Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #16 
You don't really want to go there Prag.
Read the 'propaganda' they used....

The King says the Law must be followed by the Legislature.
The King restricts Immigration (so as to protect the Indians from Invasion)
The King says 'No Kangaroo Courts'.
The King stations soldiers here to defend the borders.
The Kings says the Army answers to him and Parliament, and not the local politicos.
The King says Quebec can keep its own Laws.
The King says we can't trade with the Enemy.
The King lets Catholics Vote.
The King says we can't steal any more Indian lands.
The King says we have to obey the law.

Yeah, well, the King was RIGHT!


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
JonathanCid

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 170
Reply with quote  #17 
Hear, hear! Well put, Bo. God save HM King George III!

__________________
"There is only one Jesus Christ and all the rest is a dispute over trifles." - HM Queen Elizabeth I
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmatist
It is easy for us to say that George III wasn't that bad. But we must remember that we are looking through the  lens of history.

And it's an objective fact. Our current government taxes us more, intrudes in our lives, and is far more oppressive than HRH George III ever was. 

It amazes me that American small-government conservatives praise rebellion against George III, yet don't suggest rebellion now! If rebellion against a legitimate government is a just act (it isn't), then we are justified in revolution right now on account of tyranny far greater than we've ever experienced in the history of this nation.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,830
Reply with quote  #19 
It's not necessary to "look through the lens of history" to see that George III "wasn't that bad."  The Loyalists saw it at the time.

Similarly, it's not being anachronistic or politically correct to point out hypocrisy of champions of "Liberty" owning slaves, since Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) pointed it out at the time.  ("How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?")
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #20 
Absolutely. Samuel Johnson identified with the older school of British Tories (who were genuine reactionaries), not the new school of Pitt and Bourke that defined Toryism from c. 1760 until the "Thatcher Revolution" (i.e. the school of conservatism that was evolutionary and reconciled to the liberal state and society).

Virginia gained its assembly in 1619, the House of Burgesses. What more representation could you want? Did anyone in the Spanish or French colonies at the time ever have the right to their own assemblies? Nope! And the US has gradually betrayed "classical republican" principles since 1912- intrusion into people's lives, big government, radical executive power theories, etc.

So yes, the American Revolution was wrong in its entirety and had it not happened, America would have evolved into a nation in personal union with Britain with its own Parliament. "British America" including present-day Canada might have been a much bigger country.

Yet a staunch Catholic monarchist like myself, seems to be less bothered about the US, than I am about the grotesque evils of Cromwell, Jacobins, Communists and Nazis.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.