Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #1 
As monarchists, we think about monarchies and our monarchs quite a lot.
However, would this be the case in our "ideal worlds"?

In my view for a future-traditional Britain, day to day life would exist near exclusively in the local sphere - parish, town and county being the normal fields of view. I'm quite agrarian in sympathies, so most of the people would be farming estates.
As such, I suspect these subjects would think far more about their local lords and clan chiefs than they would their national or multi-national monarchs.

The monarch would be a focus in:
Times of War, as the highest millitary leader
Times of National Celebration, as the highest national symbol
Times of Political Activity, as the highest political authority (I wouldn't have a continuously sitting parliament, we could all do with a break from politics)
Prayers for leaders, as the highest earthly leader
Accession to Offices, as the object of the Oath of Allegiance

Whilst these times would not be excessively rare, they would not be omnipresent. As such, my ideal compatriots, as a monarchist, would not in fact think that much about monarchy, it would simply be a baseline assumption in the background most of the time.

Does anyone here markedly disagree?
Would your ideal nation have American-style daily oaths at school or, like mine, would the monarchy be a more gentle foundation to life than the main topic of conversation?

I'd be curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 444
Reply with quote  #2 
I mostly disagree with "As such, my ideal compatriots, as a monarchist, would not in fact think that much about monarchy"

We've replaced in our society the role of nobility and royalty with the cult of celebrity. I think that in good times, the monarch, as well as the local lord, would act to lead by example and to inspire. Absent them, we idolize movie stars, athletes, pop musicians, and people who are famous for being famous (think, Kardahians, Paris Hilton, etc.), who have no incentive to either lead or live a virtuous life. Not to say that all monarchs were perfect, but they had at least some incentives to project at least the outward appearance of virtue.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
I mostly disagree with "As such, my ideal compatriots, as a monarchist, would not in fact think that much about monarchy"

We've replaced in our society the role of nobility and royalty with the cult of celebrity. I think that in good times, the monarch, as well as the local lord, would act to lead by example and to inspire. Absent them, we idolize movie stars, athletes, pop musicians, and people who are famous for being famous (think, Kardahians, Paris Hilton, etc.), who have no incentive to either lead or live a virtuous life. Not to say that all monarchs were perfect, but they had at least some incentives to project at least the outward appearance of virtue.

I prefer a democratic hereditary constitutional monarchy with a unicameral parliament. Titles of nobility shall be recognized by the state, and the king shall be allowed to ennoble commoners, but nobles and commoners shall be equal before the law. 
InVinoVeritas

Registered:
Posts: 47
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
I mostly disagree with "As such, my ideal compatriots, as a monarchist, would not in fact think that much about monarchy"

We've replaced in our society the role of nobility and royalty with the cult of celebrity. I think that in good times, the monarch, as well as the local lord, would act to lead by example and to inspire. Absent them, we idolize movie stars, athletes, pop musicians, and people who are famous for being famous (think, Kardahians, Paris Hilton, etc.), who have no incentive to either lead or live a virtuous life. Not to say that all monarchs were perfect, but they had at least some incentives to project at least the outward appearance of virtue.


A healthy cult of personality should be enforced in the people, I agree, but by the community, not by the state. Moreover, I think the ruler and the nobility should be upheld not as rulers and nobility, but as servants of God. In fact, the idea should be instilled in the people that a farmer who is wholeheartedly a farmer is better than a king who is lacking in some respects as a ruler. Respect for ancestors should be an even more important aspect of this cult than respect for rulers and nobility. Great men from simple backgrounds should especially be upheld as incentives for the common people to perform heroic deeds in their labor.

__________________
"Democratic governments are not suited to the publication of the thunderous revelations I am in the habit of making. The unpublished parts will appear later … when Europe will have restored its traditional monarchies." -Salvador Dalí, Diary of a Genius (1964)
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 444
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I prefer a democratic hereditary constitutional monarchy with a unicameral parliament. Titles of nobility shall be recognized by the state, and the king shall be allowed to ennoble commoners, but nobles and commoners shall be equal before the law. 


If nobility have no additional privileges or obligations, what is the point of even having them? 

I'm absolutely opposed to having a unicameral parliament; large-scale democracy is the tool of a vicious, selfish people, and its made worse by not having any real checks and balances. At least British parliament used to be tempered by the hereditary lords in the upper house. It's not currently quite as stupid as the American system -- electing the president, house, and senate, with 2 year long campaigns -- but with no ability of either the Queen or hereditary nobility to reign in the greatest excesses of democracy, it's not a good form of government.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


If nobility have no additional privileges or obligations, what is the point of even having them? 

I'm absolutely opposed to having a unicameral parliament; large-scale democracy is the tool of a vicious, selfish people, and its made worse by not having any real checks and balances. At least British parliament used to be tempered by the hereditary lords in the upper house. It's not currently quite as stupid as the American system -- electing the president, house, and senate, with 2 year long campaigns -- but with no ability of either the Queen or hereditary nobility to reign in the greatest excesses of democracy, it's not a good form of government.

