Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #1 
I am not a Jacobite.
Why am I not a Jacobite?
I can see two possible options:
i) the theoretical anti-jacobite arguments I have developed and adopted from others
ii) the practical reality of Windsor rule

I would like to think that it is on account of the first that I reject Jacobitism, for, as a pan-monarchist, I don't tend to let practical realities have much of an impact on my opinions on foreign countries' forms of government, and why should I do any differently with my own.
Nonetheless I still wonder if it is indeed the second reason that has caused my Windsor loyalism.
To test this idea for myself and for others, I propose a thought experiment.

Imagine a world in which Oliver Cromwell had accepted the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland, as the English Parliament had tried to get him to do.
In this world,presuming that another republic hadn't been declared, the British Isles, or at least Great Britain (Ireland may well have cast Cromwell's men out), would currently be ruled by Cromwell's heir.
Would I, a British Patriot, support this heir as King of Scotland (or whatever sort of union formed in this reality) or would I instead be supporter of whoever the heir of Charles I would be in that world?

Reluctantly I must admit that chances are I'd be a House of Cromwell supporter in that world. That disturbs me, since Cromwell's claim to leadership of the british isles is illegitimate in my view.

How should the results of this experiment influence my and others' opinions on Jacobitism and its modern day adherents?

__________________
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  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor
I am not a Jacobite.
Why am I not a Jacobite?
I can see two possible options:
i) the theoretical anti-jacobite arguments I have developed and adopted from others
ii) the practical reality of Windsor rule

I would like to think that it is on account of the first that I reject Jacobitism, for, as a pan-monarchist, I don't tend to let practical realities have much of an impact on my opinions on foreign countries' forms of government, and why should I do any differently with my own.
Nonetheless I still wonder if it is indeed the second reason that has caused my Windsor loyalism.
To test this idea for myself and for others, I propose a thought experiment.

Imagine a world in which Oliver Cromwell had accepted the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland, as the English Parliament had tried to get him to do.
In this world,presuming that another republic hadn't been declared, the British Isles, or at least Great Britain (Ireland may well have cast Cromwell's men out), would currently be ruled by Cromwell's heir.
Would I, a British Patriot, support this heir as King of Scotland (or whatever sort of union formed in this reality) or would I instead be supporter of whoever the heir of Charles I would be in that world?

Reluctantly I must admit that chances are I'd be a House of Cromwell supporter in that world. That disturbs me, since Cromwell's claim to leadership of the british isles is illegitimate in my view.

How should the results of this experiment influence my and others' opinions on Jacobitism and its modern day adherents?

Supporting Jacobitism today makes no sense, because the Windsors are descendants of King James VI of Scotland and I of England, unlike Cromwell, and the male line of the Stuarts died out in 1807.
I don't support strict legitimism. I prefer Napoleon to the Capetians, I prefer the Pahlavis to the Kadjars and I prefer the Zogus to the Wieds. But I prefer restoring ancient dynasties to establishing new monarchies from scratch. I will never accept the legitimacy of a Tsar of Russia, who isn't a descendant of Rurik, because Rurik was the founder of Russia. Russia being a monarchy is pointless, if the Tsar of Russia isn't a descendant of the founding father of Russia.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #3 
I think time can go a long to rendering a dynasty legitimate. If Cromwell's dynasty had reigned for centuries, this would be likely be the case. However, the peculiar course Cromwell would have taken to the throne would be an issue.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #4 
Cromwell wasn't a hero, unlike Napoleon. Cromwell supported religious intolerance and he persecuted Irish Catholics. Napoleon supported freedom of religion. Napoleon preserved the achievements of the French Revolution of 1789, while ending the excesses of the French Revolution of 1792. Napoleon was the greatest French monarch ever! I prefer Napoleon to the Capetians, but I don't support a Bonaparte restoration in France, because the present-day Bonapartes aren't descendants of Napoleon. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.