Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 6      1   2   3   4   Next   »
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #1 
I would have supported King James II and VII, if I had lived in England or in Scotland in 1688, and I would have supported Queen Isabella II, if I had lived in Spain in 1833. Isabella II assumed the Spanish throne, because her father King Ferdinand VII amended the law of succession to the Spanish throne, while King William III overthrew King James II and VII in an anti-Catholic coup. Both Queen Isabella II and Don Carlos were Catholics.
I don't support modern Jacobitism, because the Windsors are descendants of King James I and VI and the male line of the Stuarts became extinct in 1807, but I support disestablishment of the Church of England. 
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #2 
There's an even better reason not to be a modern Jacobites: it's been about 350 years since the issue came up. There have been many successions since. It's settled.

And even if one was to advance the cause today because some one was stubborn enough, it wouldn't end well. It would have zero chance of getting the house of Stuart back on the throne, and a nontrivial chance of getting rid of the British monarchy completely. In other words a tactical blunder.

Why do you support the disestablishment of the CoE? That seems silly. How is a secular state better than an Anglican one? If I thought there were a strong chance of establishing Catholicism instead, I'd support that. But there is absolutely zero chance of that happening in the foreseeable future. Zero.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
There's an even better reason not to be a modern Jacobites: it's been about 350 years since the issue came up. There have been many successions since. It's settled.

And even if one was to advance the cause today because some one was stubborn enough, it wouldn't end well. It would have zero chance of getting the house of Stuart back on the throne, and a nontrivial chance of getting rid of the British monarchy completely. In other words a tactical blunder.

Why do you support the disestablishment of the CoE? That seems silly. How is a secular state better than an Anglican one? If I thought there were a strong chance of establishing Catholicism instead, I'd support that. But there is absolutely zero chance of that happening in the foreseeable future. Zero.

I support disestablishment of the Church of England, because the British monarch ought to be allowed to convert to Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity. Prince Charles appear to prefer Orthodox Christianity to Anglicanism.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,846
Reply with quote  #4 
Whilst I'm sympathetic to the original Jacobites and rather than I too would have been out for the King over the water, as far as I can talk about such counterfactuals, I agree with Aaron that the best reason to not be a modern Jacobite is that the matter has long since been settled. The current Jacobite heir is himself not British and could claim the throne only through distant relatives to anyone who has been British for centuries. He doesn't even claim the British throne.

Charles hasn't said as much about preferring the Orthodox Church to the Anglican Church. Charles is a fellow-traveller to the Perennialists and those like Kathleen Raine and Henry Corbin. He is patron to the Temenos Foundation. If he would seriously consider converting to Orthodoxy, it may have something to do with the fact the contemporary Church of England is barely Christian.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Whilst I'm sympathetic to the original Jacobites and rather than I too would have been out for the King over the water, as far as I can talk about such counterfactuals, I agree with Aaron that the best reason to not be a modern Jacobite is that the matter has long since been settled. The current Jacobite heir is himself not British and could claim the throne only through distant relatives to anyone who has been British for centuries. He doesn't even claim the British throne.

Charles hasn't said as much about preferring the Orthodox Church to the Anglican Church. Charles is a fellow-traveller to the Perennialists and those like Kathleen Raine and Henry Corbin. He is patron to the Temenos Foundation. If he would seriously consider converting to Orthodoxy, it may have something to do with the fact the contemporary Church of England is barely Christian.

The Scottish monarch ought to be descended from the Stuarts. I prefer Scotland being an independent republic to Scotland being ruled by a monarch, who isn't descended from the Stuarts. Queen Elizabeth is the legitimate Queen of Scots, because she is descended from King James VI.
Opposing the disestablishment of the Church of England makes no sense, if the Church of England is barely Christian. I prefer England becoming a secular state and Prince Charles being allowed to convert to Orthodox Christianity to Prince Charles being forced to be a member of a church, which is barely Christian.
The Protestant churches aren't true churches, unlike the Catholic Church and the Eastern churches. I agree with Dominus Iesus, which is a declaration, which was approved by Pope Benedict XVI. Benedict XVI is my favourite Pope. Benedict XVI is a conservative and he preferred the Eastern churches to the Protestant churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,846
Reply with quote  #6 
I know it's pointless to raise these issues, but you sometimes strike me as being a very lukewarm monarchist. Again, I don't say that being a monarchist means you have to think every country should be a monarchy, that monarchies should be set up without popular support, or especially care about all countries and their constitutional arrangements, but it surely means a general support for monarchy as being generally the better form of government. You are forever nonchalantly declaring you prefer republics.

Actually, it doesn't mean disestablishment is better or all that makes sense. It means it won't make a huge difference, perhaps, but the residual symbolism and the like could be appealing to one who finds secularism distasteful.

