Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 7      1   2   3   4   Next   »
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,773
Reply with quote  #1 
Since I don't like to start arguments on the Introductions thread, I've created this one to respond to "Iamthepope" [though I'm pretty sure he isn't] and give him a chance to explain his concept of monarchy, which seems to differ rather starkly from that of most of our members except perhaps Zarma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamthepope

I favor non-hereditary forms of monarchy with appointments chosen from above on the basis of merit.


Now I'm not even sure what this means, so will try to give our new member (with whom I have previously communicated via Facebook, though I somehow was not aware of his disturbing lack of support for hereditary monarchy) the benefit of the doubt.  However, I must say that it is my firm and unchangeable position that while genuine non-hereditary monarchies have existed, in general hereditary succession is a non-negotiable part of what monarchists must be willing and able to defend.   Also I find it odd, to say the least, that he uses a picture of Charles X of France, obviously a hereditary monarch, as his avatar while using his first post to implicitly disparage hereditary monarchy.

I'll begin by repeating what I wrote on the French succession thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

With the exception of the Papacy, a "monarchy" in which there is no hereditary aspect is of no interest to me and would not be worth defending.  To me, hereditary succession (or, possibly, election by an elite whose status is itself hereditary) is an integral part of monarchy, as it is the only way to keep the office head of state above political faction, the only way to remove (at least theoretically) ambition from the equation.  So I really don't see the point of any "monarchism" that does not insist on the hereditary element, as well as the restoration where available of the previously reigning dynasty.


I will also provide a link (so as to avoid merely restating things I've already written) to my article Monarchy, Choice, and Power.  While some of what I say there (and in my other articles) could perhaps apply to whatever non-hereditary model "Iamthepope" envisions, I was thinking entirely in terms of hereditary monarchy when I wrote it, and I think the second-to-last paragraph in particular (using King Ludwig II of Bavaria as an example) gives an indication of why the hereditary element is so important to me, as does my fascination with royal genealogy that I share with Peter.

I am not willing to concede the alleged "disadvantages" of hereditary rule to its enemies.  I like the possibility of a young or eccentric monarch, of a monarch who would never either win an election or be "chosen from above" on the basis of perceived "merit."  But more important than what I like is what actually exists.  Except for Andorra and the Papacy, all of Europe's remaining monarchies are hereditary, as have been all European monarchies since the fall of the Holy Roman Empire (which had been de facto hereditary in the Habsburg family almost continuously since the 15th century) in 1806, and most even before that time.  I defend real monarchies that exist and have existed, particularly those of (roughly) the past 1,000 years, not new innovative theories about what a monarchy is or ancient theories primarily applicable to entities such as the Roman Empire.   And I don't see how "monarchism" that starts out by rejecting hereditary rule is all that different from the republicanism I oppose.  If one does not defend the right of Queen Elizabeth and King Juan Carlos to pass on their thrones to their heirs, and that of Archduke Otto and Grand Duchess Maria to reclaim those of their ancestors, then what does he defend?

I am guessing that "Iamthepope" is opposed to
Egalitarianism & Democracy and in favor of the rule of Elites.  But that is not sufficient in my understanding to make one a "Monarchist"; after all, non-Jacobin republicans, including the American Founders, have also been anti-egalitarian, critical of democracy and sympathetic to elites, yet I am against their models as well.   To introduce a concrete example, the Brazilian revolution that overthrew the liberal and popular Emperor Pedro II in 1889 was elitist, anti-egalitarian, Catholic, aristocratic--in other words what most people would see as thoroughly "right-wing"; yet I condemn it every bit as I do left-wing anti-monarchist revolutions.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #2 
Provision needs to be made for 'dearth of heirs', and the 'elective monarchies' like Malaysia, some of the Emirates, and Vatican City, as well as for that rather odd case of Tibet, but beyond that one is not generally 'made a King' save by God, and that usually by being Born to be King.

I guess I should add the 'adoptive process' to the list of 'odd men out' - the 'adopted heir' of the Five Good Emperors was a 'flavour' of Monarchy as well....


