Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,274
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Australia is a secular state, despite being a Windsor monarchy. Britain ought to emulate Australia. 
The monarchy of Montenegro, which is an Orthodox Christian country, was partially restored in 2011. The head of the royal dynasty is an official representative of Montenegro and he is paid a salary by the state, which is equal to the salary of the President of Montenegro.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. That some other country does so-and-so is no reason for Britain not to do thus-and-thus. They will make arrangements to suit them, and we will make arrangements to suit us. This is known as sovereignty.

You seem to think that sovereign nations ought to succumb to a sort of adolescent peer pressure, all conforming with the rest and afraid to appear different. Well, they should not. As for Montenegro, I think it should have hereditary bishops as its heads of state. What do you reckon? I feel the idea has a certain amount of charm.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

I don't know how many times I have to say this. That some other country does so-and-so is no reason for Britain not to do thus-and-thus. They will make arrangements to suit them, and we will make arrangements to suit us. This is known as sovereignty.

You seem to think that sovereign nations ought to succumb to a sort of adolescent peer pressure, all conforming with the rest and afraid to appear different. Well, they should not. As for Montenegro, I think it should have hereditary bishops as its heads of state. What do you reckon? I feel the idea has a certain amount of charm.

I have never claimed, that sovereign nations ought to be afraid to appear different. I want Kurdistan to be a secular state, but I want the Russian Orthodox Church to be the established church of Russia. I support restoration of the Russian and Iranian monarchies, but I want countries, which were founded as republics, such as USA, Switzerland and Iceland, to remain republics. I'm not opposed to the existence of established churches, but I'm strongly opposed to theocracy. Bishops being ex officio members of the House of Lords is a vestige of theocracy.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,274
Reply with quote  #18 
But you keep on and on saying that because one or another country does something, Britain should do the same. Why? I don't object to vestiges of theocracy, though I strenuously do object to the thing itself; there has never been a theocratic regime that was not oppressive, cruel and corrupt. I'll make an exception for the Vatican City State, as it has effectively no population. But actually Britain's only period as an out-and-out theocracy was under Commonwealth tyranny, and bishops in the Lords is most certainly not a vestige of that.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
But you keep on and on saying that because one or another country does something, Britain should do the same. Why? I don't object to vestiges of theocracy, though I strenuously do object to the thing itself; there has never been a theocratic regime that was not oppressive, cruel and corrupt. I'll make an exception for the Vatican City State, as it has effectively no population. But actually Britain's only period as an out-and-out theocracy was under Commonwealth tyranny, and bishops in the Lords is most certainly not a vestige of that.

I want Britain to modernize its political system, and I mention the political systems of Spain and other continental European monarchies in order to prove, that modernizing the political system isn't incompatible with monarchy. Why are you opposed to modernizing the political system of Britain? 

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,274
Reply with quote  #20 
Because I don't think modernisation is a good in itself.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Because I don't think modernisation is a good in itself.

Neither do I, but I'm a democrat. I prefer the democratic constitutional monarchies of continental Europe and Japan to the British political system, which contains vestiges of feudalism and theocracy. I prefer an appointed upper house to an elected upper house, but the bishops and the hereditary peers ought to be expelled from the House of Lords. I want the House of Lords to consist exclusively of life peers.
Despite disliking Protestantism, I'm not opposed to the Church of England remaining the established church of England, because the Church of England is the largest Christian denomination in England. King James II and VII was the Supreme Governor of the Church of England despite being a Roman Catholic. I support amending the Act of Settlement in order to allow Prince Charles to convert to Orthodox Christianity, while remaining Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,274
Reply with quote  #22 
I don't think democracy is a good in itself either. It didn't work out too well with James II and VII, as you may have heard, so we changed the arrangements for future reigns.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I don't think democracy is a good in itself either. It didn't work out too well with James II and VII, as you may have heard, so we changed the arrangements for future reigns.

