Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 10 of 13     «   Prev   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   Next
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #136 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
We recognise people as noble who derive their nobility from the rules prevailing in the last German jurisdiction(s) that recognised and regulated nobility. You have been very offended (allegedly) because no one here will recognise your claim to be noble, which you somehow derive from the rules regulating surnames in successor jurisdictions which have abolished nobility altogether. You are now kindly offering to stop promoting your preposterous claim and absurd reasoning if we will abandon our entirely sensible and reasoned views. How can I best put this? Ah yes. Fick Dich und das Pferd, auf dem Du her geritten bist.

I don't recognize agnatic descendants of German noble families as noblemen, because the German nobility has been abolished by a legitimate government. I don't care about the Vereinigung der Deutschen Adelsverbände, because it fortunately isn't recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany. I actually don't consider myself a nobleman, because the Federal Republic of Germany doesn't recognize anybody as a nobleman. I have claimed to be a nobleman on this forum, because I won't accept not being considered a nobleman, if agnatic descendants of German noble families are considered noblemen. The name laws of the Federal Republic of Germany don't distinguish between agnatic descendants of noble families and cognatic descendants of noble families, but the name laws of the Federal Republic of Germany deny people, who lack recent noble ancestry, the right to use noble surnames.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #137 
Pneumatic drills make less repetitive noises than you do.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,845
Reply with quote  #138 
It's also an obvious falsehood. Azadi was clearly proclaiming himself a nobleman unqualified until his claim fell apart. Only then did he switch tack, as he has done several times already.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #139 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
It's also an obvious falsehood. Azadi was clearly proclaiming himself a nobleman unqualified until his claim fell apart. Only then did he switch tack, as he has done several times already.

I wouldn't have claimed to be a nobleman on this forum, if most members of this forum haven't recognized agnatic descendants of German noble families as noblemen. I don't object to not being recognized as a nobleman by other members of this forum, but I object to being considered a commoner, while descendants of agnatic descendants of German noble families are considered noblemen. I'm no less entitled to use a noble surname than an agnatic descendant of a German nobility. I'm sick and tired of other members of this forum pretending that the German nobility exists today, because it fortunately has been abolished.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,845
Reply with quote  #140 
Apart from the usual idiocy, you are lying. You were banging on about being a nobleman from the beginning.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #141 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Apart from the usual idiocy, you are lying. You were banging on about being a nobleman from the beginning.

I was indeed banging on about being a nobleman from the beginning, because I'm no less entitled to the status of nobility than agnatic descendants of German noble families. We aren't noblemen, because the German nobility fortunately has been abolished, but we are entitled to use former titles of nobility as parts of our names, unlike Germans, who lack recent noble ancestry.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,845
Reply with quote  #142 
Go away.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #143 
And here comes the straw man again. No one has ever quarrelled with your right to use your mother's maiden name as your surname. No one is denying either that the legal status of nobility was abolished in 1919. We don't assert a legal status for nobility in Germany today. We just recognise that a person who derives their nobility from the rules prevailing in Germany's former monarchical jurisdictions is noble. It would be nice if now and again you argued with what people actually said rather than with what you pretend they did, but we've learned by now not to expect it. As for considering you a commoner, I'm not sure that considering you an insect wouldn't be overstating my esteem.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #144 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor
Azadi there is nothing wrong with you being proud of your family's noble history but I think its time for you to admit that you are a commoner of noble descent, not a noble in your own right.

I'm willing to accept not being a nobleman, because the German nobility was abolished in 1919, but I'm not willing to accept being a commoner, because all Germans are citizens rather than nobles or commoners. I'm a German citizen, who is a descendant of a noble family and the agnatic descendants of German noble families are citizens, who are descendants of noble families.
I'm not a republican, despite being opposed to privileges of nobility. A monarchist being opposed to privileges of nobility isn't inconsistent, because granting privileges to a single family doesn't establish a hierarchical society. I'm a monarchist, who wants all subjects of the monarch to be equal before the law. Japan and Norway have abolished titles of nobility, while remaining monarchies. I want a Romanov Tsar to be the successor of Vladimir Putin, but I'm opposed to the Russian nobility being restored. I don't care about restoration of the German monarchy, because Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are German-speaking countries, but I'm not opposed to a Hohenzollern restoration in Germany. I'm opposed to the German nobility being restored, if the German monarchy is restored.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #145 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
German nobility doesn't exist today.


