Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #16 
And its was more of a restoration than a revolution........(or perhaps the prefigurement of the counter 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
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,535
Reply with quote  #17 
Can't be considered a restoration, Baron; the Hasmoneans weren't of the House of David and Tribe of Judah, but rather of the Tribe of Levi. As for 1 and 2 Maccabees, they are deuterocanon to Catholics and just a part of the Old Testament to Orthodox, and in both cases canonical, and apocrypha to Protestants, godly works worthy of study and reading but lacking canonical authority. Only the Catholic Church ever made a formal decision about it, at the 16th-century Council of Trent so they didn't exactly do so in a hurry, while Orthodox simply seem to take the same view they always did and Protestants have more or less followed the opinion of Martin Luther, since he took a reasonable, informed and scholarly view of the position of these books. Anyway, clark, to you I would have thought they would be canon.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #18 
Ya mean they didn't restore the monarchy, or simply that they didn't restore the previous dynasty?  (I've not read the whole of the Maccabees)

__________________
"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  #19 
They are canon. I was merely stating it that way since the good baron probably doesnt accept them as such. It was more a jokingly manner.

Either way, its fairly telling that any appeal to God for justification in the American revolt was an appeal to some generic God or deistic God. Since there is no real evidence for revolution in scripture. Really the idea of any legal precedent defeats the entire point of what the founders were trying to do. I think they would simply laugh at the American lawyers trying to claim that our revolt was legal.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,535
Reply with quote  #20 
They didn't restore the monarchy, in the sense of the God-chosen Davidic line, and obviously not the dynasty. They started a new monarchy instead. Apologies, clark, I didn't see how you could be serious but you sounded as if you were, which left me a bit nonplussed; you usually come across as very informed about these things.
Pragmatist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 586
Reply with quote  #21 
Yeah, what they said.

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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 312
Reply with quote  #22 

My thoughts:

Was the William of Normandy's invasion legal?   Yes and no. Harold did not have the best claim to the crown. However, neither did William.
 
Was the Anglo-Saxon invasion legal?  Yes. They were invited. The crime was their running amok and bringing more of their people over.

Was Caesar's invasion legal?  Whether legal or not, it was a defensive measure in connection with his operations in Gaul.

Was Brutus of Troy's invasion legal?

Yes, there were only Giants living in the land at the time.






Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #23 
The idea of the legality of an invasion is the wrong one. Both sides will appeal to an authority for justification. The authority is not necessarily the same for both sides, but may be different and conflict with each other.

The ultimate question would be which authority is better. The lower-level question would be whether a specific action is right in respect to a specific authority.


I do like Brennus' argument about the Giants, though. Giants don't deserve any quarter.

__________________
"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: 5,345
Reply with quote  #24 

Quote:
The idea of the legality of an invasion is the wrong one. Both sides will appeal to an authority for justification. The authority is not necessarily the same for both sides, but may be different and conflict with each other.


The very fact that both sides will appeal to an authority shows exactly how important legality is.  There may not be a universal consensus on whether an invasion is legal or not, but it is important for any invasion that it be regarded as legal by at least some constituencey in order to establish legitimacy.  Whether that is according to the laws of God or man, there is still a need for legal justification.

...and hey, giants can be wonderful people!


__________________
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.)
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #25 
Yeah, ask Goliath of Gath.... ;-)



__________________
"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
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,535
Reply with quote  #26 
As the crown was elective and Harold had been elected, his claim was impeccable, as opposed to William's which was entirely spurious. There is a certain amount of debate as to whether there ever was an Anglo-Saxon invasion. Since we don't even know for sure that it happened, we can hardly say we know enough to judge its morality. Why focus on Caesar's invasion? It was more like Caesar's flying visit. Claudius's invasion was the one that counted, surely. Finally, I am happy to condemn the invasion of Brutus, his pitiless massacre of the inoffensive autochthones just on the basis that they were kinda big forming one of the earliest examples of genocide known to history.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,345
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Yeah, ask Goliath of Gath.... ;-)

 


One bad seed...

__________________
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.)
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #28 
And apple in a barrel -
a bit of leaven in the bin....

__________________
"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
HRH_Jonathan

Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #29 
America may be the ultimate case of legal ambiguity.

We have a situation where land that was cheated or stolen from natives by England was colonized by a mixture of exiles, immigrants, and businessmen, many of whom either weren't under the sway of the English Crown or were from areas annexed to that Crown by unlawful invasions centuries before. These colonists then went to war with England, declared their independence, bought and annexed territory from France (that really belonged to the natives), conquered significant areas of land controlled by Spain (some of which really belonged to the natives), and explored unclaimed land all on their own, while still continuing to take stuff from the natives. So we have land that should probably belong to Indians claimed by England, France, and Spain controlled by the United States and inhabited by people who only want to be American, no matter how legal the foundation of that country was.

It's probably best if we ignore the past and treat America's legal situation as a blank slate. Otherwise, we'd end up in a seven-way total war where everyone has a proper claim to some of the land involved.
Besides, the concept of a legitimate claim gets real fuzzy when you take into account the rights of the people living on the claimed land.

__________________
Est parma veritas, ensis justitas, via libertas noster.
http://thekingdomofedan.webs.com/
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.