Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #16 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
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.

King James II and VII didn't persecute Protestants, unlike Mary Tudor. The coup against James II and VII was caused by bigotry against Catholics. The king not having the same religious affiliation as the majority of his subjects isn't a problem, unless the king tries to force his subjects to convert to his religion. 
I'm opposed to monarchs being heads of established churches, but I'm not opposed to Protestant churches being financially supported by the state. The Federal Republic of Germany collects church tax from the members of the Evangelical Church in Germany (the largest Protestant church of Germany) and the Catholic Church. I'm not opposed to the German government supporting the Evangelical Church in Germany financially. 
The Tsar of Russia wasn't the head of the Russian Orthodox Church before 1700, when Peter the Great prevented the Russian Orthodox Church from electing a new Patriarch of Moscow. The Patriarch of Moscow ought to remain the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, if the Russian monarchy is restored.

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

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. 

Claiming that the British monarchy will be reduced to a hereditary presidency, if the Anglican coronation is abolished, is wrong. The continental European monarchies have abolished coronations. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #18 
If the removal of James II and VII was due to anti-Catholic bigotry, kindly explain how he came to be allowed to accede in the first place with no trouble (the Exclusion Crisis having been resolved years before) and to general acceptance and even acclaim? It was hardly a closely-kept secret that he was a Catholic; even the dogs in the streets knew as much about him. But three years later he was removed with as little trouble and to enthusiastic acclaim. This was because he had governed dreadfully badly and cruelly, violated the law tyrannically, flouted his own public oath (which had even been voluntary, he was not asked for it) to maintain the established religious settlement, and was very clearly moving towards a forced reimposition of Catholicism. This at a time of appalling persecution of Protestants in our nearest neighbour France, just over the Channel.

Just because they don't doesn't mean we shouldn't. And I don't want us not to. I want Charles III, and William V, and George VII, and all the I trust many to come after them, to have the same coronation with the same ritual that their predecessors have going back through a thousand years, a part of the chain by which monarchy binds the nation's past to its present.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Just because they don't doesn't mean we shouldn't. And I don't want us not to. I want Charles III, and William V, and George VII, and all the I trust many to come after them, to have the same coronation with the same ritual that their predecessors have going back through a thousand years, a part of the chain by which monarchy binds the nation's past to its present.


I couldn't agree more with this point. Particularly in a case where a monarch has no real power (which is unfortunate; I would prefer a monarch to wield power), its primary function is symbolic, and symbols matter. As such, trappings like coronation ceremonies which tie him to a long history of a people are good, beautiful, and meaningful. It's a very human need, that we moderns all too easily brush aside, that going through liturgical and/or ceremonial motions really connects us and provides a centering force. 

And that's why I'm against disestablishment. As a Catholic, I see the Anglican church as inferior, but it's superior to no church at all. There is a relationship between altar and crown. There is stability in this. And removing the role of the Anglican church would simply be a further march towards severing that link, and that is bad.

Theodore actually convinced me of this years ago. I used to take a more hard-line stance of Catholicism or bust. But there's no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
If the removal of James II and VII was due to anti-Catholic bigotry, kindly explain how he came to be allowed to accede in the first place with no trouble (the Exclusion Crisis having been resolved years before) and to general acceptance and even acclaim? It was hardly a closely-kept secret that he was a Catholic; even the dogs in the streets knew as much about him. But three years later he was removed with as little trouble and to enthusiastic acclaim. This was because he had governed dreadfully badly and cruelly, violated the law tyrannically, flouted his own public oath (which had even been voluntary, he was not asked for it) to maintain the established religious settlement, and was very clearly moving towards a forced reimposition of Catholicism. This at a time of appalling persecution of Protestants in our nearest neighbour France, just over the Channel.

Just because they don't doesn't mean we shouldn't. And I don't want us not to. I want Charles III, and William V, and George VII, and all the I trust many to come after them, to have the same coronation with the same ritual that their predecessors have going back through a thousand years, a part of the chain by which monarchy binds the nation's past to its present.