__________________
"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
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,773
Reply with quote  #3 
One more thing, then I promise to stop until "Iamthepope" has had a chance to respond.  From a Spanish priest, as quoted in Charles Coulombe's Monarchy FAQ:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr. Jaime Balmes

Regarding things in the abstract, there is nothing more strikingly absurd than hereditary monarchy, the succession secured to a family which may at any time place on the throne a fool, a child, or a wretch: and yet in practise there is nothing more wise, prudent, and provident. This has been taught by the long experience of ages, it has been shown by reason, and proved by the sad warnings of those nations who have tried elective monarchy. Now what is the cause of this? It is what we are endeavouring to explain. Hereditary Monarchy precludes all hopes of irregular ambition; without that, society always contains a germ of trouble, a principle of revolt, which is nourished by those who conceive a hope of one day obtaining the command. In quiet times, and under an hereditary Monarchy, a subject, however rich, however distinguished he may be for his talent or his valour, cannot, without madness, hope to be King; and such a thought never enters his head. But change the circumstances---admit, I will not say the probability, but the possibility of such an event, and you will see that there will immediately be ardent candidates.

IamthePope

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #4 

royalcello: I would like to thank you for opening a forum thread with which I can present my views on the subject of heredity rulership. While it may appear inconsistent for a self-described monarchist to hold the unconventional position that hereditary rule is both inefficient and unjust, I believe that I can make a strong argument in favor of this position. However as it is growing late this evening and I have only recently discovered this thread, I must decline to fully elaborate my position tonight. Nonetheless, I look forward to presenting my arguments against hereditary rule. God willing, I will persuade many among you to abandon what I believe to be an indefensible position.  
 
Additionally, my avatar and screen name were chosen without much thought as to their ideological or philosophical significance. My choice of Charles X as my avatar should in no way be misconstrued to indicate that I either do or do not support the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty. If it should appear to be the norm that avatars are chosen for their ideological significance then I will gladly produce a more appropriate one.

[Edit] I recently changed my avatar to Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary to Ming China who translated the Analects into Latin and introduced Roman Catholicism into China. As I have been studying Chinese intellectual history for the past semester, I felt that this avatar would suitably represent my interests.


__________________
Soulblighter

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 384
Reply with quote  #5 
I tend to agree with my fellow Texan monarchist friend here in that elective monarchies are a better way to go than "blood dynasties", but to me, one of the best ways to go are "adoptive dynasties", where the monarch and the ruling council choose the best candidate in the lands of the monarch to suceed him/her as monarch by adoption (not necessary if they are already members of the royal family). This way, we don't get stuck with insane/retarded monarchs, weak-willed idiots, and the like. The best candidate is always chosen to continue the dynasty, family or not.

__________________
"As far as men go, it is not what they are that interests me, but what they can become."
-Jean-Paul Sartre

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
-President Thomas Jefferson
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,650
Reply with quote  #6 
The best candidate, or the one who has built up the strongest party for himself? The Five Good Emperors were a very long time ago, and the precedent has not been much followed since. They were all except Nerva related to each other anyway, by blood or marriage or both, and all except Marcus Aurelius sonless. He was the first of the five to be in a position to abandon the principle, and promptly did. Not, admittedly, to very good effect.

Retarded, insane or child monarchs are readily dealt with by Regency, that is what it is for. The former two are not often to be expected, so long as the truly fantastic degrees of inbreeding seen in the Spanish Habsburgs for example are avoided. The weak or misguided will happen, the monarchical principle has proved strong enough to survive them. If there were some infallible Oracle that could name the best man or woman to rule in every generation, I might be supportive of your idea. As it is, I'd rather take my chances with genetics.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #7 
What is more fair than by lots?
The one Born to be King has won (or lost depending on view) the Birth Right Lottery.  The other players need to accept that and 'Play'.


__________________
"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
IamthePope

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #8 
Before I proceed to elaborate on why I hold that hereditary rulership is an indefensible position, I feel it is briefly necessary to respond to the previous posts of our illustrious moderator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I must say that it is my firm and unchangeable position that while genuine non-hereditary monarchies have existed, in general hereditary succession is a non-negotiable part of what monarchists must be willing and able to defend.

