Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #1 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

British lawyers say it was illegal. American lawyers defend it as legal.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,580
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

British lawyers say it was illegal. American lawyers defend it as legal.


Of course, it was illegal. Last time I checked, the Treason Act, 1351 was in force in the British Dominions on 4 July 1776.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #3 
Like the deposition of James II and VII, which comes up in the American arguments, it was ex post facto legal. Unlike that, though, it was unjustifiable and unreasonable. The grievances of the colonists were really not worth shedding a single drop of anyone's blood for (and the American lawyers might have taken a moment to reflect that no one's blood was shed in the Glorious Revolution, making the comparison even more inappropriate). Makes no difference to the fact that the rebel forces won, and thus what was originally treason and insurrection became retrospectively lawful.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #4 
However I do insist that the independence of the US should be dated from 1783 and not 1776...not that many outside this forum are likely to care...
wainscottbl

Registered:
Posts: 158
Reply with quote  #5 

Did not George supposedly grant independence to the US in that year?


__________________
My most dear lord, king and husband,

The hour of my death now drawing on, the tender love I owe you forceth me, my case being such, to commend myself to you, and to put you in remembrance with a few words of the health and safeguard of your soul which you ought to prefer before all worldly matters, and before the care and pampering of your body, for the which you have cast me into many calamities and yourself into many troubles. For my part, I pardon you everything, and I wish to devoutly pray God that He will pardon you also. For the rest, I commend unto you our daughter Mary, beseeching you to be a good father unto her, as I have heretofore desired. I entreat you also, on behalf of my maids, to give them marriage portions, which is not much, they being but three. For all my other servants I solicit the wages due them, and a year more, lest they be unprovided for. Lastly, I make this vow, that mine eyes desire you above all things.

Katherine of Aragon, last letter to Henry
wainscottbl

Registered:
Posts: 158
Reply with quote  #6 

To play devil's advocate, if so, that seems the strongest argument of Americanists. How they can even maintain the greviences lodged were legitimate is beyond me when they would oppose the sucession of the Confederacy or Texas is beyond me, but....


__________________
My most dear lord, king and husband,

The hour of my death now drawing on, the tender love I owe you forceth me, my case being such, to commend myself to you, and to put you in remembrance with a few words of the health and safeguard of your soul which you ought to prefer before all worldly matters, and before the care and pampering of your body, for the which you have cast me into many calamities and yourself into many troubles. For my part, I pardon you everything, and I wish to devoutly pray God that He will pardon you also. For the rest, I commend unto you our daughter Mary, beseeching you to be a good father unto her, as I have heretofore desired. I entreat you also, on behalf of my maids, to give them marriage portions, which is not much, they being but three. For all my other servants I solicit the wages due them, and a year more, lest they be unprovided for. Lastly, I make this vow, that mine eyes desire you above all things.

Katherine of Aragon, last letter to Henry
Pragmatist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 586
Reply with quote  #7 
Was the William of Normandy's invasion legal?

Was the Anglo-Saxon invasion legal?

Was Caesar's invasion legal?

Was Brutus of Troy's invasion legal?





__________________
in America, the law is King
-Thomas Paine
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #8 
What is your point?  Presumably you're alleging some sort of inconsistency, but virtually everyone approves of some dramatic historical events but not others.  I don't think anyone believes that every regime change has been good or that every regime change has been bad.

I know you support the American Revolution, but generally oppose other revolutions such as the French and Russian.  That's a coherent and respectable position for an American monarchist to take, though it's not mine, but it's hardly more inconsistent to oppose all three of those while not getting too worked up about 1066 (though J.R.R. Tolkien did and I probably would have too had I been an Anglo-Saxon in the 11th century).

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #9 
Prag,
You're asking about invasions, not revolutions.
And before you go there, the English obtained Treaties - one of the 'complaints' in the 'great propaganda paper' is that HM King George III was actually insisting that the colonists abide by them...It is the 'Americans' who invaded most of North America (above the Rio Grande) - and not the English or British.


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Pragmatist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 586
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
What is your point?  Presumably you're alleging some sort of inconsistency, but virtually everyone approves of some dramatic historical events but not others.  I don't think anyone believes that every regime change has been good or that every regime change has been bad.

I know you support the American Revolution, but generally oppose other revolutions such as the French and Russian.  That's a coherent and respectable position for an American monarchist to take, though it's not mine, but it's hardly more inconsistent to oppose all three of those while not getting too worked up about 1066 (though J.R.R. Tolkien did and I probably would have too had I been an Anglo-Saxon in the 11th century).



My point is that it obviously was illegal under English law. It doesn't matter: Annuit coeptis.


__________________
in America, the law is King
-Thomas Paine
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #11 
So does God approve of the French and Russian revolutions too?  After all, they happened.
Pragmatist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 586
Reply with quote  #12 
Naturally, I don't know.

On the French question. I suspect that the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (opening the door for more St. Bart's Day type horror) sewed an evil seed for an evil revolution. Read Fox's Book of Martyrs.


__________________
in America, the law is King
-Thomas Paine
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #13 
On the contrary I would say that if anything it was the barbaric iconoclasm of the French Huguenots who desecrated many treasures such as the tomb of William the Conqueror in Caen that foreshadowed the even greater horrors of the French Revolution.  During the European Wars of Religion, Catholics and Protestants both killed many people, but generally it was only Protestants who destroyed beautiful art and architecture that otherwise might still be around to see unspoiled today, and therefore the Protestants are worse in my book, even though I am a (very High Church) Anglican myself.

I realize I will never change your mind, but my sympathies regarding the events of 1775-83 are firmly with the Tories and always will be.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #14 
Prag,
From scripture show me a revolution that was 'right'.

I can show you multiple invasions that were 'directly blessed and commanded' - can you show me even one revolution?


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,066
Reply with quote  #15 
Baron, the only revolution I can think of was Christ's counter-revolution against sin and death .

Maybe if we stretch it the revolution of the Jews against the greek pagens in maccabes? But that's appocrapha right .
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.