The coup against James II and VII was caused by Protestant bigotry. I support the House of Windsor, because I don't support deposing currently reigning dynasties and because the Windsors are descended from James I and VI, who was a Stuart, but I would have supported James II and VII, if I had lived in Britain in 1688. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,274
Reply with quote  #24 
It was caused by the fear, I believe justified, that he planned to impose Catholic tyranny (remember that his ally Louis XIV launched the most vicious persecution of French Protestants ever in the first year of James's reign), and by his generally egregious behaviour and complete untrustworthiness. I would have joined the majority in supporting the Prince of Orange had I lived in Britain at the time.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It was caused by the fear, I believe justified, that he planned to impose Catholic tyranny (remember that his ally Louis XIV launched the most vicious persecution of French Protestants ever in the first year of James's reign), and by his generally egregious behaviour and complete untrustworthiness. I would have joined the majority in supporting the Prince of Orange had I lived in Britain at the time.

James II and VII supported freedom of religion, while the Protestant regime, which took power in Britain after the overthrow of James II and VII, oppressed the Catholics until 1829. The Stuarts are my favourite British royal dynasty, but I like the Windsors too, because they are descended from James I and VI. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,274
Reply with quote  #26 
The universal suspicion, I believe well-founded, was that James's support for toleration was merely a stepping stone on the path to suppressing all varieties of Christianity besides Catholicism. Dissenters were offered toleration by James in return for their support, but refused because of this very suspicion and because his record led them to trust him not a whit. When the future William III and II made the same offer they accepted as they thought him honest, and indeed he kept his word, while James had never been known to keep his. Catholics suffered legal disabilities, which took too long to remove, but to call them 'oppressed' is an overstatement; they were not rounded up and imprisoned, fined or deprived of property merely for being Catholics. Over in France, virtually every Protestant had been killed, driven into exile or forcibly converted. Now that is oppression.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #27 
I have decided against making a crown for the Shah of Kurdistan, because the Ottoman Empire never crowned the Sultan. The Ottoman Sultan received the Sword of Osman during his enthronement. Belgium, Luxembourg and Monaco don't possess crowns, and Germany didn't possess a crown, when Germany was a monarchy. 
Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 61
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor
In a coronation, heaven meets earth in a semi-sacrament and shows the legitimacy of the Crown comes from above.
In an inauguration the king is a civil servant being sworn in, regardless of if he wears a funny hat.

So, I'm going to have to say coronation.
Spain should have a coronation for their next Queen.


I agree. I have always thought that a new monarch's installation should be a solemn and religious affair. It should show that the sovereign serves God and his people. When King Philip VI of Spain was sworn in it wasn't much different than a mayor being sworn in. And while the installation of Alexander-Willem of The Netherlands was certainly a joyous occasion for both his people and his mother, there was something missing. (I watched both).

A monarch can be crowned by the head of the established church and receive the blessings of the other churches of his realm. It is in the best interests of all subjects that the king's reign be successful, prosperous, peaceful and moral. 

Much of the world has lost too much tradition. We need tradition, ritual and continuity to bring a people together.

I believe there were both Orthodox and Mohammedan representatives at the funeral of King Zog.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Horthy


I agree. I have always thought that a new monarch's installation should be a solemn and religious affair. It should show that the sovereign serves God and his people. When King Philip VI of Spain was sworn in it wasn't much different than a mayor being sworn in. And while the installation of Alexander-Willem of The Netherlands was certainly a joyous occasion for both his people and his mother, there was something missing. (I watched both).

A monarch can be crowned by the head of the established church and receive the blessings of the other churches of his realm. It is in the best interests of all subjects that the king's reign be successful, prosperous, peaceful and moral. 

Much of the world has lost too much tradition. We need tradition, ritual and continuity to bring a people together.

I believe there were both Orthodox and Mohammedan representatives at the funeral of King Zog.

I'm opposed to the monarchy being shackled to an established church. The king ought to be a unifying national symbol, and the king ought to treat his subjects equally regardless of religious affiliation. The personal faith of the king ought to be separate from the duties of his office. 
Holding a coronation is at odds with tradition in many monarchies. No coronation has been held in Spain since 1494. Belgium doesn't possess a crown. Germany didn't possess a crown, when it was a monarchy.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #30 
If Britain abolishes the coronation, the enthronement of the British monarch ought to resemble the State Opening of Parliament. The monarch ought to sit on the throne in the chamber of the House of Lords wearing the crown, when he or she takes the coronation oath. The British monarch will be entitled to wear the crown when taking the coronation oath, because the British monarch assumes the throne immediately after the death of the previous monarch. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.