 
Here RoyalCello makes it clear that he defines monarchy as strictly and non-negotiably hereditary in nature. He further elaborates on the historical precedent for this definition: 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

With the exception of the Papacy, a "monarchy" in which there is no hereditary aspect is of no interest to me and would not be worth defending.  To me, hereditary succession (or, possibly, election by an elite whose status is itself hereditary) is an integral part of monarchy, as it is the only way to keep the office head of state above political faction, the only way to remove (at least theoretically) ambition from the equation.  So I really don't see the point of any "monarchism" that does not insist on the hereditary element, as well as the restoration where available of the previously reigning dynasty.

 
As I'm sure everyone is aware, the word monarch is derived from the Attic Greek monos(one) and archos(rule) to mean roughly the rulership of one person. However as RoyalCello points out, this etymological fact does not suffice to explain the full implicature of the word "monarchy" which carries millennia of historical baggage. RoyalCello correctly moves to examine the historical tradition in which monarchy has functioned. Upon this evidence, he concludes that because most monarchies have had rules of hereditary primogeniture, monarchy must mean hereditary rule. Although I cede to RoyalCello that our linguistic concepts are informed by the way in which these concepts are presently and historically employed, I would contend that monarchy has had sufficient historical and contemporary variability in application to allow for some variability of, albeit unconventional, usage. 

The first argument which RoyalCello provides can be summarized as follows:
p1) if there is political factionalism(a) then there will arise political leaders(b) [a É b]
p2) if there arises ambitious political leaders(b) then there will be political unrest(c) [b É c]
TF: if (a) then (c) [a É c]
p3) if there is Hereditary monarchy(h) then there will not be political factionalism(~a). [h É ~a]
p4) if there is not political factionalism(~a) then there will not be political unrest(~c) [~a É ~c]
p5) if there is hereditary monarchy(h) then there will not be political unrest(~c). [h É ~c]
p6) we ought to eliminate unrest (~c)
TF: there ought to be a hereditary monarchy

Firstly the fourth premise, that [~a É ~c] is unsound as even if we premise (a) is untrue, then premise (b) may still be true under which conditions b É c. To summarize, merely because there is no political factionalism need not entail that there will then neither exist unrest or ambitious political leaders which may arise quite independently of the truth or falsehood of political factionalism(a)

Secondly, I don't believe that the fifth(p5) or fourth(p4) premises are sound. As the Russian and French revoloutions uncontestably demonstrate, there can quite easily exist political factionalism and political unrest in a government which is ruled by a hereditary monarch. However, I believe that I should elaborate lest I unfairly make a straw man of RoyalCello. I believe that what RoyalCello means to say is that the uncontestable position of the hereditary monarch serves to depoliticize the process through which final sovereign authority is bestowed upon the head of state. G.W.F. Hegel makes a similar argument in his defense of the hereditary Prussian monarchy. However if we cede that hereditary monarchy does serve this purpose, it seems to remain the case that both factionalism and political unrest may duly arise outside of the political arena. Again the Jacobin societies in the French Revolution serve to demonstate the possibility of factionalism and unrest which may arise from outside of the political sphere.

I agree with RoyalCello that republicanism necessarily leads to political factionalism, which allows for the potential of political unrest. First it should be noted that the unrest which political facitonalism produces is, under stable conditions, confined to the pacific theatre of the parlimentary assembly and not to violence in the streets. Secondly, I believe that RoyalCello is presenting opponents of hereditary monarchy with a false delimma if he should argue that there is a disjunctive choice between hereditary monarchy and republicanism. RoyalCello seems to assert this here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

I am not willing to concede the alleged "disadvantages" of hereditary rule to its enemies... And I don't see how "monarchism" that starts out by rejecting hereditary rule is all that different from the republicanism I oppose. 


As I'm sure everyone here is well aware, there do exist today and have existed historically, a wide variety of syntheses between herditary monarchies and parlimentary establishments.

__________________
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #9 
IP,
Demonstrate from history political unrest without factionalism.

Failing to do that, explain why without historical backing one projects that such unrest would occur.