Literally everyone here disagrees with you on that point. We think nobility is a thing, and that it matters, regardless of what an abominable secular republic did to destroy its former institutions following the great war. It is a thing worth restoring with the protection of law. 

We all differ on what kind of society and privileges and whatnot ought to be afforded them, and I'm likely on the far right end of the spectrum here, but that nobility is a thing because it was passed down through the generations is so uncontroversial in a forum full of monarchists that it's somewhat baffling when someone who claims to be a monarchist thinks otherwise. I know probably 3 dozen monarchists at my parish alone (which I no is a little odd in the US, but it's an ICRSP oratory), and any of them would find your position absurd.

Hence, you're a republican by any reasonable definition.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #146 
All societies are hierarchical. The only question is whether the hierarchy is formal or informal. Usually, it's a mix of both. And I have no objection to a system of nobility that gives people formal status by heredity. However, surprise, I do agree with you that all should be equal under the law, that is the same law applies to a duke as to everyone else, the monarch who is the source of law aside. You seem to have a rooted objection to hereditary legislators. I don't, I think they have advantages, though only in a revising chamber, the primary chamber should be elected. The alternatives for a revising chamber are appointment and election, the former usually ending up in a chamber stuffed with failed politicians and retired bureaucratic hacks with a leavening of party donors and film and sports stars. That's certainly how Britain's present Lords has worked out.

The latter has obvious potential for conflict between primary and revising chambers. Hereditary legislators is a good enough system, which does provide for a mixture of age and experience that the alternatives in practice don't and keeps out politicians for the most part. And a peerage can always be added to, so there is an element of appointment. Now, I don't think anyone would argue too hard as to whether I'm a monarchist. So you could be also, belief in equality before the law by no means precludes the possibility. And while most monarchists are rather fans of having a nobility it isn't a requirement to join. What makes me doubt it in your case is a distinct lack of enthusiasm for restorations outside of one or two favoured cases, plus your distinct enthusiasm for people personally responsible for overthrowing monarchies in favour of republics (actually dictatorships, but called republics), in one case involving a regicide.

Plus your having acted throughout your time here exactly like a cleverer republican troll than usual would. To make it clear, I don't think anyone is a bad person for supporting republican government. Some here do, but I don't. This though is supposed to be a place where monarchists can talk about monarchies and monarchism without constantly having to defend themselves from republican sneering. A 'safe space', if you like. Your activities over the last few months have made it seem anything but that, and have also made you heartily detested, I think it fair to say. Now, I have given you a reasoned reply. Go away and think about it for a while, and if you should happen to want to continue here as a normal forum member come back with a reasoned response.

PS Aaron and I differ, but we are recognisably coming from the same place. Our question is, are you?

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #147 
It actually is unusual in real life, and among sincere monarchists (which you evidently are not) unknown. In real life, people who live in monarchies tend to support their own, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, while giving little if any thought to the monarchies of other countries, and certainly not at all to the monarchies some countries used to have. This is not 'supporting current monarchies, while not supporting restoration of monarchies'. It is complete indifference to any monarchy but your own. Qasim treated the Kurdish people so well that they and his regime were at war withing two years of his coup, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring as it doesn't suit your narrative. The risible King of Kings of Africa title was bought and paid for with money stolen from the Libyan people by a monstrous and murderous tyrant whose boots staunch little democrat you love to lick. Nor is he the only one whose footwear regularly receives your oral attention.