When I say the Church of England is barely Christian, I don't mean because it is (sort of) Protestant. I mean because it is riven with modernism, secularism, and the like. It's idea of Christianity, or at least that of many prelates and clergy, seems to be equate Christianity to sentimentalism and contemporary left-liberal ideology. At best, you get the Sermon of the Mount and a few other passages from the NT given a sentimentalist interpretation; wrenched out of context from the rest of the Bible, what comes before and even after; and set up as the entirety of the Christian faith. Jesus becomes a kind of peacenik, which anyone who has read the NT, let alone the whole Bible, would find a grossly distorted picture of both Jesus and God's injunctions and examples to us.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I know it's pointless to raise these issues, but you sometimes strike me as being a very lukewarm monarchist. Again, I don't say that being a monarchist means you have to think every country should be a monarchy, that monarchies should be set up without popular support, or especially care about all countries and their constitutional arrangements, but it surely means a general support for monarchy as being generally the better form of government. You are forever nonchalantly declaring you prefer republics.

Actually, it doesn't mean disestablishment is better or all that makes sense. It means it won't make a huge difference, perhaps, but the residual symbolism and the like could be appealing to one who finds secularism distasteful.

When I say the Church of England is barely Christian, I don't mean because it is (sort of) Protestant. I mean because it is riven with modernism, secularism, and the like. It's idea of Christianity, or at least that of many prelates and clergy, seems to be equate Christianity to sentimentalism and contemporary left-liberal ideology. At best, you get the Sermon of the Mount and a few other passages from the NT given a sentimentalist interpretation; wrenched out of context from the rest of the Bible, what comes before and even after; and set up as the entirety of the Christian faith. Jesus becomes a kind of peacenik, which anyone who has read the NT, let alone the whole Bible, would find a grossly distorted picture of both Jesus and God's injunctions and examples to us.

I'm not a lukewarm monarchist. I'm a staunch supporter of restoration of the Russian and Iranian monarchies. I want Scotland to become a Commonwealth realm, if it secedes from the UK, because Queen Elizabeth is a descendant of James VI. 
I don't claim that Protestants aren't Christians and I won't rule out Protestants being saved. According to Dominus Iesus, the Protestant churches are ecclesial communities rather than true churches, but baptized Protestants are incorporated in the body of Christ by Baptism.
I support true churches being established churches, but I'm opposed to ecclesial communities being established churches. I feel sorry for Prince Charles, because he is forced to be a member of an ecclesial community, despite likely being a closet Orthodox Christian. I'm a claimant to the Kurdish throne. I'm an Eastern Christian, but most Kurds are Muslims. I will rather die than convert to Islam. I want Kurdistan to be a secular state.

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,829
Reply with quote  #8 

As others have pointed out, Azadi, you have a tendency to try to turn every thread into a discussion about you and what you want. This is annoying. Try to be more interested in other members and what they want.

 

That said, I don't think it is true that Prince Charles is a "closet Orthodox Christian." It is true that he has some appreciation for the Orthodox faith, but he also has some appreciation for the more mystical strands of Islam; that doesn't mean that he is a "closet Muslim" either. He has a deep love of the Church of England's 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

As others have pointed out, Azadi, you have a tendency to try to turn every thread into a discussion about you and what you want. This is annoying. Try to be more interested in other members and what they want.

 

That said, I don't think it is true that Prince Charles is a "closet Orthodox Christian." It is true that he has some appreciation for the Orthodox faith, but he also has some appreciation for the more mystical strands of Islam; that doesn't mean that he is a "closet Muslim" either. He has a deep love of the Church of England's 1662 Book of Common Prayer.


Please don't ban me. I will try to avoid derailing threads in the future, but I haven't derailed this thread. I mentioned my claim to the Kurdish throne, because it is analogous to Prince Charles converting to Orthodox Christianity. I apologize for derailing the thread about the Italian royal succession dispute by introducing Kurdistan and Israel as topics. I will not introduce topics, which are unrelated to the topic of the thread, in the future.
I apologize for appearing to be uninterested in other members and what they want. I sincerely want to discuss with other members of this forum and listen to their opinions. But some members of this forum make personal attacks against me. I have been accused of being an Anglophobe, because I support the Spanish claim to Gibraltar and because I dislike Ulster Unionism, and I have been accused of being hostile to Protestants, because I support disestablishment of the Church of England, while supporting restoring the Russian Orthodox Church as the established church of Russia. I never make personal attacks on other members of this forum. Claiming that Ethiomonarchist hates Israel is the only personal attack, which I have made on this forum. I sincerely apologize for claiming that Ethiomonarchist hates Israel. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,846
Reply with quote  #10 
When was there a lack of discussion of these topics. They have been discussed too much if anything. Most aren't that hostile to you - I for one disliked that leftists fellow's seeming desire to drive you out, but your somewhat bizarre posting style is going to irritate some. You could also engage more. You have a tendency to just reiterate your own mantras. The Gibraltar stuff, for example, has just gone round and around. When you do give arguments on these topics, they tend to be poor (e.g., the future of the Spanish monarchy hangs in the balance if the Spanish claim to Gibraltar is not recognised). If there is nothing new to be said, and nothing meaningful left to argue, what is the point of bringing up the same topics?
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
When was there a lack of discussion of these topics. They have been discussed too much if anything. Most aren't that hostile to you - I for one disliked that leftists fellow's seeming desire to drive you out, but your somewhat bizarre posting style is going to irritate some. You could also engage more. You have a tendency to just reiterate your own mantras. The Gibraltar stuff, for example, has just gone round and around. When you do give arguments on these topics, they tend to be poor (e.g., the future of the Spanish monarchy hangs in the balance if the Spanish claim to Gibraltar is not recognised). If there is nothing new to be said, and nothing meaningful left to argue, what is the point of bringing up the same topics?

I will cease to reiterate my own mantras concerning Gibraltar, if you admit that my support for the Spanish claim to Gibraltar isn't caused by Anglophobia.
Contra Terrentum EQR wasn't banned, despite being far more hostile to Protestants than I am. Contra left the forum, because the forum is predominantly Anglophile and Protestant. I don't want to leave the forum. I like discussing with people, with whom I disagree. I will engage more with the other members of this forum, if they will engage more with me. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,846
Reply with quote  #12 
Who said it was a bannable offence? Who even mentioned banning?

My memory of the conversation is poor, but I vaguely remember it was mostly you bringing up Anglophobia.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,513
Reply with quote  #13 
I am sure that Azadi in his own mind doesn't think he's an Anglophobe. It's just that whenever there's an anti-Britain position to be taken up, take it up he does, sometimes denying that he's an Anglophobe in the same breath and sometimes insisting on it later. There is a definite pattern of behaviour that suggests he is, but I must admit that when I have made the accusation lately it has mainly been for the purpose of annoying him. Why not? He annoys me often enough.

I don't actually dislike him though, acknowledge that when he first appeared he sparked something of a revival in forum activity, and don't wish him gone. Just less annoying. If he keeps the promises he has made on this thread that would be a good start. As would avoiding the G-word unless he has something new to say on the topic (and on-topic), not the same nonsense he has endlessly repeated before.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 367
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Most aren't that hostile to you - I for one disliked that leftists fellow's seeming desire to drive you out, but your somewhat bizarre posting style is going to irritate some.

I hope you're not referring to me here- I know Azadi and I have not gotten along well, and that I suggested he should leave the forum if he couldn't alter his more frustrating behaviour, but I wouldn't say that I've tried to "drive him out." Azadi has brought a lot of activity to this forum and I would prefer it if he could remain here and continue contributing, but that's only if he can stay on topic and engage with people more as you yourself have suggested. I also don't think I'm particularly "leftist," but I'm not sure who else you could be referring to unless I missed a previous clash between Azadi and another forum member.

Azadi's sensible approach to the Jacobite issue is probably the first thing he's said that I completely agree with. As far as I am concerned the claims of the Jacobite line have been in abeyance in perpetuity since the death of the Cardinal Duke of York in 1807, which is fine by me because although I am a legitimist with regards to the succession I would much rather have a Protestant monarch than a Roman Catholic. Elizabeth II is perfectly legitimate, and long may she reign. I am utterly opposed to any attempt to severe ties between the Church of England and the state, however; apart from anything else I have no idea how one could continue to have explicitly religious and Anglican ceremonies such as the coronation in an officially secular state, and stripped of its sacral role the monarchy would be reduced to little more than a hereditary presidency. 

Whether the Bishop of Rome thinks the Church of England is a "real" church or not matters to me about as much as I expect the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury or the General Synod of the Church of England matter to most Roman Catholics- that is to say, not at all. There is no reason to believe that the Prince of Wales is "forced" to be a member of the Church of England or that he would rather convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. As Theodore pointed out, HRH is a lover of the CoE's official Book of Common Prayer, and the official Patron of the Prayer Book Society. 

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,513
Reply with quote  #15 
Just guessing here, but I suspect Wessexman meant Pallavicini. I wouldn't think he would be so rude as to refer to you as 'that leftist fellow', considering you are an active and respected member. Pallavicini who is no longer a member he absolutely couldn't stand, though. An atheist who feels, for what it's worth (not much I am sure), that Protestantism is a much more rationally-based approach to Christianity than that of the ancient Churches with their freighting of accretions over the last 1900 years or so, I have no wish at all to see the Church of England disestablished and in fact would actively oppose that, mainly because of the symbolic and ceremonial role you speak of, which could not be satisfactorily replaced by any kind of secular event.

Yes, the former Pope's views are as irrelevant as anything could be to how Anglicans view their own church and faith. As for Jacobitism, I understand your view but it is not mine. I support the Protestant Succession from 1689 on; 1689 because that is when it was established by law, though I would have been there cheering at the Glorious Revolution the year before. This is nothing to do with anti-Catholicism, it is because James II and VII was such a dreadfully bad monarch.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.