__________________
"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
CaesarII

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 585
Reply with quote  #10 
I am sure most, if not all, of us are willing to agree with you that monarchy is not limited to hereditary succession, but can- and has- taken on a number of forms throughout the centuries. I am also fairly certain that most of us can agree that hereditary monarchy, while removing much of the politics from the succession itself, does not ensure against the factionalism which may arise over the rule of the state.

However in most of the cases of elective monarchies the situation is thus- the monarch is elected from an elite, by an elite, and the right to be counted amongst this elite is most likely to be a hereditary one. In what form do you propose an elective monarchy take? If it is similar to what I have just described, you will still be confronted with the same "injustice" which you claim plagues hereditary monarchies. If your prefered form is one where any man possesses the right to election by all men, then the factionalism and political unrest will be all the more severe.

CaesarII

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 585
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamthePope
God willing, I will persuade many among you to abandon what I believe to be an indefensible position.  


What about those of us who are more eccentric and romantic then we are logical?
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #12 
I'll hold him in the Swamp of Logic as long as I can.

You fellows on the Romantic Shore prepare the defenses!



__________________
"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
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,773
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamthePope
Before I proceed to elaborate on why I hold that hereditary rulership is an indefensible position


First of all, you need to cool it with the arrogance.  If you feel that some sort of elective or appointive monarchy is theoretically superior to hereditary monarchy, you are free to advocate that position and explain why.  But "indefensible" means impossible to [adequately] defend, suggesting that no one who is intelligent, well-educated, and of good will could possibly continue to hold the pro-hereditary position once presented with your brilliance.  Coming into a monarchist forum whose members mostly support hereditary monarchies and announcing that one of their most cherished ideals is "indefensible" (as opposed to merely disagreeing) is not exactly the best way to make us sympathetically inclined to hearing you out.  

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I must say that it is my firm and unchangeable position that while genuine non-hereditary monarchies have existed, in general hereditary succession is a non-negotiable part of what monarchists must be willing and able to defend.

 
Here RoyalCello makes it clear that he defines monarchy as strictly and non-negotiably hereditary in nature.


No, actually, that's not quite what I said. 
I said that hereditary succession is a non-negotiable part of what monarchists must be willing and able to defend.  That means that where hereditary succession is how monarchy traditionally operates, as is the case in 10 of Europe's 12 remaining monarchies, and was the case in all of those tragically overthrown in the 20th century, that is what monarchists must defend.  

While it's not my preferred model, I extend to non-hereditary and semi-hereditary monarchy the respect that you apparently will not extend to hereditary monarchy.  I accept the old Holy Roman Empire, the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Papacy, Samoa, the United Arab Emirates, and Malaysia as genuine monarchies (though it must be noted that in all of those examples except the Papacy and possibly Samoa there was or is a hereditary aspect to the system).  I do not object to the old Venetian Republic, which arguably could have been classified as an elective monarchy.  

If you personally feel, while
respecting the various traditions of various monarchies, that history's examples of elective/appointive monarchy offer an even more admirable model than history's examples of hereditary monarchy, fine, though I obviously disagree.  But if you believe that the French, Portuguese, Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, Yugoslavian, Italian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek monarchies (all strictly hereditary!) were all inherently "inefficient," "unjust," and "indefensible" as they were, then sorry, as far as I'm concerned you are simply not a monarchist at all. 

I am a monarchist in that I believe monarchy to be the best form of government in the abstract, and my preferred model of it is hereditary, with a codified and inflexible law of succession.  However, I am also a traditionalist, and I do not demand that every single country in the world become a monarchy or conform to my preferred model.  What I do demand is that countries be faithful to their authentic traditions, which in most cases include hereditary monarchy.  (As recently as one hundred years ago, the entire Eastern Hemisphere except for France and its colonies, American colonies, Switzerland, San Marino, Andorra, and Liberia was under the sovereignty of hereditary monarchs.)  I defend real monarchies that exist and have existed.  That is what monarchists do.  If you wish to restore the Venetian Republic or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I will not object.  If you wish to advocate a new kind of non-hereditary "monarchy" for one of the world's many relatively young states lacking a substantial political tradition of their own (let's say, Estonia), I will not object.  But if you oppose (for example) the succession of Queen Elizabeth II by Prince Charles and of Prince Charles by Prince William on the grounds that it would be better for the United Kingdom to adopt some sort of "merit-based" system, then you are my enemy as much as any republican, whether you accept the label or not.  I sincerely hope that's not the case.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,650
Reply with quote  #14 