I'm descended from German nobility. The Federal Republic of Germany recognizes titles of nobility as part of the legal name, but it has abolished all legal privileges of nobility and it has abolished the nobility as a legally recognized social class. Ennoblement is banned in Germany.
France and Finland also recognizes titles of nobility despite being republics, but ennoblement is banned in France and Finland. Austria, Russia and Italy have abolished titles of nobility entirely, and Austria even bans the use of the nobiliary particles von and zu.
Norway and Japan have abolished titles of nobility despite being monarchies. Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands recognize titles of nobility, but have abolished ennoblement of non-royals. Ennoblement of commoners still take place in Spain and Belgium. 
All current European monarchies have abolished all legal privileges of nobility, except Britain.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #7 
That answers none of the points brought to your attention azadi
__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 444
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I'm descended from German nobility. The Federal Republic of Germany recognizes titles of nobility as part of the legal name, but it has abolished all legal privileges of nobility and it has abolished the nobility as a legally recognized social class. Ennoblement is banned in Germany.
France and Finland also recognizes titles of nobility despite being republics, but ennoblement is banned in France and Finland. Austria, Russia and Italy have abolished titles of nobility entirely, and Austria even bans the use of the nobiliary particles von and zu.
Norway and Japan have abolished titles of nobility despite being monarchies. Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands recognize titles of nobility, but have abolished ennoblement of non-royals.
Ennoblement of commoners still take place in Spain and Belgium, but Spain and Belgium have abolished all legal privileges of nobility. 


How was this a reply to my question, or anything else I said? You just stated a bunch of unrelated facts.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


How was this a reply to my question, or anything else I said? You just stated a bunch of unrelated facts.

I'm a democrat, who supports the legacy of the French Revolution of 1789, while rejecting the legacy of the French Revolution of 1792, but the state ought to recognize the titles of ancient noble families in order to uphold tradition. I mentioned those facts in order to prove, that many European countries recognize titles of nobility while abolishing legal privileges of nobility.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #10 
We were asking about the purpose, not the precedent.
States, particularly republics, have done many stupid things, so bringing up that they've done it doesn't necessarily help your case.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 444
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I'm a democrat, who supports the legacy of the French Revolution of 1789, while rejecting the legacy of the French Revolution of 1792, but the state ought to recognize the titles of ancient noble families in order to uphold tradition. I mentioned those facts in order to prove, that many European countries recognize titles of nobility while abolishing legal privileges of nobility.


This is the classic is-ought problem. You're stating that it is so, implying that it is as it ought to be, without making claims in support of your argument.

I'm a full-on reactionary that believes both the French and American revolutions were unjust actions, and that the French revolution in particular destroyed something beautiful and replaced it with something ugly - and not just the particulars of the revolution, but all of the governments of France since. The legacy of the revolution is also the legacy of freemasonry, which are the desire to destroy the Church and replace her with a single unified secular world state. They also reject the validity of any metaphysics, or anything non-empirical. They conflate liberty with license, rather than the traditional understanding. 
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


This is the classic is-ought problem. You're stating that it is so, implying that it is as it ought to be, without making claims in support of your argument.

I'm a full-on reactionary that believes both the French and American revolutions were unjust actions, and that the French revolution in particular destroyed something beautiful and replaced it with something ugly - and not just the particulars of the revolution, but all of the governments of France since. The legacy of the revolution is also the legacy of freemasonry, which are the desire to destroy the Church and replace her with a single unified secular world state. They also reject the validity of any metaphysics, or anything non-empirical. They conflate liberty with license, rather than the traditional understanding. 

I reject the legacy of the French Revolution of 1792, which abolished the French monarchy and which paved the way for the Reign of Terror, but I support the legacy of the French Revolution of 1789, which made France a constitutional monarchy with an unicameral National Assembly, which introduced freedom of religion and which abolished feudalism and serfdom. The American Revolution was justified, because the American colonies not being represented in the British parliament was unfair.
I support the state recognizing titles of nobility, because the state ought to honour the ancient noble families by recognizing their titles.
I'm a practicing Christian, but I support freedom of religion. I'm not opposed to the existence of established Christian churches in countries, where Christians form the majority of the population.
The democratic constitutional monarchies of continental Europe and Japan are the best currently existing forms of government. I like the British monarchy, but I'm opposed to the existence of the British House of Lords. The monarchies of continental Europe and Japan have fully democratically elected legislative assemblies.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #13 

Can you please explain why we should see unicamerilism or the removal of hereditary powers as a good thing?

Pointing out that it exists doesn't show that it's good.


__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #14 
The Austrian nobility is fighting for official recognition:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/14/the-von-trap-austrian-battle-over-three-noble-letters

MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #15 
I wish them all the luck in gaining it.
However, now of this has any connection to the moral/political question of genuine nobility and the noblesse oblige

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.