I can't imagine anyone here would take that well. Certainly not Theodore. And Carlism has made no sense since 1936, when the Carlist heir was simultaneously the Alfonsine heir. And Juan Carlos, btw, was legitimately the Prince of Asturias and heir to the Spanish throne after his father who was rightfully Juan III. Franco never legitimately ruled Spain ever. And Juan Carlos could not be bound by an oath taken under duress. And Spain has been a restored monarchy for almost 4 decades, and is the most gay-friendly country on Earth. It is not a ruin, it is a shining success story, and the most powerful example monarchists have for our arguments.  
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 808
Reply with quote  #25 
I think the current forum rules only state that we respect the ten ruling monarchs of Europe, so the situation you described would be different from something like Carlism in Spain (whatever that means these days). 

But indeed, I believe that if you would oppose Henri d'Orléans becoming King in a situation where he could become King you would be working against the cause of monarchy, and even against what you call the 'fundamental laws of the Kingdom'. Because the crucial question is: would you get closer to your aims or not due to a restoration under the house of Orléans? I think you get closer to the 'fundamental laws of the Kingdom' if their actually is a King as compared to a situation where there is no King at all. 

Suppose you would be a legitimist in the assembly of France and there would be a vote on making Henri d'Orléans King. Voting against would simply aid the republicans. They would be happy if the monarchist vote would be split. Why forsake what you could have just in the hope of something better (from a legitimist perspective) which you may never achieve? For me all of this is just too complicated. I would be happy with any King of France, legitimist or Orléantist. If one claimant ever gets the opportunity, I would support him. Monarchism is about wanting a monarch on the throne above a republic, and claims to the opposite always make my head hurt a little.  
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
If the French monarchy were restored tomorrow, and you did not support it, you would be spitting on the entire monarchist cause, Contra.


I would be spitting on your understanding of the monarchist cause, since apparently it's very narrowly formulated and accepts no dissent.  An Orléans being put on the throne is not the restoration of the French monarchy any more than Henry V of England ruling from Paris was the restoration of the French monarchy.

Quote:
And I can't imagine anyone here would take that well.


Not everybody is on your side like you think, thankfully.

Quote:
Certainly not Theodore.


I think Theodore can speak for himself and is more willing to have a rational discussion of the matter than you are.

Quote:
And Carlism has made no sense since 1936, when the Carlist heir was simultaneously the Alfonsine heir. And Juan Carlos, btw, was legitimately the Prince of Asturias and heir to the Spanish throne after his father who was rightfully Juan III.


Most Carlists, who know a lot more about the issue than you do, do not agree. Most serious Carlists do not support Juan Carlos or his son.  In fact, most Carlists don't even think that they are Bourbons.  They call Juan Carlos and Luis Alfonso both "Puigmolto," in reference to Isabella II's lover who fathered some of her children.  It's well known that her children had many fathers and that her husband was not amongst their ranks.  This has been discussed on the forum before.  I am simply telling you what most Carlists say.  You claim that his right to rule was so strong, but in fact the only reason he ruled was not because all Spanish monarchists thought that he was the true heir but because Francisco Franco decided so.

Quote:
Franco never legitimately ruled Spain ever.


He rules Spain more legitimately than the republics and more legitimately than the socialists who run it now.  He ruled as regent, anyway, and not as King.  He did not remove the throne or anything like that.  He is actually quite admirable in some ways, saving his country from a pack of bloodthirsty Communists who were the enemies of God and man.  We should be very grateful for Caudillo Franco.  Like Don Pelayo before him, he saved the moral order of Spain from obscene invaders who would destroy that land and thrust it into centuries of darkness.  At least for two generations, anyway, until it fell anyway.

Quote:
And Juan Carlos could not be bound by an oath taken under duress.


It was the condition for which Franco gave him the throne.  He took an oath on the Gospels to uphold the Catholic order that was established by Franco, who saved Spain from the madness that had gripped it. Juan Carlos broke that oath in the name of the rights of man.  He did nothing under duress.  He's an oath breaker. Madness now grips Spain again.  Now that he no longer reigns, perhaps I am able to speak about him more openly.  Of course, if Theodore thinks otherwise, he has the right as forum owner to edit my post. 

Quote:
And Spain has been a restored monarchy for almost 4 decades, and is the most gay-friendly country on Earth.


Like I said -- Spain has fallen and is in darkness.  The monarchy was "restored" and then, almost immediately after the man who restored it died, the new monarch abandoned everything that Spanish men bravely fought and died for to give him the throne, namely, the patrimony of his ancestors, the laws of God, and the natural law.