I prefer to regard republicans as "opponents" rather than enemies, myself. The meaning is similar but less strong, to me. While I can see why you were offended by our new friend's statement quoted first, I just shrugged and thought "Fat chance." We will see what arguments he comes up with, but I do not expect to be unable to counter them, as many others here also will be able to. I must admit I was slightly bothered by his name, which would surely be unacceptable from a non-Catholic and seems to me rather disrespectful from a Catholic. None of the Catholics here seem worried, though, and I suppose it's none of my business.

Personally I see no reason not to classify both Venice and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as both monarchies. Or both republics. They both actually had the name "The Most Serene Republic." They both had a Head of State elected for life by an aristocracy and bearing a monarchical title, Doge (= Duke) for Venice and King for Poland. They both increasingly circumscribed the powers and role of that elected head, making the position more and more nominal and constitutional. Poland actually had the explicit doctrine that "the King reigns but does not rule." They both prohibited hereditary succession, though in practice the Polish nobility several times elected the natural heir of the or a preceding King. Venice was rather more serious about it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
New regulations for the elections of the doge introduced in 1268 remained in force until the end of the republic in 1797. Their object was to minimize as far as possible the influence of individual great families, and this was effected by a complex elective machinery. Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced by lot to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected forty-five. Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.


Clearly, there was no possible way to manipulate this process to achieve a desired group of electors, and thus a desired election result. The later Doges were mainly figureheads and ceremonial rulers, an important voice maybe in the Signoria but not a commanding one. Most Kings of Poland tried to increase their personal power, some with a measure of success but none lastingly. Eventually the disastrous weaknesses of the system were realised and the monarchical, or rather executive as the King was still to be constitutional, power strengthened and a hereditary succession instituted*. Too late, this was in the reign of the very last King and the Commonwealth shortly ceased to be, consumed by neighouring powers.

As was the case with Venice also, not the constitutional changes but the ceasing to be. Still, it had a thousand-year and frequently glorious history. Not so enduring, the Commonwealth was still at its peak powerful and prosperous. As I started out by saying, the similarities between the two are considerable, and it is really quite arbitrary that we call one a monarchy and the other a republic. A small curiosity; the elected Polish Kings still ruled, according to their title, "by the Grace of God."

*As the last King, Stanislas Poniatowski, had only an illegitimate daughter I wondered who the successor might be. It turns out to have been the Elector of Saxony, which of course had provided two previous Kings to the Commonwealth. So, under the final Constitution of a sovereign Poland-Lithuania, the Margrave of Meissen is the heir.

Unfortunately that dynasty is slated for extinction after the present generation, with a controversial and disputed choice of female-line heir. I guess if the Poles ever wanted a new King they'd just have to elect one like before. The Constitution actually provided for election of a dynasty rather than an individual, so that a new election would occur only if the dynasty expired. This then would be in accordance with its provisions.

IamthePope

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarII
What about those of us who are more eccentric and romantic then we are logical?


While I admire this romantic disposition, I think you will find that argument alone, not poetry, suffices to sway the minds of the intellectual and political establishment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
First of all, you need to cool it with the arrogance... But "indefensible" means impossible to [adequately] defend, suggesting that no one who is intelligent, well-educated, and of good will could possibly continue to hold the pro-hereditary position once presented with your brilliance.

I apologize if I have seemed arrogant in my previous posts. To appear as such, was of course, not my intention. Nor was it my intention aggrandize my own learning and arguments while belittling my opponents. Such an intention would have been wholly malicious and contrary to the character of a gentleman. It seems that you may have falsely presumed vanity and a malicious intent on my part simply from, what may at first seem to be, a haughty prose. Surely you gentleman should understand that I feel a certain disdain for the common idioms and the simplistic prose which is everywhere so prevalent today. With such an understanding, there should be little need to explain away the erudition and sophistication which I hope to express in my writing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
If you personally feel, while respecting the various traditions of various monarchies, that history's examples of elective/appointive monarchy offer an even more admirable model than history's examples of hereditary monarchy, fine, though I obviously disagree.  But if you believe that the French, Portuguese, Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, Yugoslavian, Italian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek monarchies (all strictly hereditary!) were all inherently "inefficient," "unjust," and "indefensible" as they were, then sorry, as far as I'm concerned you are simply not a monarchist at all.