King James II and VII was overthrown, because his Catholic wife gave birth to a son in 1688. No evidence of James II and VII wanting to emulate the French persecution of Protestants exists.
I'm not opposed to Prince Charles being crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. King James II and VII was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, despite being a Catholic. But claiming that the continental European monarchs aren't true monarchs, because they aren't crowned, is utterly wrong. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #21 
Had she not, I still don't see how he could have lasted many more years. He was, as much evidence attests, a person of quite stupefying unintelligence, and quite unable to see how unwise and provocative his behaviour was. No evidence of him wanting to emulate the French persecution of Protestants exists? No, all he had done as the merest start was throw half the Anglican hierarchy in prison, dismiss all his Protestant advisers and gather a Catholic cabal around him, then begun earnest attempts to dismantle the religious settlement he had sworn to uphold. With the example of his cousin, paymaster and close ally over the Channel before him, no one wanted to find out where he was going to go next. They thought they knew already, and it was not at all an unreasonable suspicion to have. The birth of his son was the tipping point, but if that hadn't happened then soon enough another would.

Very nice for the two of us to wholeheartedly agree on something, Aaron. I have never disliked you and I get the feeling you never have me, but we haven't agreed on much!

PS Absolutely no one has claimed that the continental European monarchs aren't true monarchs because they aren't crowned. They do things their way, we do them our way.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Very nice for the two of us to wholeheartedly agree on something, Aaron. I have never disliked you and I get the feeling you never have me, but we haven't agreed on much!


There's little in this world that irks me more than people not being able to disagree well and still maintain respect for the other. That seems exceedingly rare these days. God knows I've changed my mind about a great many things over the years.

And no, I don't dislike you at all, Peter. Glad the feeling is mutual.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #23 
Vivat,

Yes, Peter is correct, I meant the fellow who was banned, Pallavicini. I don't even think of you as a leftist and I have high opinion of you as a poster. I recall you saying you lent towards market socialism or something of that sort. I myself am firmly in the vaguely Distributist camp, if I can be forgiven the inconsistency of expression.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Had she not, I still don't see how he could have lasted many more years. He was, as much evidence attests, a person of quite stupefying unintelligence, and quite unable to see how unwise and provocative his behaviour was. No evidence of him wanting to emulate the French persecution of Protestants exists? No, all he had done as the merest start was throw half the Anglican hierarchy in prison, dismiss all his Protestant advisers and gather a Catholic cabal around him, then begun earnest attempts to dismantle the religious settlement he had sworn to uphold. With the example of his cousin, paymaster and close ally over the Channel before him, no one wanted to find out where he was going to go next. They thought they knew already, and it was not at all an unreasonable suspicion to have. The birth of his son was the tipping point, but if that hadn't happened then soon enough another would.

Very nice for the two of us to wholeheartedly agree on something, Aaron. I have never disliked you and I get the feeling you never have me, but we haven't agreed on much!

PS Absolutely no one has claimed that the continental European monarchs aren't true monarchs because they aren't crowned. They do things their way, we do them our way.

The Anglican bishops were imprisoned by James II and VII, because they were opposed to the Declaration of Indulgence, which introduced freedom of religion in England and Scotland. James II and VII didn't persecute any Protestants.
Vivat Regina Scottorum claimed that abolishing the Anglican coronation will reduce the British monarch to little more than a hereditary president. This claim implies that the continental European monarchs are little more than hereditary presidents.  
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #25 
You have several times stated that James II and VII was removed purely due to 'anti-Catholic bigotry'. The 1689 Bill of Rights states in its preamble exactly why and for what specific reasons James was overthrown. Here goes:

Quote:
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.

Dispensing and Suspending Power.

By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament.

Committing Prelates.

By Committing and Prosecuting diverse Worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power.

Ecclesiastical Commission.

By issueing and causeing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seale for Erecting a Court called The Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes.

Levying Money.

By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner then the same was granted by Parlyament.

Standing Army.

By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

Violating Elections.

By Violating the Freedome of Election of Members to serve in Parlyament.

Illegal Prosecutions.

By Prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other Arbitrary and Illegall Courses.

Juries.

And whereas of late yeares Partiall Corrupt and Unqualifyed Persons have beene returned and served on Juryes in Tryalls and particularly diverse Jurors in Tryalls for High Treason which were not Freeholders,

Excessive Bail.

And excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects.

Fines.

And excessive Fines have beene imposed.

Punishments.

And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted.

Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction, &c.

And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed. All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.

All of these charges are true and correct. iI the space of three short years James, who I again remind you had sworn on his accession to uphold the established religious settlement of the country, had done each and every one of these things. Does that really look to you as if the Protestant majority had nothing to worry about, and acted from pure reasonless prejudice? At a time less than two centuries after the Reformation, in the centenary year of the Armada, with the Protestant minority in France contemporaneously suffering violent persecution on a massive scale? I submit that you are being more than a little unfair, and in fact are projecting current attitudes back to a very different time.

The Declaration of Indulgence was seen at the time as overthrowing the religious settlement James had sworn to uphold, by force and without due process of law. And there had been none, the Declaration had not been passed by Parliament but was merely James's fiat. What was to stop him, if that had been accepted, from issuing a later fiat removing the religious liberty of all except Catholics? Which was universally suspected, not without reason, to be James's long-term plan. And not all that long-term either, he had hardly been a spring chicken when he assumed the throne and was a man in a hurry. A foolish, cruel, vindictive, demonstrably completely untrustworthy man in a hurry, and for the country's safety he had to go.

On your final paragraph, I see your point but since it was Vivat that said it I will leave it to him to reply if he wishes.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You have several times stated that James II and VII was removed purely due to 'anti-Catholic bigotry'. The 1689 Bill of Rights states in its preamble exactly why and for what specific reasons James was overthrown. Here goes:

 

All of these charges are true and correct. iI the space of three short years James, who I again remind you had sworn on his accession to uphold the established religious settlement of the country, had done each and every one of these things. Does that really look to you as if the Protestant majority had nothing to worry about, and acted from pure reasonless prejudice? At a time less than two centuries after the Reformation, in the centenary year of the Armada, with the Protestant minority in France contemporaneously suffering violent persecution on a massive scale? I submit that you are being more than a little unfair, and in fact are projecting current attitudes back to a very different time.

The Declaration of Indulgence was seen at the time as overthrowing the religious settlement James had sworn to uphold, by force and without due process of law. And there had been none, the Declaration had not been passed by Parliament but was merely James's fiat. What was to stop him, if that had been accepted, from issuing a later fiat removing the religious liberty of all except Catholics? Which was universally suspected, not without reason, to be James's long-term plan. And not all that long-term either, he had hardly been a spring chicken when he assumed the throne and was a man in a hurry. A foolish, cruel, vindictive, demonstrably completely untrustworthy man in a hurry, and for the country's safety he had to go.

On your final paragraph, I see your point but since it was Vivat that said it I will leave it to him to reply if he wishes.

King James II and VII would likely have avoided persecuting Protestants, even if he had wanted to persecute Protestants, because the vast majority of the Englishmen and the Scots were Protestants. Protestantism was far more entrenched in England during the reign of James II and VII than during the reign of Mary Tudor.
King William III granted freedom of religion to Nonconformist Protestants, but he didn't grant freedom of religion to Catholics. Catholicism was banned in Britain until 1778.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #27 
I think it's hard to come to a firm conclusion about exactly what James aimed at. There were reasons for alarm, but also it would be a mistake to portray the effort to overthrow him as a result of simple popular feeling. I don't think it had reached the point where the masses, even of the classes who had much weight on public affairs, actively wished James overthrown. A minority of parliamentarians sent to Dutch William, who was already planning to invade, and sought his aid, at least ostensibly for the reasons given. Some more decided against him as it became clear William was on the way and then landing, but what really decided it was James lack of resolve at the crucial time, out of character up until that point in his life. If he had stayed with the army in Salisbury Plain and fought, who knows but he may have kept at least the passive loyalty of enough of the country to hold onto power.

One can also, of course, question how much the struggle between James and his opponents was a matter of him and the Whig magnates and squires tussling over power. I wouldn't be so sure that the latter, any more than the former (perhaps less, if he followed in his father's and Laud's footsteps) had the good of the English peasantry and yeomanry in mind. The Whig oligarchs in my mind cast up notions of the laws of settlement, of enclosure, of the seven year parliaments, and rotten boroughs; and I see , ultimately, amongst their offspring, Speenhamland, the game laws, and the like, looming on the horizon. Not perhaps that they orginated all of this, but they often embraced or looked forward to it.

By the way, to go back to a point I recall being discussed here before, there's some irony in Anglicans objecting to James's actions, seeing as he was surely an amateur compared to "that old wife killer", to use Cobbett's colourful phrase.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #28 
Modern Jacobitism makes more sense to me than modern Carlism, because Franz Duke of Bavaria is the heir to the British throne according to the law of succession to the British throne, which was abolished by the Glorious Revolution, while King Felipe VI is the rightful King of Spain according to the law of succession to the Spanish throne, which was abolished by King Ferdinand VII. But I don't support modern Jacobitism, because a Jacobite restoration is unlikely to happen and Queen Elizabeth is descended from the Stuarts. In addition, electing Franz Duke of Bavaria King of Britain will not right the wrong done to King James II and VII, because Franz Duke of Bavaria isn't a descendant of King James II and VII. Modern Jacobites ought to support amending the Act of Settlement in order to allow the British monarch to convert to Catholicism instead of supporting deposing Queen Elizabeth II. Allowing the British monarch to convert to Catholicism will right the wrong done to King James II and VII.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #29 
Catholicism was never 'banned' in Britain. It was not at any time illegal simply to be a Catholic. Catholics did however suffer from a range of civil disabilities, and what happened in 1778 was that some of these were removed, the beginning of a gradual process generally regarded as complete by 1829. From that year there were no disabilities left except as regards the succession of the Crown, which a) didn't have any Catholics in succession to it anyway and b) was completely untouchable. In fact even that remaining disability was reduced by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which once it came into force in March 2015 removed the ban on Catholic spouses. That I completely agreed with, but due to its historical rootedness I would strongly oppose the removal of Catholicism as a disqualification for the succession. I don't think there were any wrongs done to James II and VII, though there were quite a few wrongs committed by him.

It is an illusion that there was a fixed law of succession dating from the Conquest to 1688. James II was the 26th monarch to reign in succession to William I, and the 15th to be on accession his male preference primogeniture heir. Meaning the other eleven had not been. And that is being slightly generous, I could level it up at 13-13; Mary I and Elizabeth I were both technically illegitimate on accession, so I could defensibly have put them in the other column. But allowing them in as I did means it was actually at Elizabeth I's accession that the numbers did level up, when Mary I acceded it was ten male preference primogeniture heir, eleven not. Hardly an established pattern of orderly and peaceful succession dealt a fatal blow by the convulsive upheavals of 1688. Since then however, a little matter of 332 years and counting, the only interruption in the orderly succession by law established in 1689 has been Edward VIII's decision to abdicate, itself dealt with by law and with no ensuing doubt as to the succession.

So I really don't see too much of a rational basis for Jacobitism. On a technical note, it was Carlos IV that restored the traditional succession law. Fernando VII merely promulgated the law made by his father. And it was restoration of the traditional law, the semi-Salic order introduced by Felipe V was a recent and alien innovation so far as Spain was concerned.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Catholicism was never 'banned' in Britain. It was not at any time illegal simply to be a Catholic. Catholics did however suffer from a range of civil disabilities, and what happened in 1778 was that some of these were removed, the beginning of a gradual process generally regarded as complete by 1829. From that year there were no disabilities left except as regards the succession of the Crown, which a) didn't have any Catholics in succession to it anyway and b) was completely untouchable. In fact even that remaining disability was reduced by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which once it came into force in March 2015 removed the ban on Catholic spouses. That I completely agreed with, but due to its historical rootedness I would strongly oppose the removal of Catholicism as a disqualification for the succession. I don't think there were any wrongs done to James II and VII, though there were quite a few wrongs committed by him.

It is an illusion that there was a fixed law of succession dating from the Conquest to 1688. James II was the 26th monarch to reign in succession to William I, and the 15th to be on accession his male preference primogeniture heir. Meaning the other eleven had not been. And that is being slightly generous, I could level it up at 13-13; Mary I and Elizabeth I were both technically illegitimate on accession, so I could defensibly have put them in the other column. But allowing them in as I did means it was actually at Elizabeth I's accession that the numbers did level up, when Mary I acceded it was ten male preference primogeniture heir, eleven not. Hardly an established pattern of orderly and peaceful succession dealt a fatal blow by the convulsive upheavals of 1688. Since then however, a little matter of 332 years and counting, the only interruption in the orderly succession by law established in 1689 has been Edward VIII's decision to abdicate, itself dealt with by law and with no ensuing doubt as to the succession.

So I really don't see too much of a rational basis for Jacobitism. On a technical note, it was Carlos IV that restored the traditional succession law. Fernando VII merely promulgated the law made by his father. And it was restoration of the traditional law, the semi-Salic order introduced by Felipe V was a recent and alien innovation so far as Spain was concerned.

Banning the British monarch from converting to Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity is wrong, because the king not sharing the religious affiliation of the majority of his subjects isn't wrong, unless he tries to force his subjects to convert to his religion. A Catholic or Orthodox Christian British monarch will be unable to force his subjects to convert to his religion, because he will be a figurehead. Prince Charles is a staunch supporter of religious tolerance. Protestant Britons ought to be loyal to King Charles III, even if he converts to Orthodox Christianity.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.