I can't be bothered with the rest of the tedious and repetitive tripe. You have shown yourself as either uninterested in or incapable of reform, and the post you so unnecessarily but as always quoted in full will be my last attempt to elicit improved behaviour. Such is clearly not on offer, and won't ever be.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #148 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
All societies are hierarchical. The only question is whether the hierarchy is formal or informal. Usually, it's a mix of both. And I have no objection to a system of nobility that gives people formal status by heredity. However, surprise, I do agree with you that all should be equal under the law, that is the same law applies to a duke as to everyone else, the monarch who is the source of law aside. You seem to have a rooted objection to hereditary legislators. I don't, I think they have advantages, though only in a revising chamber, the primary chamber should be elected. The alternatives for a revising chamber are appointment and election, the former usually ending up in a chamber stuffed with failed politicians and retired bureaucratic hacks with a leavening of party donors and film and sports stars. That's certainly how Britain's present Lords has worked out.

The latter has obvious potential for conflict between primary and revising chambers. Hereditary legislators is a good enough system, which does provide for a mixture of age and experience that the alternatives in practice don't and keeps out politicians for the most part. And a peerage can always be added to, so there is an element of appointment. Now, I don't think anyone would argue too hard as to whether I'm a monarchist. So you could be also, belief in equality before the law by no means precludes the possibility. And while most monarchists are rather fans of having a nobility it isn't a requirement to join. What makes me doubt it in your case is a distinct lack of enthusiasm for restorations outside of one or two favoured cases, plus your distinct enthusiasm for people personally responsible for overthrowing monarchies in favour of republics (actually dictatorships, but called republics), in one case involving a regicide.

Plus your having acted throughout your time here exactly like a cleverer republican troll than usual would. To make it clear, I don't think anyone is a bad person for supporting republican government. Some here do, but I don't. This though is supposed to be a place where monarchists can talk about monarchies and monarchism without constantly having to defend themselves from republican sneering. A 'safe space', if you like. Your activities over the last few months have made it seem anything but that, and have also made you heartily detested, I think it fair to say. Now, I have given you a reasoned reply. Go away and think about it for a while, and if you should happen to want to continue here as a normal forum member come back with a reasoned response.

PS Aaron and I differ, but we are recognisably coming from the same place. Our question is, are you?


Claiming that I'm a republican, because I don't support restoration of monarchies, except in Russia and in the Iranic nations, is utterly wrong. Supporting current monarchies, while not supporting restoration of monarchies, is hardly unusual in real life. I like Qasim, because he treated the Kurds better than the Hashemite kings of Iraq did, not because I'm an ideological republican. I'm a monarchist, but the well-being of the Kurdish people is more important to me than monarchism. Gaddafi was actually elected King of Kings of Africa by 200 African traditional rulers. 
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #149 
I have never called members of this forum, who lack recent noble ancestry, peasants, except Aaron Traas, who claims to be 100% peasant on his profile. I don't consider people, who lack recent noble ancestry, to be inferior. I'm proud of my noble ancestry, but I'm a staunch supporter of equality before the law and I'm a staunch opponent of formal social hierarchies. I support allowing descendants of noble families to use former titles of nobility as parts of their names, despite supporting abolition of the nobility.
Former titles of nobility, such as Graf and Freiherr, remain prestigious in Germany today, but most Germans don't care about whether a person, who uses a former title of nobility as a part of his name, is an agnatic descendant of a German noble family. The Vereinigung der Deutschen Adelsverbände supports upholding the old rules, but most Germans don't care about the Vereinigung der Deutschen Adelsverbände. Most Germans are staunch supporters of gender equality. The Vereinigung der Deutschen Adelsverbände is a Jurassic Park.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #150 
Now the cretinous troll has deleted what I replied to in my previous post, then repeated the same gabble I just refuted. Perhaps he was trying to show why it is always necessary to quote in full when you reply, because you can't trust the other person not to delete what you answered in a fit of pique at being contradicted. The fact is you usually can, unless the other person is you. I'm still not stooping to your methods, go ahead and delete the current garbage like you did the last lot.

PS This refers to the post before the troll's last one, at least it does for as long as either survives.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.