Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

The nobility being granted any legal privileges is unacceptable to me, even if it doesn't harm the society, because the principle of the nobles and the commoners having equal rights must be upheld without any exceptions. The Weimar Constitution abolished all legal privileges of the German nobility without any exceptions. 
With all due respect, it isn't clear why anyone else should accept your "must" here. Anyway, we are all well aware of your personal tastes by now, so there's little point in you repeating them ad nauseam without adding anything in way of argument or addition.

And, again, you seem to often reach for analogies without sufficiently establishing them as such: Italy, Spain, and now the Weimar Republic.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
And we all know how the Weimar Republic ended up, don't we. Well, all of us but one, perhaps. Turning again to Spain, since the end of the Napoleonic Wars it has been a constitutional monarchy, an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy again, an absolute monarchy again, a constitutional monarchy again, a different constitutional monarchy, a republic, a constitutional monarchy again, a dictatorship under a monarchy, a republic again, a dictatorship and a constitutional monarchy again. During the same period Britain has been a constitutional monarchy. I might have missed out or muddled up a phase or two with Spain, pretty sure I got them all in the right order for Britain. During those two centuries Spain had four (4) civil wars. And during those two centuries Britain had no (0) civil wars. From an objective point of view, which of the two countries would you say provides a better example of governance?

Britain having avoided dictatorships and civil wars since the 17th century, unlike Spain, doesn't mean that Britain currently is better governed than Spain. Spain currently is a stable democracy.
The rules of the Weimar Constitution regarding the German nobility remain valid today. Germany currently is a stable democracy, which fortunately recognizes titles of nobility and nobiliary particles as parts of the surname, while not recognizing the nobility as a social class.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #33 
Britain is undoubtedly better governed than Spain, though not perhaps Germany. Whether or not they remain in force today is irrelevant, unless you can show they have some kind of moral force for Britain today, which you haven't done.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Britain is undoubtedly better governed than Spain, though not perhaps Germany. Whether or not they remain in force today is irrelevant, unless you can show they have some kind of moral force for Britain today, which you haven't done.

Britain hasn't been well-governed since 1979. The post-war consensus was the golden era of Britain. Corruption is far less widespread in Britain than in Spain, but Britain isn't otherwise better governed than Spain. Germany is far better governed than Britain.
I have noticed that most British members of this forum are strongly opposed to reforms of the ancient institutions of Britain. Most British members of this forum are opposed to the British monarch being granted freedom of religion, support hereditary membership of the House of Lords, are opposed to the introduction of female succession to the British peerages and prefer the Law Lords to the Supreme Court of the UK. The British members of this forum being unanimously opposed to those reforms is very strange, because those reforms aren't threats to the British monarchy. The vast majority of the Britons wants to keep the monarchy, while supporting the hereditary peers being expelled from the House of Lords. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #35 
As one who lived through that golden era and remembers it well though hardly fondly, the troll is as usual talking complete and utter nonsense on a subject he knows nothing about. The vast majority of Britons would it is true be quite unmoved if the remaining hereditaries were to be expelled. That doesn't mean they 'support' the idea, though. One can hardly be said to support something to which one has never devoted a moment's thought, this being due to entire lack of interest. As for our wishing to preserve Britain's ancient institutions, guilty as charged. In monarchist circles this would normally be considered a virtue.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #36 
What are you talking about? That is just a bizarre assertion. It seems to be based on nothing except your socialist prejudices. It is also, again, just shows your lack of actual acquittance with modern Britain - the idea Britain was better governed in the 1970s than the 80s is hilarious.

The British members of this forum no doubt see no need to get rid of the remaining trappings of our ancient institutions to turn Britain into another drab republic, even a crowned one. The more we hack at tradition and give in to the idea that democracy and egalitarianism are absolute goals in politics, the more we do very likely weaken the monarchy.
Royallover

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #37 
I am a firm believer in the proper social order and noble obligation. There is no such thing as equality before the law it is a falsehood and limited monarchy has shown itself to be weak. Universal voting is a plague on the world and needs to stop.  Look at what has happened and how crazy the world has gotten with the rise of liberalism and universal voting and the lie that everyone is equal. I see nothing wrong with the nobles have privileges they should have it over the greedy and the corporate and the rest of what makes up the social called fake social betters of today they have no breeding or classes or vision they are a product of all the worst elements of this society. 
Royallover

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
What are you talking about? That is just a bizarre assertion. It seems to be based on nothing except your socialist prejudices. It is also, again, just shows your lack of actual acquittance with modern Britain - the idea Britain was better governed in the 1970s than the 80s is hilarious.

