Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,260
Reply with quote  #16 
You could arguably throw in Mexico. I wouldn't though ever include Russia, because Alaska was voluntarily surrendered in return for good consideration by a legitimate Emperor, Alexander II, who surely had the right to do so. His reasoning incidentally was that he might as well get something for it from the US rather than lose it forcibly to Britain; settlement of British Columbia was gathering pace at this time, the Crimean War was recent and the territory, on which covetous eyes were sure to be cast, was essentially indefensible, with the Russian population not even as much as one thousand souls in all that vast extent.

Returning to Don Luis Alfonso, my post above was obviously meant to be flippant, but there is a serious point I could have made had I thought of doing so. It might surprise even a few of his supporters to find that he has some fairly noteworthy American ancestors, including Robert 'King' Carter, his son Landon Carter, the latter's father-in-law William Byrd II, and William Beverley, whose son Robert married Landon Carter's daughter Maria. And there are more such besides, linked through the articles I have already supplied.

These descents come through Luis Alfonso's paternal grandmother Emanuela de Dampierre and her father Roger de Dampierre, 2. Duque de San Lorenzo. The latter's own paternal grandmother Elizabeth Corbin was daughter to Virginia-born Francis Corbin. And his mother Anna Beverley was daughter to Robert Beverley and Maria Carter and thus the conduit for the Virginian ancestry of the Spanish resident of New York who lays claim to France. Which as it happens is not his only American ancestry, Emanuela de Dampierre having been daughter to Roger de Dampierre by his wife Donna Vittoria Ruspoli, paternally of the Papal nobility but maternally of New York and New England family. None of which gives him any better a claim to America than he has to France, but still all quite interesting I felt.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,080
Reply with quote  #17 


You may have heard of "Emperor Norton" (Joshua Norton), who has become something of an icon in the modern age. Fewer will have heard of James Strang, who tried to establish his own theocratic kingdom on Beaver Island, Michigan.

James Strang was one of half a dozen potential successors to Joseph Smith as head of the "Church of Christ". It just so happened that one of them, Brigham Young, succeeded in getting the most followers, led them to Utah and establish what the world knows today as Mormonism. The other five contenders? Their churches still exist today, sharing some basic beliefs, having some beliefs of their own, though generally rejecting the teachings most associate with Mormonism.

But what if Strang's kingdom had succeeded? What if he had implemented the program in his book which meant a theocratic monarchy ruled by a priestly noble class, and even environmental protection?

sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #18 

Of course, I heard about Joshua Norton and read a lot. It's hard for me to talk about this man seriously: he was not well, and his "royal claim" was a consequence of mental illness. But, despite this, the "crazy Norton" played a very important role:

First, under the guise of "crazy", he said many truthful things. He became a denouncer of the republican system and its vices. What many people could not say, he could easily pronounce, being "crazy." And they listened to him.

Secondly, "Emperor Norton" led such a life as a Christian saint: he did not demand anything for himself personally, he lived extremely poorly, and his entire "yard" consisted of two dogs. In his way of life, his desire for Truth, Goodness and Justice, Norton broke the republican stereotype of the Monarchy. And this, of course, is very, very important merit.

I really love Joshua Norton. It seems to me, for some reason, that for the United States of America he was sent over ...

About the kingdom of Mormons, which Yang wanted to create, we, dear friend, unfortunately can not say anything ... I do not know how his story would turn out. It could be different: it could become a thriving kingdom, or it could crash, or it would have been anecdicated by the United States of America early or late ... I do not know. It was a very interesting idea that could be realized. But it did not happen, unfortunately.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #19 

Dear sir, if you do not mind, I would like to continue the topic of "Crown over Alaska" a little. Of course, like you, I fully agree with the fact that Emperor Alexander made a wise decision to transfer Alaska for a new ally, the United States of America. This act was in the interests of the Russian Empire. The Crimean War, which you mentioned, showed very well the vulnerability of the far territories of the Russian Empire, in particular Alaska. And, in this sense, the Emperor's act was very wise: it is better to sell the remote territory to a new ally and get paid for it than lose everything in the war.

However, when I mentioned Alaska in my first comment, I did this only because I list all the Crowns that once were on the American continent, particularly in the United States. These were the traditional Crowns: British, Spanish, French, Russian and Hawaiian; They were original or even extravagant attempts to make a New Monarchy - Joshua Norton, the Mormon Kingdom, even James Alois Harden-Hickey ... I just allowed myself to enumerate all this.

Now I will add a little bit of my thought about the "Crown for Alaska". The fact is that this territory was never a Kingdom or a Duchy within the Russian Empire. Alaska was in the possession of a private colonial company - the "Russian-American Campaign", and belonged to subjects of the Emperor of Russia, but not to the Emperor himself. This is a very important legal subtlety: Emperor Alexander II in this transaction did not act as a suzerain of Alaska, but as a representative of his subjects. He sold to the United States of America not the territory of the Russian Empire, but the property of private individuals. This point is very important.

Thus, Alaska does not have its own monarchic past, but only a colonial past. On the one hand, it would seem that this fact completely removes all the questions about the possibility of talking about the "Monarchy for Alaska". But everything is much more complicated than it seems ...

