Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #1 
– Hereditary absolute monarchy – no parliament – i.e., Toryism.
– Understand that current hereditary monarchs may accommodate themselves to liberal institutions, so must be allies to the right of them, seeking to undermine limitations on the monarchy and restore absolutism.
– In cases where there is no monarch – in favor of Caesarism that would either restore a legitimate monarch (like Franco) or in cases where a traditional monarchy is too far removed, establish a hereditary monarchy based on a new dynasty that will uphold traditional norms.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,815
Reply with quote  #2 
I don't think Toryism ever demanded that there be no parliament.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #3 
Perhaps, maybe that would be under 2.   It's ok to have a symbolic parliament; like in the Roman Empire, the Senate became symbolic.
__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #4 
Or how the House of Lords has become symbolic.
__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 857
Reply with quote  #5 
I'm not sure why this is under off-topic serious? I would say it's a core matter concerning monarchy. In any case, we had a conversation about this some time ago on another thread which got interrupted because DavidV felt like it didn't belong there. Perhaps it can be resumed here. I basically argued that while most monarchs are good people, one person with absolute powers and all the powers of the modern state (which are only going to keep increasing as technology advances) could be absolutely disasterous. Looking at England alone you can find some examples of people with bad intentions on the throne.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #6 
A monarch always has other checks – there are powerful individuals and institutions below him in the government, peerage, heads of institutions, religious leaders etc.   On paper, the monarch may have the ultimate authority, but in practice he must be realistic.   Also there are customs and procedures that are difficult to break, or are not broken lightly.   There are limits that are placed by family members and family tradition.  There are the basic demands of a prosperous economy.   I'm in favor of someone who is clearly in command (not a front for other partisans) who has the ultimate responsibility – the monarch would also have the greatest private and long-term stake in the whole realm.  

I'm not against the monarch seeking private opinions for counsel – he certainly will have a privy court.   I just argue that this should not be democratic – nor should there be any institution or procedure that is officially democratic unless the monarch wants some kind of poll for a specific issue.  I'm basically opposed to the liberal tradition of the last 350 years – and it has an inner logic and goal that perhaps wasn't apparent to earlier adherents.   

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #7 
In theory, I support Ponocrates's basic position, though, like RoyalCello, I don't think there need be no parliament. I am, however, somewhat weary of changing too much at the moment. I think there is evidence the liberal consensus is fragile and may not last, but I think that there would be great risk to try and undermine it at this time - it is unlikely that something better

Following on from what Dutchmonarchist brings up, and our last discussion, I don't think it is democracy per se that has given us the relative respect for the rule of law that many Western nations have enjoyed in recent centuries. I think it is accountability that has done this - the fact that abuse and corruption can be very often found out and brought to account. Democracy and parliaments have played a role in this, but even more important, I would say, are organs like the press, public opinion, the fact that it is much harder to hide abuses from the public and nation at large, checks and balances, and so on. I agree with Ponocrates that there are always checks and balances on a monarch, but I would add that, though he should be theoretically absolute, a monarch should respect practical checks and balances. In the early modern era many monarchs tried to throw off all limits on their power, which I don't think was wise. The French monarchy, for example, did need to curb disorder and abuse caused by the power of the grandees, but it went too far in crushing the checks and balance provided by nobility and parlement.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #8 
1) the "liberal consensus" is fragile and should be: it is based on a rotting edifice with its contradictions.   It needs a little help and a push to topple over.   

2) democracy chiefly helps oligarchs who don't have the national interest in mind.   Elected politicians have their golden parachutes – a monarch is in it for the long haul

3) the press goes after corruption selectively and are complicit and cover up the corruption of their paymasters and allies.   "The press" is part of the establishment.   There is a reason it is one of the least trusted institutions in society.

4) I agree that the absolutism in the 18th century was short-sighted in undercutting the aristocracy and the clergy – they were duped with Enlightenment thought, which was then turned on them in 1789 and the following century.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #9 
The problem is what would follow liberalism. I'm not confident that it would better at this point.

It cannot be denied that the at the moment things are better than one would have expected. Things are somewhat tolerable, indeed, when they didn't have to be, looking back at last century and at the forces at work in our society today. Modern liberal democracies do generally respect the rule of law. Some of this is due to the fact they live on the moral and cultural capital of the past, but some of it is because of institutions like the press, as corrupt as it can be, and the sheer accountability when it comes to abuse (which is, I think, largely an accident that came about from a fortuitous collision of numerous moral, social, and cultural factors, and even technology, and is certainly not the necessary outcome of democracy or even liberalism).
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Modern liberal democracies do generally respect the rule of law.


I'm not so sure about that – law is selectively applied – if you are well connected, you generally can get around the law.   Look at who may become president soon, look at the lack of prosecutions against Wall Street bankers.   And the press is completely corrupt and are little different from what Pravda was in the Soviet Union as a propaganda tool.  

And we are not just talking about liberal democracies nation-by-nation, but the emerging neo-liberal global order.   This certainly will not be transparent – not democratic – not rule of law, etc.  Someone just said there are only three sovereign nations in the world: the neo-liberal global order, Russia, and China.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
House_of_Luxembourg

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
1) the "liberal consensus" is fragile and should be: it is based on a rotting edifice with its contradictions.   It needs a little help and a push to topple over.   

2) democracy chiefly helps oligarchs who don't have the national interest in mind.   Elected politicians have their golden parachutes – a monarch is in it for the long haul

3) the press goes after corruption selectively and are complicit and cover up the corruption of their paymasters and allies.   "The press" is part of the establishment.   There is a reason it is one of the least trusted institutions in society.

4) I agree that the absolutism in the 18th century was short-sighted in undercutting the aristocracy and the clergy – they were duped with Enlightenment thought, which was then turned on them in 1789 and the following century.


Good points all.

__________________
"With God's help it will never be that a Bohemian king would run from a fight!"
- John the Blind
(according to an account in the Cronica ecclesiae pragensis Benesii Krabice de Weitmile)

ECH WUNN
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,286
Reply with quote  #12 
Here's something to depress everyone...  

Apparently a large number of Millenials really like communism.

http://nickobongiorno.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/5.jpg

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #13 
Ethio, did you mean to link to an article?
__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #14 
Very interesting.

https://nickobongiorno.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/5.jpg

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,286
Reply with quote  #15 
Oops that was an unfortunate mistake. Now I can't find the original link I meant to post. [mad][mad][mad]

The picture I posted here by mistake is of course the Crown Prince (soon to be King) of Thailand with his fashion designer daughter (on his right) and his consort/companion on his left.  Sorry.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.