The British members of this forum no doubt see no need to get rid of the remaining trappings of our ancient institutions to turn Britain into another drab republic, even a crowned one. The more we hack at tradition and give in to the idea that democracy and egalitarianism are absolute goals in politics, the more we do very likely weaken the monarchy.
I could not agree more!
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 365
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
What are you talking about? That is just a bizarre assertion. It seems to be based on nothing except your socialist prejudices. It is also, again, just shows your lack of actual acquittance with modern Britain - the idea Britain was better governed in the 1970s than the 80s is hilarious.

Azadi isn't a socialist, Wessexman. He's a social democrat who calls himself a socialist because he's not a Blairite; do try to keep up. Oh, and a staunch believer in equality and modernisation of government who regularly boasts about his alleged aristocratic heritage and thinks women shouldn't be elected leaders of political parties if they're "ugly," and opposes the hereditary peers being included in the House of Lords because it's "undemocratic" but loves dictators like Vladimir Putin and Muammar Gaddafi. 

It's not exactly a shocker that monarchists should be defenders of tradition and of the hereditary principle in government. There is no controversy in that whatsoever. What is shocking is that someone might think that modern Spain is better governed than the UK; that's hilariously false, although Spain's constitution isn't all that bad and does offer, for a example, a useful model for a formal unitary state with a high level of devolution to its constituent parts, which we might consider examining given the relatively messy nature of devolution here in the UK. 

On the post-war consensus, I'm not a great fan of Thatcherism so there are certainly elements of that period of British history that I look back on with nostalgia, but I'm not deluded enough to think it was by any means a "golden age." Modern Britain has its problems, but at least we don't generally have to worry about the lights going out every night because of fuel shortages. I think that both post-war Britain and post-Thatcher Britain have their positive and negative points, just as I feel that there is much to pine for about the late Victorian and Edwardian period but I wouldn't cheerfully give up everything about the 21st century to get them back. The aim should be to recognise and attempt to preserve or restore the best elements of all parts of our history, as far as is possible. 

__________________
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
Royallover

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

Azadi isn't a socialist, Wessexman. He's a social democrat who calls himself a socialist because he's not a Blairite; do try to keep up. Oh, and a staunch believer in equality and modernisation of government who regularly boasts about his alleged aristocratic heritage and thinks women shouldn't be elected leaders of political parties if they're "ugly," and opposes the hereditary peers being included in the House of Lords because it's "undemocratic" but loves dictators like Vladimir Putin and Muammar Gaddafi. 

It's not exactly a shocker that monarchists should be defenders of tradition and of the hereditary principle in government. There is no controversy in that whatsoever. What is shocking is that someone might think that modern Spain is better governed than the UK; that's hilariously false, although Spain's constitution isn't all that bad and does offer, for a example, a useful model for a formal unitary state with a high level of devolution to its constituent parts, which we might consider examining given the relatively messy nature of devolution here in the UK. 

On the post-war consensus, I'm not a great fan of Thatcherism so there are certainly elements of that period of British history that I look back on with nostalgia, but I'm not deluded enough to think it was by any means a "golden age." Modern Britain has its problems, but at least we don't generally have to worry about the lights going out every night because of fuel shortages. I think that both post-war Britain and post-Thatcher Britain have their positive and negative points, just as I feel that there is much to pine for about the late Victorian and Edwardian period but I wouldn't cheerfully give up everything about the 21st century to get them back. The aim should be to recognise and attempt to preserve or restore the best elements of all parts of our history, as far as is possible. 
I could not agree more we can move forward but keep the best elements of the Victorian and Edwardian past. Just because we live in the future does not mean we can not live in the past with modern comforts and modern health care
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

Azadi isn't a socialist, Wessexman. He's a social democrat who calls himself a socialist because he's not a Blairite; do try to keep up. Oh, and a staunch believer in equality and modernisation of government who regularly boasts about his alleged aristocratic heritage and thinks women shouldn't be elected leaders of political parties if they're "ugly," and opposes the hereditary peers being included in the House of Lords because it's "undemocratic" but loves dictators like Vladimir Putin and Muammar Gaddafi. 