The world is changing. And the world movement for the restoration of the Monarchy is changing. A very big role in the modern world was played by separatist movements, and therefore I involuntarily look to them. If the separatists in the middle of the twentieth century adhered, as a rule, to a left, socialist orientation, in recent decades, separatist movements have become more and more right-wing, conservative ... I am aware that such a movement exists today in the state of Alaska. This fact can not be taken into account: it is very possible that it is the separatist movements that can become in the twenty-first century one of the directions of the neo-monarchist movement. Of course, all this is just theoretical reasoning, but why not speculate about it? ...


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
lingui5t

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

And more so. Once in the early 1990s, the United States had a monarchical organization called "The Society of Saint Constantine." But then it disappeared. I wonder: is there any movement today?



I think you mean "Constantian Society," from the word constantia, stability.

http://constantian.tripod.com/
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #21 

Yes, that's right. Thank you, sir!

Unfortunately, English is not my native language for me, so I misread the title.

Yes, I did talk about this organization. Judging by its site, the organization either ceased to exist at all, or "fell asleep" for a long time. Do you know anything about this organization? I want to know the details.

Thank you in advance, sir.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
lingui5t

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

Judging by its site, the organization either ceased to exist at all, or "fell asleep" for a long time. Do you know anything about this organization? I want to know the details.



Its Wikipedia page says that the group's activities ceased upon the death of its founder.
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #23 
Thank you, sir.
__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 208
Reply with quote  #24 
My vision of an American monarchy:
https://sites.google.com/view/kingdomofamerica

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,260
Reply with quote  #25 
All very nice, except that I don't much care for the present Governor-General. Happily his term ends early next year, and I trust will not be renewed.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 335
Reply with quote  #26 
I highly doubt that someone like Trump would be selected to serve as Governor-General in any Commonwealth realm. 
__________________
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
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,155
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor
My vision of an American monarchy:
https://sites.google.com/view/kingdomofamerica

I'm opposed to the USA becoming a Commonwealth realm. I support the legacy of American Revolution, because the American colonies not being represented in the British Parliament was unfair. Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands were never parts of the British Empire. Hawaii was a native Polynesian kingdom. Alaska was part of Tsarist Russia. Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony. The US Virgin Islands was a Danish colony. The Polynesian Kingdom of Hawaii ought to be restored. Alaska ought to be returned to the Romanovs. Puerto Rico ought to be returned to King Felipe of Spain. The US Virgin Islands ought to be returned to Queen Margrethe of Denmark. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,260
Reply with quote  #28 
It won't become a Commonwealth Realm, but not because you're opposed to it. There is alas not the least prospect of the Hawaiian monarchy being restored, people of the native ethnicity now being only a small minority of the islands' population. Alaska was bought fair and square, from the Emperor Alexander II who had the right to sell it. Russian settlers there never numbered as many as a thousand, and almost all of those who were there returned to Russia after the purchase, so there would be no ethnic case for the land to be returned either.

Puerto Rico was taken by force, but I doubt the people of the Commonwealth would be at all happy to be resubjected to Spain. Finally the US Virgin Islands were again bought fair and square from Denmark, Danish voters having approved the move via referendum. There was no such plebiscite in the islands themselves, but all the indications are that the move was widely popular, indeed it had long been agitated for. I know of no suggestion that there is any longing for a return to the Danish crown among present-day islanders, who are descendants after all not of Danes but of Danish-owned black slaves.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,155
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It won't become a Commonwealth Realm, but not because you're opposed to it. There is alas not the least prospect of the Hawaiian monarchy being restored, people of the native ethnicity now being only a small minority of the islands' population. Alaska was bought fair and square, from the Emperor Alexander II who had the right to sell it. Russian settlers there never numbered as many as a thousand, and almost all of those who were there returned to Russia after the purchase, so there would be no ethnic case for the land to be returned either.

Puerto Rico was taken by force, but I doubt the people of the Commonwealth would be at all happy to be resubjected to Spain. Finally the US Virgin Islands were again bought fair and square from Denmark, Danish voters having approved the move via referendum. There was no such plebiscite in the islands themselves, but all the indications are that the move was widely popular, indeed it had long been agitated for. I know of no suggestion that there is any longing for a return to the Danish crown among present-day islanders, who are descendants after all not of Danes but of Danish-owned black slaves.

I'm not proposing territorial changes. I'm merely mentioning the fact that the Windsors have no historical claims to Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. I support amending the US Constitution in order to allow Hawaii to restore its monarchy, while remaining a US state. I don't support returning Alaska to Russia, Puerto Rico to Spain and the US Virgin Islands to Denmark.
The USA ought to remain a republic, because the USA was founded as a republic and it has never been a monarchy as an independent state.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,155
Reply with quote  #30 
Britain lost its empire, because it refused to grant its colonies representation in the Parliament. The American colonies seceded from the British Empire, because they had to pay taxes to the British government without being represented in the British Parliament, and Britain refused to establish an Imperial Federation, because the British government didn't want to share power with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Britain lost Australia and Canada, while Russia kept Siberia and Denmark kept Greenland.
Russia and Denmark were once empires. They have lost most of their imperial possessions, but they have kept their largest colonies. Britain losing India was inevitable, but Britain could have kept Canada, Australia and New Zealand, if Canada, Australia and New Zealand had been granted representation in the British Parliament, because most Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis are white Anglophones.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.