Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 12      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Izulde

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #1 
My avatar is of King Charles I, the English king whom I became fascinated with after reading the moving, fictionalized account of his final days in Alexandre Dumas's sequel to the The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After.

A noble king in every sense of the word, murdered by Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan lackeys.  The tribute to him from one of the Musketeers, who is my favorite of the four (yes, there's actually four), is extremely eloquent and I really found myself taking Charles I's side.

What's interesting to note is that Cromwell, as Dumas presents him, seems to have the utmost respect for Charles, even as he seeks to dethrone him.

TheEmperorsAdvocate

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 488
Reply with quote  #2 
The first time I heard the term, "The Divine Right of Kings" was in the A&E's film: The Last King. I hope I have that name right, A&E played the movie several times every month for about a year and then I never saw anything of it again.  So it has been a while since I last saw it.  Although it was shown once recently, I caught the last 15 minutes of it.  The very end, when Charles II is talking with one of his many girlfriends as king and she asks Charles why he would try so hard to save the monarchy in England when he knew it would fall after his death(which it did soon after), Charles II replies saying that he did it for the "Divine Right of the Kings".  He implies that it does not matter to him how long his monarchy lasts, but rather that it did live after his father's murder and the awful Cromwell years. 

Charles the Second inspired me and really made me think about  the meaning of monarchy.  It has so much that Democracy does not have, a country can really win a war when the men fight for a king, in a republic there is only the flag and a strange emptiness. 

TheEmperorsAdvocate


__________________
"When the whole world is against you and you have no friends, there is little chance of success, but you must go on doing what you can, fulfilling your duty and, in the end, going down with honor."
-The Emperor Franz Josef, written to his mother just before the seizure of Lombardy-Venetia.



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #3 

TheEmperorsAdvocate I am very happy for you for standing and defending the "divine right" of Kings.You are a true Monarchists.So called Democracy is a Demagoguery invented by the so-called Parliamentarians and Democrats to take away the Power of the Kings.They said "power to the people"but they really meant "power to themselves" so that the people can go against the King and give the "power to themselves",that is to the Demagogues.It was only a plot to userp Authority and Power from the King.It is all for power never for Democracy.The people never rule in reality.It is only a few people an Oligarchy and or one man that "pulls the shots"that controls everything by his personal charisma or personal magnetism or personal deception or personal manipulation of the people or other men.When there is a King to rule "by Divine right"he will always try to do the right thing and the best for himself his Country and his people.Because he knows that he is responsible to God for all he does and he has to give account to the Supreme Lord of Heaven and earth for everything.But an elected Leader he just believes in himself and the manipulation of the people and he tries to do anything to be elected even if he promises imposibilities and lets the people do whatever they like even if it is wrong like Abortion just to stay in Power.And if they want free Sex he lets them have free Sex and then we have Aids and Millions of Unborn and born babies and children die and suffer before they die, horrible sufferings and pain because of Abortion and Free Sex..And also these Demagogues  these so-called Democrats to stay in Power and enrich themselves they let the people have easy divorces and they destroy families and the children are raised up with one only parent.Or Fathers lose their children and then they dispaire and go and kill their former wives and the children. So you see what a diabolical and barbaric and inhumane system is the so called Democracy and the Power to the People system.So we need Kings that are Kings by "Divine Right" so that they can bring Justice to the World and do the right thing even if the Majority of the people do not like it..

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #4 
You folks should look up 'Divine Right of Kings'.  I rather doubt you really support it.

King James IV and I, (of the KJV Bible fame) is the only Christian monarch I know to have ever claimed it.


__________________
"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
TheEmperorsAdvocate

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 488
Reply with quote  #5 
Baron:
I am confused, Charles the second claimed the Divine right, as did his father.  Right?

T.E.A.


__________________
"When the whole world is against you and you have no friends, there is little chance of success, but you must go on doing what you can, fulfilling your duty and, in the end, going down with honor."
-The Emperor Franz Josef, written to his mother just before the seizure of Lombardy-Venetia.

TheEmperorsAdvocate

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 488
Reply with quote  #6 
Here you go Baron!  Wikipedia's definition of the Divine Right.
I have highlighted my favorite parts.  I hope there is no copyright issues,  if so I'll erase-sorry Wikipedia-lol

The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of political absolutism. It teaches that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, and not necessarily to the will of his subjects, the aristocracy or any other competing authority, implying that any attempt to depose him or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God.

Such doctrines are, in the English-speaking world, largely associated with the early Stuart reigns in Britain and the theology of the Caroline divines who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I and Charles I and II. The English textbooks of the Divine Right of Kings were written in 1597-98 before his accession to the English throne by James VI of Scotland, whose Basilikon Doron, a manual on the duties of a King, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, who died young. A good King

"acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be countable."

The conception of ordination brought with it largely unspoken parallels with the Anglican and Catholic priesthood, but the overriding metaphor in James' handbook was that of a father's relation to his children. "Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment, so no misgovernment on the part of a King can release his subjects from their allegiance."[1] James' reading of The Trew Law of Free Monarchies allowed that "A good King will frame his actions to be according to the law, yet he is not bound thereto but of his good will." James also had printed his Defense of the Right of Kings in the face of English theories of inalienable popular and clerical rights.

It is related to the ancient (not now) Catholic philosophies regarding Monarchy in which the monarch is God's viceregent upon the earth and therefore subject to no inferior power. However, in Roman Catholic jurisprudence the monarch is always subject to the following powers which are regarded as superior to the monarch:

(1) The Old Testament in which a line of kings was created by God through the prophecy of Jacob/Israel who created his son Judah to be king and retain the sceptre until the coming of the Messiah, alongside the line of priests created in his other son, Levi. Later a line of Judges who were, in effect, kings, was created alongside the line of High Priests created by Moses through Aaron. Later still, the Prophet Samuel re-instituted the line of kings in Saul, under the inspiration of God.

(2) The New Testament in which the first Pope, St Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13-17) even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor.  [Perhaps God knew that with obedience and patience, Rome would come to the Church, to God.] 

(3) The endorsement by the popes and the Church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne.

The Caroline divines, having rejected the pope and Roman Catholicism, were left only with the supreme power of the King who, they taught, could not be gainsaid or judged by anyone. Since there was no longer the counter-veiling power of the Papacy and since the Church of England was a creature of the State and had become subservient to it, this meant that there was nothing to regulate the powers of the King and he became an absolute power. In theory, Divine, Natural, customary and constitutional law still held sway over the King but, absent a superior spiritual power, it was difficult to see how they could be enforced since the King could not be tried by any of his own courts. The Puritan revolutionaries seized the opportunity to fabricate charges against King Charles I so as to eradicate monarchy altogether and so bring in a revolutionary and tyrannical Calvinist republic.

Some of the symbolism within the coronation ceremony for British monarchs, in which they are anointed with Holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Roman Catholic monarchical ideas and ceremonial (although few Protestants realise this, the ceremony is entirely based upon that of the Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor).  [That may be of interest to you Baron.]  However, in the UK, the symbolism ends there since the real power of the Monarch was all but extinguished by the Whig revolution of 1688/9 (see Glorious Revolution). The king or queen of the United Kingdom is one of the last monarchs still to be crowned in the traditional Christian ceremonial, which in most other countries has been replaced by an inauguration or other declaration.

The concept of Divine Right incorporates, but exaggerates, the ancient Christian concept of "royal God-given rights", which teach that "the right to rule is anointed by God", although this idea is found in many other cultures including Aryan and Egyptian traditions. In pagan and heathen religions the King was often seen as a kind of god and so was an unchallengeable despot. The ancient Roman Catholic tradition overcame this idea with the doctrine of the "Two Swords" and so achieved, for the very first time, a balanced constitution for states. The advent of Protestantism saw something of a return to the idea of a mere unchallengeable despot.

Thomas Aquinas even allowed for the overthrow of a king (and even regicide when the king was a usurper and thus no true king) but he forbade, as did the Church, the overthrow by his subjects of any legitimate king. The only human power capable of deposing the king was the pope. The reasoning was impeccable. If a subject may overthrow his superior for some bad law who was to be the judge of whether the law was bad? If the subject could so judge his own superior then all lawful superior authority could lawfully be overthrown by the arbitrary judgement of an inferior and thus all law was under constant threat. So it has proved since the French Revolution and after, when revolutionaries have claimed the right to overthrow governments. Towards the end of the Middle Ages many philosophers such as Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suarez propounded similar theories. The Church was the final guarantor that Christian kings would follow the laws and constitutional traditions of their ancestors and the laws of God and of justice. Similarly, the Chinese concept of Mandate of Heaven required that the emperor properly carry out the proper rituals, consult his ministers, and made it extremely difficult to undo any acts carried out by an ancestor.

The Scriptural basis of the Divine Right of Kings comes partly from Romans 13:1-2, which states: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

However, this overlooks those parts of Scripture which provide for the doctrine of the "Two Swords" and for the ancient Roman Catholic understanding of the powers, rights and duties of kings to protect the Christian Constitution of states, to defend and extend the boundaries of Christendom by lawful means only, to protect and defend the innocent, the weak, the poor and vulnerable, and to protect the Church and the Papacy with the king's own life, if necessary. The emperor was the first knight of Christendom and the other Christian kings his brother-knights sworn to Christian chivalry with all its manifold obligations to justice and charity.

This concept partly lived on in the Divine Right of Kings but was much undermined and attentuated by the cutting away of the spiritual arm, turning it into a mere department of state, subsidiary to the king.

The result was that this then appeared to say that any attempt by his subjects to hold the king to his historic obligations would be contrary to the will of God and that any person so acting would be damned.

In Roman Catholic jurisprudence, this meant the Pope.

In many modern secular constitutions, an attempt has been made to replace the supreme pontifical and regal powers with a constitution that separates powers into the Executive (i.e. the kingly power), the Judicial (judges can restrain the Executive) and the Legislative, excluding the spiritual power altogether (classically in the USA).

So I do understand what the Divine Right is Baron.

TheEmperorsAdvocate



__________________
"When the whole world is against you and you have no friends, there is little chance of success, but you must go on doing what you can, fulfilling your duty and, in the end, going down with honor."
-The Emperor Franz Josef, written to his mother just before the seizure of Lombardy-Venetia.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #7 
You've shown a Scots Protestant King claimed Divine Right of Kings,
That it's not a 'Roman Position' at all.
That it blew up in his family's face.

What point were you trying to make?

(St. Charles I couldn't even successfully hold the true right of the King due to the mess dear old dad had made of the relationship with Parliament).


__________________
"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


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #8 

TheEmperorsAdvocate congratulations! You did a super job! Your research is complete.Marvelous to read!You are trully the Emperors Advocate!I am very happy!You are very smart!You are Super! So Queen Elesabeth is annointed and crowned according to the Ancient Traditional Catholic and Roman and Byzantine ritual as Christian Queen and Empress!All Christian subjects must uphold and support God's annointed! Or they commit sin and they are not Christians at all!All republics are illegal! They overthrew legitimate Royal Christian Authority established by God and supported by the Church.Any Christian who supports the Republics is no Christian at all but a pagan rebel! The Church has commited sin also by supporting the Republics and the overthrow of divinely annointed and crowned Royal Authority.The Church has cooporated with the AntiChristian Forces.In France and in Austrian and in Germany and in Italy and in Greece and Bulgaria and Jugoslavia and in Russia.They must withdraw their support of the Republics and annoint and crown Christian Kings and Queens all over Christian Europe.Thanks SuperAdvocate TheAmperors Advocate for your thorough and complete research! You are very smart and I have to bow my head to you in respect and admiration!You are amazing!

Izulde

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

(St. Charles I couldn't even successfully hold the true right of the King due to the mess dear old dad had made of the relationship with Parliament).



Can you give a little more detail here?  I'm extremely weak with regards to my knowledge of English monarchs.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius

TheEmperorsAdvocate congratulations! You did a super job! Your research is complete.Marvelous to read!You are trully the Emperors Advocate!I am very happy!You are very smart!You are Super! So Queen Elesabeth is annointed and crowned according to the Ancient Traditional Catholic and Roman and Byzantine ritual as Christian Queen and Empress!All Christian subjects must uphold and support God's annointed! Or they commit sin and they are not Christians at all!All republics are illegal! They overthrew legitimate Royal Christian Authority established by God and supported by the Church.Any Christian who supports the Republics is no Christian at all but a pagan rebel! The Church has commited sin also by supporting the Republics and the overthrow of divinely annointed and crowned Royal Authority.The Church has cooporated with the AntiChristian Forces.In France and in Austrian and in Germany and in Italy and in Greece and Bulgaria and Jugoslavia and in Russia.They must withdraw their support of the Republics and annoint and crown Christian Kings and Queens all over Christian Europe.Thanks SuperAdvocate TheAmperors Advocate for your thorough and complete research! You are very smart and I have to bow my head to you in respect and admiration!You are amazing!


Do you even read?

__________________
"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
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Izulde
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

(St. Charles I couldn't even successfully hold the true right of the King due to the mess dear old dad had made of the relationship with Parliament).



Can you give a little more detail here?  I'm extremely weak with regards to my knowledge of English monarchs.

Perhaps that's why you don't recognize how poor your example above was.  Bye the way we have HM King James VI and I's treatsy on the trew monarch on our web site.

HM James VI of Scotland on becoming HM King James I of England tried to run England as he had Scotland, and was actually able to pull it off, HM James I of England was very bright man, called in experts where he needed them, etc (KJV and all that) - but his actions created a seething resentment towards him - this Scottish King now ruling England.  When HM Charles I (born in Scotland while James VI was its king) came to the throne he was unable to continue the abuses of his father - the "justice" outside the usual court, taxing without parliament's consent, in particular.  Later military disaster (France) resulted in a relationship with parliament that was non sustainable so he dissolved it .  His 11 years of personal rule (instead of working through parliament, he worked without it) weren't all that bad really, he ruled under existing law, and within he prerogatives.

The Parliament wasn't happy with the 'shut-out' though as you can well imagine.  The Bishop's Wars resulted in St. Charles again recalling Parliament (he needed the cash) and quickly dismissing it.  He then had to recall parliament again, and Parliament took its revenge - bills of attainder, the militia act, etc.   Instead of reacting as Mary or Henry or Elizabeth would have done, but dissolution, discussion, compromise, and appointment St. Charles responded with force against Parliament while it was in Session (Something he'd learned from dear old Dad in Scotland, or rather from the Scottish Experience it seems). English Monarchs don't get to send armed men into a session of Parliament to break up the discussion - it just doesn't work, and never had.  The war was 'on' from that point.

From this point on, HM Charles was generally in the 'right' - as he was before that point - but the 'armed mean against an assembled parliament' was 'fatal' in the long run.

St. Charles I, King and Martyr in the end died for the People against a tyranny of the Parliament worse than his - but that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of a few mistakes in governance himself....

__________________
"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
Izulde

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Izulde
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

(St. Charles I couldn't even successfully hold the true right of the King due to the mess dear old dad had made of the relationship with Parliament).



Can you give a little more detail here?  I'm extremely weak with regards to my knowledge of English monarchs.

Perhaps that's why you don't recognize how poor your example above was.  Bye the way we have HM King James VI and I's treatsy on the trew monarch on our web site.

HM James VI of Scotland on becoming HM King James I of England tried to run England as he had Scotland, and was actually able to pull it off, HM James I of England was very bright man, called in experts where he needed them, etc (KJV and all that) - but his actions created a seething resentment towards him - this Scottish King now ruling England.  When HM Charles I (born in Scotland while James VI was its king) came to the throne he was unable to continue the abuses of his father - the "justice" outside the usual court, taxing without parliament's consent, in particular.  Later military disaster (France) resulted in a relationship with parliament that was non sustainable so he dissolved it .  His 11 years of personal rule (instead of working through parliament, he worked without it) weren't all that bad really, he ruled under existing law, and within he prerogatives.

The Parliament wasn't happy with the 'shut-out' though as you can well imagine.  The Bishop's Wars resulted in St. Charles again recalling Parliament (he needed the cash) and quickly dismissing it.  He then had to recall parliament again, and Parliament took its revenge - bills of attainder, the militia act, etc.   Instead of reacting as Mary or Henry or Elizabeth would have done, but dissolution, discussion, compromise, and appointment St. Charles responded with force against Parliament while it was in Session (Something he'd learned from dear old Dad in Scotland, or rather from the Scottish Experience it seems). English Monarchs don't get to send armed men into a session of Parliament to break up the discussion - it just doesn't work, and never had.  The war was 'on' from that point.

From this point on, HM Charles was generally in the 'right' - as he was before that point - but the 'armed mean against an assembled parliament' was 'fatal' in the long run.

St. Charles I, King and Martyr in the end died for the People against a tyranny of the Parliament worse than his - but that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of a few mistakes in governance himself....


Fair enough.   Thanks for the info.  I'll attribute my initial favorable impression of him to Dumas's skill in characterization and my own rusty English history then
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #13 
If every King was as smart as James VI and I, perhaps the absolutists would have a point,  unfortunately, they aren't.

__________________
"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


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #14 
Baron I believe in the "Divine Right "of Kings.Absolute Monarchy! Constantine the Great,Theodosius the Great,Justinian and Theodora,Isabella of Spain the Catholic and Ferdinard,Charles the Great or Charlemagne,Otto the Great,before that Cyrus the Great,Alexander the Great and later again Catherine the Great, Louis the XIV the Sun King,Maximilian and Charles the V of Habsburg,Frederic II of Prussia,Alexander the I,Nicolas I,Alexander  the II and III of Russia and so on.You Baron and others believe in a "watered down" Monarchy with a Parliament   sharing power.That is Oligarchy not Monarchy."Too many cooks spoil the broth".Even Jesus believed in Absolute Monarchy.He spoke with Authority and his followers had to accept what he said without question.He said I am a King  that is why I came into this World.And he appointed one man Peter and he said "What ever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven"He made him absolute Monarch!So the Pope now is an Absolute Monarch Supreme and Universal over all and in all.He has power to make and unmake Kings and Queens.So James I and VI and Charles I were right.As now the King of Nepal was right.They should have done what Theodosius the Great and Theodora did.They tricked the Rebellious subjects to come to the Hippodrome and paid the Army to massacre them! Rebellion against the Absolute Monarchy is rebellion against  the Absolute and universal Invisible Divine Principle  we call God.TheEmperorsAdvocate with his post presented the Theory of Absolute Monarchy through History.And the Divine origin of Kings and the Divine Right of Kings.Monarchs are like "GOD"  on Earth.
TheEmperorsAdvocate

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 488
Reply with quote  #15 
Well said Cornelius!
"God on Earth" to their peoples!  They are not Gods themselves, but rather "ambassadors" of the one God.

Baron:
They might not have called it the "Divine right", but Charles V and so many other monarchs knew what it was and lived and believed it.

They are only people, nothing special other than the fact that God chose them to Rule.  Like how he chose all of us to live.  We have the right to do what we want with our bodies and minds, but God is the one who gets it all started and he is the one who decides after its all over what to do with us then.  A king can go sour in the way he rules, but God is the judge.  Who are we to decide but simple humans that always error.

TheEmperorsAdvocate
Father, Son, Holy Spirit-Pope, Emperor, Royalty(On Earth as it is in Heaven)

Good posts Cornelius!


__________________
"When the whole world is against you and you have no friends, there is little chance of success, but you must go on doing what you can, fulfilling your duty and, in the end, going down with honor."
-The Emperor Franz Josef, written to his mother just before the seizure of Lombardy-Venetia.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.