Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchistCatherine
Prince Georg Friedrich isn't enthusiastic about becoming a Kaiser...


I wonder if the best monarchist response to this kind of attitude, in whatever case, is that it's the institution that matters and not the man.   So if
Prince Georg Friedrich doesn't want the throne, then he speaks only for himself and not for the institution of monarchy itself.   Let a worthy pretender take his place.    

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchistCatherine
Philip Kiril is a Lutheran pastor and works hard for the church, so I doubt he wants to be a pretender.


Maybe if he is approached and encouraged, he would hear the call of duty.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
MonarchistCatherine

Registered:
Posts: 197
Reply with quote  #17 
What I'm afraid of is that legitimists almost never give up and if another member of the House of Hohenzollern will start claiming the throne, the monarchist movement will be divided. Succession dispute doesn't serve the cause well - look at France. Now the succession of Hohenzollerns is clear for everybody. There is one Imperial pretender.
And let's not forget there are also many regional princes - for example the Bavarian and Württembergian royals are still quite popular. What I mean is that it would be nice to have one pretender for monarchists in one region, and monarchists from all regions united around one pretender for the Empire. But when he isn't interested, things get really bad.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #18 
The legitimists in the absolute sense have caused the institution of monarchy to decline to where it's almost impossible to restore or even begin a monarchy somewhere.  It's much easier to impose a republic.   Although this would be an extreme case and far from ideal, but what happened to the day when a usurper or a victorious general could start a new dynasty?   People would grumble, but in time, the new dynasty becomes customary.   It was easier to do this in the ancient world and somewhat in the medieval, but in the modern world it seems practically impossible.   Once a monarchy is gone, it's gone.   We'll either have democratic republics or tyrannic republics.   But what is annoying is that if an heir, according to the legitimists, doesn't want to be king and is fine with the republic, then we are stuck.   This one person decides it.   I say, it would be better to find another person who could make a claim, who wants the office, and who has the best chance of succeeding, to take the throne.   The institution should be considered greater than the individual. 

 

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #19 
Most cases we're dealing with don't have the sort of claimant issues that, for instance, France has.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,535
Reply with quote  #20 
I am not quite clear on his views, but if Prince Georg Friedrich has not repudiated the idea of monarchy but merely accepted the legitimacy of the republic so long as that is the form of government the people wish then I think his attitude is the right one and there is no need to go seeking another claimant. One might wish for him to be more assertive in his position as head of house, but if we believe in monarchism we must also believe that these choices are his to make as undoubted dynastic heir. If he is heir only so long as we like his opinions, then dynastic succession becomes meaningless and we might as well have elections for the heir.

I agree with Catherine that a divided succession is to be avoided at almost any cost. It has greatly harmed the monarchist cause in France and Italy, and somewhat hampers it in Russia and Romania. The succession in Portugal is also disputed, though as there is only one active claimant the damage there is mitigated, as is that of Saxony. I wouldn't wish to see Prussia/Germany added to the list, especially when there is not even any dynastic dispute at present.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
If he is heir only so long as we like his opinions, then dynastic succession becomes meaningless and we might as well have elections for the heir.

You mean, sport of like Spain with the Carlists?!

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.