It's not exactly a shocker that monarchists should be defenders of tradition and of the hereditary principle in government. There is no controversy in that whatsoever. What is shocking is that someone might think that modern Spain is better governed than the UK; that's hilariously false, although Spain's constitution isn't all that bad and does offer, for a example, a useful model for a formal unitary state with a high level of devolution to its constituent parts, which we might consider examining given the relatively messy nature of devolution here in the UK. 

On the post-war consensus, I'm not a great fan of Thatcherism so there are certainly elements of that period of British history that I look back on with nostalgia, but I'm not deluded enough to think it was by any means a "golden age." Modern Britain has its problems, but at least we don't generally have to worry about the lights going out every night because of fuel shortages. I think that both post-war Britain and post-Thatcher Britain have their positive and negative points, just as I feel that there is much to pine for about the late Victorian and Edwardian period but I wouldn't cheerfully give up everything about the 21st century to get them back. The aim should be to recognise and attempt to preserve or restore the best elements of all parts of our history, as far as is possible. 

A nobleman supporting equality before the law is hardly surprising. Most German noblemen don't support restoration of legal privileges of nobility. Ursula von der Leyen is a German noblewoman. She doesn't support restoration of privileges of nobility. Being proud of my noble heritage doesn't mean that I support discrimination of commoners. The Federal Republic of Germany honours the legacy of the noble houses of Germany by recognizing their titles as part of the surname, while upholding the principle of equality before the law by banning legal privileges of nobility.
Russia isn't a democracy, but Putin is formally elected by the Russian people. The Russian Federation doesn't recognize titles of nobility. I support keeping titles of nobility in countries, which currently recognizes titles of nobility, such as Germany, Spain and Britain, but I'm opposed to restoration of titles of nobility in countries, which have abolished titles of nobility, such as Russia and Japan. 

Royallover

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

A nobleman supporting equality before the law is hardly surprising. Most German noblemen don't support restoration of legal privileges of nobility. Ursula von der Leyen is a German noblewoman. She doesn't support restoration of privileges of nobility. Being proud of my noble heritage doesn't mean that I support discrimination of commoners. The Federal Republic of Germany honours the legacy of the noble houses of Germany by recognizing their titles as part of the surname, while upholding the principle of equality before the law by banning legal privileges of nobility.
Russia isn't a democracy, but Putin is formally elected by the Russian people. The Russian Federation doesn't recognize titles of nobility. I support keeping titles of nobility in countries, which currently recognizes titles of nobility, such as Germany, Spain and Britain, but I'm opposed to restoration of titles of nobility in countries, which have abolished titles of nobility, such as Russia and Japan. 

You and the nobles and like everyone else has bought into the falsehoods and lies of that evil and godless French Revolution and the lies of Liberalism 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #43 
A troll claiming to be a nobleman on a monarchy forum is hardly surprising. The troll would calculate that anyone dumb enough to support monarchies would also be dumb enough to accept and be impressed by a completely unverified claim to be noble. The troll would be wrong on both counts. But then, it's actually the troll that's dumb.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royallover
You and the nobles and like everyone else has bought into the falsehoods and lies of that evil and godless French Revolution and the lies of Liberalism 

I'm a staunch supporter of popular sovereignty. The constitutions of Spain and Japan recognize popular sovereignty. I want the king to be the head of state without being the Sovereign. Hereditary membership of the legislative assembly is incompatible with popular sovereignty, because legislative power ought to belong to the representatives of the people. Britain and Tonga ought to abolish hereditary membership of the parliament. 
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
A troll claiming to be a nobleman on a monarchy forum is hardly surprising. The troll would calculate that anyone dumb enough to support monarchies would also be dumb enough to accept and be impressed by a completely unverified claim to be noble. The troll would be wrong on both counts. But then, it's actually the troll that's dumb.

Please stop slandering me. I'm actually a genuine monarchist. I support keeping the current European monarchies and I support restoring the Russian monarchy. 
Murtagon once asked me whether I'm an agnatic descendant of a German noble house. I replied that my mother is an agnatic descendant of a German noble house. A troll would have claimed to be an agnatic descendant of a German noble house, when asked about it. I'm bearing the surname of my German noble house. Bearing the surname of the noble house of your mother is fortunately legal in the Federal Republic of Germany. 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.