Quote:
It is not a ruin, it is a shining success story, and the most powerful example monarchists have for our arguments.  


You simply make statements and have no arguments.  One doesn't even know where to begin when writing to you, since you only gratuitously assert conclusions that have no premises or preliminary content.  I say Spain has been ruined and that it is not a success story, the reason being that both the natural and divine laws, once dear to the hearts of Spaniards, are now trampled underfoot with wild impunity.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchMonarchist
But indeed, I believe that if you would oppose Henri d'Orléans becoming King in a situation where he could become King you would be working against the cause of monarchy, and even against what you call the 'fundamental laws of the Kingdom'.


Well, the comte de Chambord thought differently, when he rejected being given back a throne that he would have to accept the tricolore for.  The "Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom" is not a phrase of my own making; it's a legal document whereby the laws of succession are set out.  One of those laws is that the succession is inalienable, i.e., it cannot be superseded by the Treaty of Utrecht or by any abdication of renunciation, morganatic marriage, etc.  The heir is the Eldest of the Capetians, full stop.  Henri d'Orléans does not fit the criteria.  The fundamental laws would be overthrown, and the Kingdom of France would not be restored, but some other juridical entity that stands in its place and has no right to exist.

Quote:
Because the crucial question is: would you get closer to your aims or not due to a restoration under the house of Orléans? I think you get closer to the 'fundamental laws of the Kingdom' if their actually is a King as compared to a situation where there is no King at all.


No, I would not be closer, since the throne would be blocked by the orléanistes, who, while not being the royal house, are also faithful to their forefathers from Gaston d'Orléans onwards.  That is to say, the House of Orléans ruling would be a step in the wrong direction.

Quote:
Voting against would simply aid the republicans. They would be happy if the monarchist vote would be split.


Yes, this has happened before.  I would not compromise, if I were in that position.  We might not get the right result, but at least we would be faithful to our duty.

Quote:
Why forsake what you could have just in the hope of something better (from a legitimist perspective) which you may never achieve?


To uphold the laws of the King before realpolitik concerns.  The integrity of laws and legitimately constituted power is what monarchies are based on, at least the French monarchy, to which I am faithful.

Quote:
Monarchism is about wanting a monarch on the throne above a republic, and claims to the opposite always make my head hurt a little.  


Yes, but allowing a usurper to reign is essentially accepting the principle of republicanism -- that we get to decide who is our sovereign because we think he would be more convenient.  Or that "the people" get to determine who the ruler is.  The people, then, is sovereign.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,771
Reply with quote  #28 
Obviously the forum is not dying, even if it's not what everyone would like it to be.

Welcome back, CTEQR. I thought you'd dropped off the face of the internet. Ironically given your avatar and allegiance I'm the one who's actually in France (Paris) at the moment, having just arrived today from England. (This computer's spell check objects to virtually every word I type since it's not in French.) Just behold Notre Dame for the first time this evening! I'll be back in that place where I usually live on Monday. I don't have time to respond to everything, but I think I have more sympathy and understanding for the traditionalist Catholic counterrevolutionary approach to monarchism than you give me credit for; I just wish you could acknowledge that one can share your worldview and recognize all current de facto European sovereigns, as many of my Catholic monarchist friends do. It is most certainly not all about aesthetics. While there are valid arguments for the sort of monarchy in which the monarch actually rules the country, there are also valid arguments for the person who represents the country symbolically not being the same person who must make controversial decisions. I certainly do not accept that forbidding pointless succession disputes regarding current constitutional monarchies constrains monarchist discussion in any real way.


KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #29 
A link to this legal document, Contra? And of course I'm operating under the assumption that this is written down. 

And thanks for confirming that you would vote against a restoration of the French monarchy if you dislike the claimant. THAT, Contra, is beyond stupid of you to say you would do. Now the republicans are partying. And that is not a good thing.

No, seriously, you say this has happened before, and proceed to give the example of the near-restoration of France's monarchy in 1873, saying you would repeat Henri V's actions, which I recall resulted in the victory of republicanism in France, a classic case of monarchists snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. You would repeat this? Really? You would torpedo a restoration of France's monarchy when we nearly had won?! Do you even know how much damage that would do to the monarchist cause internationally?! We'd be set back decades at least. I find that situation unacceptable.
KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #30 
Also, welcome back Theodore! Since you're in France, please provide us with polls on support for the restoration of the French monarchy.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: