Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 40      1   2   3   4   Next   »
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #1 
Do you cherish hopes--however remote--of the United States becoming a monarchy eventually? Or perhaps breaking up into smaller countries, some of which might be monarchies?

Or are you mainly interested in supporting monarchies and royalist movements in other countries with a stronger indigenous monarchical tradition?

I'm mostly in the latter category, though I would like to see Hawaii secede and restore the monarchy.
Lord_Alf

Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #2 

A wee tiny bit for the first one, sorta. More like a fantasy really. I always imagine New Hampshire or Maine becoming a monarchy  on grounds that those two states would make a beautiful kingdom. I identify with the latter though. Specifically a restoration in France, but I support the monarchy's restoration in general too.

Also, I'd love to see a monarchy in Alaska, but the major independence group there is very libertarian, so I doubt that would happen.

PinoyMonk

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #3 
I have a lot of doubts about Americans adopting a monarchy, mostly 'cause every single one of my friends thinks that I've gone made when I tell them that I like monarchies.  The possibility of smaller kingdoms in North America seems more probable after some sort of war or other disaster.

So, in effect, I subscribe to the latter of your ideas.

Pinoy Monk


__________________
"This world is nothing but an inn we pass through. Our real home is Heaven. Follow me and become a martyr; I wish we could meet again in the kingdom of eternal glory." -Damian Nam Myong-hyok, Korean Martyr
BlueEmperor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #4 

I often wonder that about American monarchists. Republicanism seems so ingrained in your culture - which has its very roots in anti-monarchical revolution. I suspect that monarchy would only ever occur in North America if, for whatever reason, the present United States ceased to exist, either through disaster or political breakdown, such as you describe.


__________________
"The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other." ~ Walter Bagehot
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #5 

I am sure our moderator already knows my opinion, but I will toss it out there anyway.  I would say both.  My first concern is for the restoration of legitimate Catholic monarchy in Europe (Christendom).  I would agree that at present the rise of an American monarchy is highly improbable to say the least.  I would not in general support the rise of an American claimant but would greatly prefer to look to Europe for a prince of the blood.  Culturally this would seem to lean us towards the British crown, but I am open on this point.   More likely than not it will take the death of the American Republic (which is well on its way, thank you Mr. President), a great natural disaster (Chastisement) and not the least, the grace of God.  All those things are not as unlikely as one may think.  I too support the session of the Kingdom of Hawaii (which we stole at gun point). 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
DominusTecum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #6 

I pretty much concur with WhiteCockade. Monarchy shan't happen while the republic of the "United States" endures, it will have to go. Judging by the way things are going, we don't have a long time to wait. The question then arises "Will the lower 48 be their own monarchy, or will it be broken up into "natural" chunks (read: a "mexican" southwest, a big middlish section, a New England section, a Southern section, etc.) Or, will the territory go back to whoever originally conquered it? It's a large can of worms, because while Britain could indeed claim the "original 13 colonies," the question becomes much murkier when one examines all the additional land acquired by the United States entity over the last two centuries. Some was "legitimately" acquired, such as perhaps the Louisiana purchase, though this then begs the question of whether the US is a "legitimate" government, since Britain agreed to the peace treaty of Versailles, and if it is not a legitimate government, are ANY of it's territorial acquisitions "legitimate" in any sense? Nasty. I'm not, and I don't know of anyone who is qualified enough in law under the Ancien Regime/moral theology to make these decisions.

 

Since this is so complicated, and it is truly unlikely, discounting divine intervention, for monarchs to lay active claim to United States land anytime soon, I figure it's best to just not worry about it. God, unforseen events, or somebody infinitely wiser than I will figure it out when it needs figuring out. In the meantime, it's vastly easier to simply support the one unquestionable thing, which is that Hawaii ought to be free under a restored monarchy. Additionally, it's enough for the "monarchist cause" in America to continue to harbor loyalist sympathies and to publicize these. People look at you as if you're not firing on a quarter of your cylinders, let alone all of them, if you even suggest that the American Revolution wasn't the best thing that ever happened on this continent and for the world. Consequently, and considering that this is the most direct "monarchist cause" which seems to touch America, it is the most prudent action, simply to be a staunch opponent of the revolution.

 

Since this is practically negligible as a focus/activity, it is best for now to lend one's energies to the support of monarchy all over the globe as a principle and concept, and particularly to work in all that is possible for the support of endangered monarchies (especially the few remaining European/western ones). Further, effort should also be focused on restoration, wherever possible, of the old order. Pretty common-sensish. Be it the Holy Roman Empire, the French throne, Russian, Austrian, etc.

 

 


__________________
-Steve
Daniel9

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 44
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueEmperor

... if, for whatever reason, the present United States ceased to exist, either through disaster or political breakdown, such as you describe.

Well, the way things are going we're probably not too far from that time! 

BlueEmperor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

My first concern is for the restoration of legitimate Catholic monarchy in Europe (Christendom). 

 

What do we mean by this?

 

 

B.E.


__________________
"The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other." ~ Walter Bagehot
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #9 

B.E.

 

By Christendom I mean those peoples and governments united in the Catholic faith-- that is a spiritial and secular kingdom of Christ.   By legitimate I mean those claimants who have a right to the throne according to blood and tradition (as opposed to those who would usurp the throne from a rightful claimant).  My primary concern is with the restoration of legitimate Catholic claimants to those thrones which were taken from them by the various revolutions and the conversions of those monarchs which exist but are not currently Catholic.   That is not to say that I do not support non-Catholic monarchs.   Despite having Jacobite sympathies I fully support HM the Queen against the republicans in Labour, or for example while I would of course pray for the rise of a Catholic Czar I would support the rise of a orthodox czar in Russia as better for the Russian people than Putin.  I hope that helped. 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
BlueEmperor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #10 

I support the idea of restorations anywhere where they are possible. However, I'm afraid I'm not much of a 'legitimist' in that respect. My opinion is that the best person to be monarch - where a restoration is involved - is the person most fit for the job. I don't think I could really, for example, support a restoration in a country where the claimant is some motor mechanic or businessman who has been living outside of the country all of his life. Where good claimants exist - such as in Austria in the person of HIRH The Archduke Otto (despite his being a paneuropeanist) or Romania in the person of King Michael - I think there is a strong case for restoration.

 

In other cases, I think we can be more utilitarian. For example, with the successional dispute raging on in Russia between Prince Nicholas and the Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and 'Prince' Nicholas Romanovich, I don't see any reason why Russian monarchists couldn't get behind a 'unity candidate' in the person of HRH Prince Michael of Kent. Yes, a member of the British Royal Family, very biased of me. But it is my understanding that Prince Michael is extremely popular in Russia, not least because of his remarkable genetic resemblance to the last Tsar, Emperor Nicholas II. At least there'd be some hope of a restoration in Russia if Russians actually thought Prince Michael might be interested. I don't think Russians will ever support restoration in significant numbers with the current bickering claimants.

 

B.E.


__________________
"The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other." ~ Walter Bagehot
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #11 
By the strictest possible application of the old Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, there is not one living person who is absolutely qualified beyond reproach to be monarch of Russia. Therefore, I agree that the possibility of a new dynasty, preferably with some genealogical connection to the Romanovs (Prince Michael is a great-great-grandson of Tsar Alexander II), ought to be considered by Russian monarchists.

However, I believe Prince Michael has denied having any interest in the Russian throne. And, as long as we're indulging this admittedly unlikely fantasy, Lord Frederick Windsor, 27, as Prince Michael's only son, would need to marry a suitable woman and have children if he is to be accepted as Tsarevich.
BlueEmperor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #12 

I've read your facinating article on the Russian successional dispute and agree entirely that the Grand Duchess has the superior claim. But, frankly, I think if you follow the letter of the law, both claims are fairly dodgy. If anything, the Grand Duchess' claim is merely 'less dodgy' rather than superior. Under those kinds of circumstances, why not opt for a new dynasty. Unless the Grand Duchess, Prince Michael has direct experience of kingship, having actually lived in a monarchy as a member of an active Royal Family, even acting as a stand-in for his cousin the Queen on several occasions. I think, in that respect, he's a vastly superior candidate to both the Romanov claimants.

 

I have tremendous respect for Prince Michael. He has two beautiful children. Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella are both very attractive and I have no doubt will both make good marriages and produce heirs. It's almost like a ready-made imperial family. The more I think about it, the more sense a new 'Kenski' dynasty makes!

 

B.E.


__________________
"The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other." ~ Walter Bagehot
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #13 

Legitimism is far stronger among those that believe that kings rise in accordance with Divine Providence.  There is also regency as a safe gap and I am not opposed to a higher authority stepping in to prevent degeneration for example when Pope St. Zackary approved the migration of the crown of France from the inbred Merovingian line to the Carolingians. 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
BlueEmperor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #14 

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
However, I believe Prince Michael has denied having any interest in the Russian throne. And, as long as we're indulging this admittedly unlikely fantasy, Lord Frederick Windsor, 27, as Prince Michael's only son, would need to marry a suitable woman and have children if he is to be accepted as Tsarevich.

Well, of course, Theodore, Prince Michael would say that. He's far too modest a gentleman to say anything else.

 

B.E.


__________________
"The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other." ~ Walter Bagehot
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #15 
I am not able to take satisfaction in any of the aspects of the American constitution that are sometimes described as monarchical. For one thing, even when I try to put on my "traditional American conservative" hat, I am firmly in the camp that holds that the original republic was essentially destroyed by the War of Northern Aggression. Popular election of senators ruined the original conception of the Senate. True, there are still some vestigial undemocratic elements like the Electoral College (which leftists can't wait to get rid of). But there is no American official who is not either elected or appointed by someone who was elected. There has never been any acceptance of authority carried by heredity and tradition.

Even apart from the fact that I find George W. Bush absolutely nauseating, I've always rejected the suggestion that his being the son of a previous president makes the contemporary American presidency comparable to a monarchy. This claim depends on a confusion of the concepts of necessary condition and sufficient condition. It may have been necessary for George W. Bush, with his mediocre abilities, to be the son of George H.W. Bush in order to reach the presidency. But it was not sufficient. He had to want to be president, campaign, and "win" (sort of) an election. The crucial distinction with a hereditary monarchy is that to become head of state it is both necessary [i]and sufficient[/b] to be the eldest son of the previous head of state; no other action, not even the desire to have the position, is required. To me this constitutes a fundamental benefit of hereditary monarchy: the fact that the person in power is not necessarily the sort of person who wants to have power.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.