Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Was it not created by a needless, lawless, and unjust revolution against a legitimate monarch?


One could perhaps say that about the first Empire (1822-23), but not about the Second (1864-67).   Emperor Maximilian (1832-1867) was of course a direct descendant of King Carlos I (1500-1558) in whose name Mexico had been conquered.
Tolgron

Registered:
Posts: 195
Reply with quote  #17 

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Well, Norton I tried... 

God save His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Norton I of San Francisco, Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico. All hail!
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #18 
What happened to Emperor Maximilian was a great tragedy for Mexico and for monarchists everywhere.   Talk about a counterfactual scenario: Mexico would be celebrating its 150 year anniversary of its monarchy soon.  By the way, why did Mexico refer to itself as an empire rather than a kingdom?  Is this from the Napoleonic influence?

__________________
"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."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #19 
I imagine from the Aztec rulers. who had usually been called Emperors even though that wasn't really what they were at all. Mexico actually won its independence under the name of the Mexican Empire, even though then lacking an Emperor. I suppose the vast extent of its territory might have also been a factor; it is a large enough country now but was far bigger then, including Central America as far as Panama and a number of current US states, and not the smallest ones either.
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Quote:
Was it not created by a needless, lawless, and unjust revolution against a legitimate monarch?


One could perhaps say that about the first Empire (1822-23), but not about the Second (1864-67).   Emperor Maximilian (1832-1867) was of course a direct descendant of King Carlos I (1500-1558) in whose name Mexico had been conquered.


Evil though the fall of the Mexican monarchy was in itself, I am somewhat glad that that Buonapartist-Habsburg scheme failed, despite my incredible sympathy to the pan-Latinist pro-Catholic policies that shaped it.  But I have no interest in the Habsburgs having a foothold in the Western hemisphere, given the ill effects that would certainly come from the application of the evil belief AEIOU.  Also, the fall of the Mexican monarchy has the added benefit of removing any successful legacy whatsoever from that arch-usurper Corsican family -- now, their only legacies are monuments, national decline, and the ruin of Christendom.  They cannot treacherously usurp a throne and then rest upon it; the infamy of their position prevents any of their actions from taking root and flourishing.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

bator

Registered:
Posts: 296
Reply with quote  #21 

well maximilian had no children and had adopted as his heir the descendent of the first emperor of mexico and thus uniting the two claims. so the hapsburgs wouldnt have continued on the throne anyway but have been succeeded by the iturbides. so really a disaster the the monarchy was abolished.

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bator

well maximilian had no children and had adopted as his heir the descendent of the first emperor of mexico and thus uniting the two claims. so the hapsburgs wouldnt have continued on the throne anyway but have been succeeded by the iturbides. so really a disaster the the monarchy was abolished.



That's good.  Long live the House of Iturbide.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

Jeannette

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #23 
Neither the U.K. or Spain have a foothold in the modern southwestern United States, so it makes no sense to jump to such a conclusion that a Monarch ruling over California would be from one of those countries.
Take into account that being a Monarchist does not mean you are loyal to specific royal families or nations, nor does it mean you favor Imperialism. I for one am completely opposed to Imperialism and would fight a movement for Spain or Britain to conquer my next-door-neighbors. They have no right to rule over Californians.

As for if Californians became their own nation... They're Democrats (meaning they distrust leaders and authorities by default-a huge challenge for anyone aspiring to have a throne over them). But, in the event of becoming a kingdom, it is possible no matter how unlikely... If it were a foriegner trying to conquer them, presently called Americans would rise up in alliance against it because it is unethical. (And, if they were permitted to take California, they'd then go after more of us.) But, a California native Monarch wouldn't upset the whole of the U.S.
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,066
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Well, Norton I tried... 



I just came across this thread and now I beleive I have found something to go and see in this area! I shall have to make a pilgrimage to His Imperial Majesty's grave sit to pay my respects.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.