Here again, I believe that we argue over a slight semantic difference. While I cede to you that your usage of "monarchist" is more in keeping with the historical tradition, I must contend that the word is, perhaps less, applicable to the system which I support and hope to someday elaborate upon. However, if you should find that my proposal is incommensurable with your understanding of "monarchism" then I will not protest if you should cease to label me as a "monarchist". Nonetheless, I will continue to define myself as such as the word contains unique meanings which I find applicable to my ideal form of government, as well as for lack of a more precise word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I am a monarchist in that I believe monarchy to be the best form of government in the abstract, and my preferred model of it is hereditary, with (1)a codified and inflexible law of succession.  However, I am also a traditionalist, and I do not demand that every single country in the world become a monarchy or conform to my preferred model.  (2)What I do demand is that countries be faithful to their authentic traditions, which in most cases include hereditary monarchy.  (As recently as one hundred years ago, the entire Eastern Hemisphere except for France and its colonies, American colonies, Switzerland, San Marino, Andorra, and Liberia was under the sovereignty of hereditary monarchs.)  I defend real monarchies that exist and have existed.  That is what monarchists do.  If you wish to restore the Venetian Republic or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I will not object.  If you wish to advocate a new kind of non-hereditary "monarchy" for one of the world's many relatively young states lacking a substantial political tradition of their own (let's say, Estonia), I will not object.  But if you oppose (for example) the succession of Queen Elizabeth II by Prince Charles and of Prince Charles by Prince William on the grounds that it would be better for the United Kingdom to adopt some sort of "merit-based" system, then you are my enemy as much as any republican, whether you accept the label or not.  I sincerely hope that's not the case.


While I admire your undeniable historical knowledge and profound conviction regarding what I too believe to be an important cause, I must admit that It would be intellectually dishonest of me to do otherwise than to express my own position that you are very much mistaken on the the two points which I have highlighted above. While it may seem to you that I am defaming and corrupting the orthodox conception of monarchism, I assure you that my intention is merely to correct, what I cannot do otherwise than express to be an indefensible conception of the most idyllic political system.

Here I should explain my usage of the word "indefensible", which has appeared to cause some consternation. My employment of this word should not be mistaken to wrongly imply that I hold that a rational person of good will cannot adhere to the position which I hope to critique. The only such position for which I would apply this criticism would be a paralogism, or a clearly logically invalid argument (such as circularity or contradictory). The position that hereditary succession is the most perfect method of selecting the next head of state is neither para-logistically false nor absolutely valid, but merely personally relatively true. By this, I do not mean to express a form of nihilistic relativism, in which arguments lend no supportive weight to a position, but merely to express that the position of hereditary succession may be rationally and altruistically defended with valid, if unsound, arguments.

When I express that I hold a position, such as hereditary succession, to be "indefensible", it is meant only that upon the fullest and most rigorous examination possible, this position will surely be found to be lacking in the essential requirements of an ideal political order, which are incontrovertibly justice, efficiency, and humaneness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I must admit I was slightly bothered by his name, which would surely be unacceptable from a non-Catholic and seems to me rather disrespectful from a Catholic.


I should here correct, what is surely a mistaken impression of my intentions in adopting this psuedonym. As a Catholic myself and staunch defender of the papacy, I have no intention of malicious defaming or otherwise impersonating the Pontiff of the Holy See. My psuedonym was chosen mere to accord with the prior use which I have made of it on other forums since my childhood. I have always greatly admired the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church, and it is my hope to be worthy to represent the Holy Mother Church on forums as a sort of representative of Catholic Orthodoxy and tradition.

Although I would very much enjoy elaborating on the promised refutation of hereditary succession, it is very late here, and I cannot be detained for too great a duration. I assure you all that I will devote some time to this task over the weekend when I am less detained by my studies.


__________________
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: