Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
So what? Firstly, there's nothing wrong with that. Secondly, it doesn't mean the Capetian claim itself must represent a fusionist position, even if there were something wrong with that. It isn't even clear what you mean by nostalgia for the Ancien Regime. The strictest use of that phrase might imply wishing to revive it in full, but you now seem to mean any who are critical of the general tendency of the Revolution as it happened.

I too dislike the Reign of Terror, but I support the legacy of the moderate French revolutionaries, such as La Fayette and Mirabeau. Monarchists, who reject both Bonapartism and the July Monarchy, reject the legacy of the French Revolution entirely. Most members of this forum consider celebrating the Bastille Day to be wrong, despite the French monarchy not being abolished on July 14 1789. The French monarchy wasn't abolished before 1792. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #47 
You are just repeating what has been said before. This is what annoys people. The French Revolution, even in 1789, was led by overly idealistic leaders, unlike the US Revolution. They didn't try to take what they had and reform it in a careful, gradual way, but, alongside even then making use of the Paris mob, spoke and acted on grandiose dreams. The legacy of the Revolution is this and the folly and instability that remains to this day. But that doesn't mean a Orleanist today has to reject representative government, constitutionalism, and the like, if that is what you mean by rejecting the legacy of the Revolution.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
You are just repeating what has been said before. This is what annoys people. The French Revolution, even in 1789, was led by overly idealistic leaders, unlike the US Revolution. They didn't try to take what they had and reform it in a careful, gradual way, but, alongside even then making use of the Paris mob, spoke and acted on grandiose dreams. The legacy of the Revolution is this. But that doesn't mean a Orleanist today has to reject representative government, constitutionalism, and the like, if that is what you mean by rejecting the legacy of the Revolution.

I don't claim that an Orleanist living today has to reject democracy, but I don't understand, why supporters of a Capetian restoration reject the July Monarchy, if they aren't opposed to democracy. A Capetian restoration in France will be a symbolic rejection of the French Revolution, even if the restored Capetian monarchy in France is a democratic constitutional monarchy. I wouldn't have supported abolition of the Capetian monarchy, if I had lived in France in 1792, but I want France to remain a republic (unless Jean-Christophe Bonaparte is elected Emperor of the French), because I don't want France to reject the legacy of the French Revolution.
I reject the legacy of the Russian Revolution, despite supporting the legacy of the French Revolution. That's why restoring the Russian monarchy is far more important to me than to restore other European monarchies, in addition to the Romanovs being my favourite European royal dynasty.
All European countries have embraced the legacy of the French Revolution, except Britain. The current monarchies of continental Europe have embraced the legacy of the French Revolution, because they are crowned democratic republics, where privileges of nobility have been abolished. 

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #49 
And that legacy is one of folly and terror in concrete terms. A Capetian restoration would be a rejection of that, but so what? If it's a representative, constitutional government, then it isn't a rejection of these principles. What is surely important to the liberal democrat would remain, although you seem to wish to go further and get rid of much of the trappings of monarchy that we jn Britain have preserved.

Yet again, you often seem a lukewarm monarchist, forever proclaiming nonchalantly about where you wish to remain a republic or where you don't care about monarchism.

Vive Le RoI!
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
And that legacy is one of folly and terror in concrete terms. A Capetian restoration would be a rejection of that, but so what? If it's a representative, constitutional government, then it isn't a rejection of these principles. What is surely important to the liberal democrat would remain, although you seem to wish to go further and get rid of much of the trappings of monarchy that we jn Britain have preserved.

Yet again, you often seem a lukewarm monarchist, forever proclaiming nonchalantly about where you wish to remain a republic or where you don't care about monarchism.

Vive Le RoI!

To me, monarchism is about defending current monarchies and restoring monarchies, which were abolished by Communist or Islamic revolutions.
I don't want to remove the trappings of monarchy in Britain. I merely support removing the hereditary peers and the bishops from the House of Lords.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #51 
And round and round we go.

There's not the slightest need to do that. The Lord's are a mess anyway, but that is unlikely to help matters, nor is there some principled need to do so.

Also, why comment on the French monarchy or other instances where you don't want or care about restorations. We are all monarchists here. If we are commenting on a country like France and its constitutional arrangements, we are going to support a restoration. We are all well aware of your opinions by now. The same old stuff in favour of various republics isn't needed and is unlikely to be greeted positively. Why not just stick to discussing the monarchies you do care about?
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
And round and round we go.

There's not the slightest need to do that. The Lord's are a mess anyway, but that is unlikely to help matters, nor is there some principled need to do so.

Removing the remnants of feudalism and theocracy is very important. Other European countries with established churches don't allow bishops to be ex officio members of their parliaments. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #53 
Rubbish. It might obsess you, but it has no instrinsic necessity and is unlikely to have a positive effect in Britain. When I read your comments like this, I'm reminded of Peter Simple's socialist royal family. Your pared down, drab vision of monarchy and government in general is not just unnecessary, but to me positively a bad thing. I'm very glad Britain did not go down the French route. Tellingly, you never speak in concrete terms about the advantages of abolishing such institutions, now or in the past, but only in terms of highly questionable abstract claims. To anyone who doesn't share your essentially, yes, republican, strongly egalitarian, democratic, and anti-traditional sensibilities, these claims mean little.

I don't care a hot what other European countries do. Few are such great examples to Britain.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Rubbish. It might obsess you, but it has no instrinsic necessity and is unlikely to have a positive effect in Britain. When I read your comments like this, I'm reminded of Peter Simple's socialist royal family. Your pared down, drab vision of monarchy and government in general is not just unnecessary, but to me positively a bad thing. I'm very glad Britain did not go down the French route. Tellingly, you never speak in concrete terms about the advantages of abolishing such institutions, now or in the past, but only in terms of highly questionable abstract claims.

I don't care a hot what other European countries do. Few are such great examples to Britain.

I like the British monarchy, despite not being an Anglophile. I like the ancient traditions and the pageantry of the British monarchy. The traditions and the pageantry of the British monarchy will survive the hereditary peers and the bishops being expelled from the House of Lords. The traditions and the pageantry of the British monarchy survived Tony Blair expelling most hereditary peers from the House of Lords. I support completing Blair's expulsion of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. I dislike the economic policy of Blair, but I like his constitutional reforms and his support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #55 
Ah, yes, let's hack at all the remaining traditions, after all, in isolation the bundle will survive the loss of any one stick. Anyone who is the least informed about Britain and our constitutional arrangements can only chuckle at the suggestion that Blair's changes had any kind of positive effect on the Lords. That chamber is manifestly far worse now, and a good illustration of where this kind of stuff tends to lead.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 269
Reply with quote  #56 
Blair's reforms turned the Upper Chamber from one of long-sighted experts to one stuffed with the same politicians who had failed to be reelected in the commons.
__________________
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: 1,474
Reply with quote  #57 
I have previously supported abolishing the British House of Lords, but I have changed my mind, because the House of Lords will likely be replaced by an elected upper house instead of a unicameral parliament. I prefer an appointed upper house to an elected upper house. Britain ought to keep the House of Lords, but all members of the House of Lords ought to be life peers.
It's very amusing that the only member of this forum (Matthew J Taylor is descended from a noble house, but he considers himself a commoner), who is a nobleman, defends the legacy of the French Revolution, while commoners reject the legacy of the French Revolution.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 269
Reply with quote  #58 

Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
I have previously supported abolishing the British House of Lords, but I have changed my mind, because the House of Lords will likely be replaced by an elected upper house instead of a unicameral parliament. I prefer an appointed upper house to an elected upper house. Britain ought to keep the House of Lords, but all members of the House of Lords ought to be life peers.
It's very amusing that the only member of this forum (Matthew J Taylor is descended from a noble house, but he considers himself a commoner), who is a nobleman, defends the legacy of the French Revolution, while commoners reject the legacy of the French Revolution.

My descent from a noble house is pretty indirect and I'm certainly not a nobleman myself.

I'm sure if we all went back far enough we'd find nobles.


__________________
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
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #59 
It's curious how a thread that started with a spurious list of claimants to vacant European thrones has moved via the French Revolution and a few other matters to discussing abolition of the British House of Lords, or alternately removal of the only worthwhile element in it. I rather doubt Azadi's claims to nobility, we only have his word for it, hardly the most reliable source. And I rather doubt too that a genuine nobleman would remind us all of the fact every fifth post, or think that his noble status had any bearing on the validity of his arguments.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 528
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Removing the remnants of feudalism and theocracy is very important. Other European countries with established churches don't allow bishops to be ex officio members of their parliaments. 


If you're considering converting to Catholicism, you should note that Bishops have equivalent rank, from a royal perspective, to dukes. They are nobility because of their office. I assume the CoE treats them the same.

Giving the lords a say in the state of things is a good thing. The monarch isn't the only good thing about monarchic systems. The aristocracy is also a good thing, and in a role such as in the UK's, it can act as a check against the mob rule nature of representative democracy. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.