Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
Yes, but are the liberals' other outrageous and heretical doctrines really worth one earthly nation?

I think not. If their doctrines were ever so victorious as to discredit the American Nation...then expect England and everything else to fall prey to it as well.

You have to remember, royalcello, they aren't doing it because they actually care about history...or truth...or England. But because they desire to destroy. They'd do the same to England and its Monarchy.


I am not aware that American liberals of the sort I had in mind have any influence whatsoever over England and its Monarchy, nor in fact do they harbor any animosity towards it.  When Queen Elizabeth visited here in 2007, I noticed that the negative commentary in the media (e.g. "didn't we fight a revolution to be rid of royalty?") was mostly from neocon Americanist Republicans.  I don't think you will ever find more knee-jerk hostility to royalty/monarchy than on neocon sites like FreeRepublic.  Whereas the royalty-adoring European Royal History Journal to which I subscribe and whose conference I attended in 2006 (where I met Prince Gregory of Bourbon-Two Sicilies and his wife) is published by a liberal gay man in San Francisco.

I am a "big tent" monarchist.   I want to win over as many people to monarchism as possible, and in the United States since we don't have our own independent monarchist tradition that would involve openness to revisionist perspectives on the American Revolution.  If that openness comes about from liberal biases rather than conservative ones, so be it.  The same applies to historical topics such as the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War, both areas where monarchists and liberal critics of American imperialism are likely to agree to an extent.

If I lived in the United Kingdom, where many on the Left actually do drip with hostility to the Crown, I would probably be more inclined to identify myself with my country's Right.  But I live in the United States, and since I do not participate in American politics, and did not vote for Kerry or Bush or Obama or McCain, I really have no quarrel with American left-liberals per se except in the sense that I have a quarrel with all liberals (including, perhaps especially, the right-liberals who currently call themselves "conservatives").  While I personally lean to the right, even the "far right," on many other issues, I am not going to demand that anyone agree with me on any issue other than monarchy to be counted a monarchist in good standing, and I ultimately strive for monarchism to transcend Left/Right divisions which after all originated in the French Revolution.  I don't think the kind of automatic hostility you display towards "liberals" even when, so to speak, their broken clock is right twice a day is helpful in achieving that goal.
jfitz

Registered:
Posts: 43
Reply with quote  #17 
Dear Royal Cello:

I wanted to simply note my appreciation for your post of 2/15.  It expresses my own sentiments closely.  From my perspective one of the great virtues of Monarchy, at its best, is precisely that it does not side with a particular ideological streak.  Again, at its best Monarchy is neither left nor right, but a system that channels power for the benefit of a country as a whole.  I think it is worth noting in this context that during Prime Minster Thatcher's leadership, I understand that the Queen often held markedly different views from the Prime Minister; views we in the U.S. might think of as liberal but which are actually quite traditional for Britian (some of the social welfare policies in Britain go back to Elizabeth I).  To create even a minimal interest in monarchy in the U.S. it will have to be presented in a manner that is non-ideological.

Thanks again,

Jim
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #18 
You're welcome.  It's also worth noting that thoughtful conservatives in Britain like Peter Hitchens have also been critical of Thatcher, who from their point of view was not really a traditional Tory at all.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #19 
The Queen does not as a rule share her views on anyone or anything, especially her Prime Ministers. Which made it easy to float the canard that she disliked Lady Thatcher, a sincere monarchist who by her own testimony found her weekly meetings rather overwhelming, though one may assume that eventually she got used to them. One non-verbal indicator of the Queen's view has always been whether the OM and how swiftly the Garter are awarded after a Prime Minister leaves office. Yes, and instantly, for the OM, and comparatively swiftly for the Garter.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #20 
Peter, are you saying that reports of Her Majesty's dislike of the Baroness Thatcher were likely overstated?  That she actually may have liked and appreciated her?

__________________
"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
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #21 
Yes. The Queen has also since Lady Thatcher's stepping down attended events for her such as her 80th birthday party, which would hardly be likely if she had disliked her as reported.
jfitz

Registered:
Posts: 43
Reply with quote  #22 
Dear Peter:

I think your point may be valid.  However, I think it is possible for two people to disagree politically and still admire each other.  It is a mark of the ideologue that such a person finds that difficult, but there are numerous examples of intelligent people having long-term friendships with those they don't agree with.  William F. Buckley is a good example of a committed conservative who included committed liberals among his friend; for example, John Kenneth Galbraith. 

My point is that the two observations being made here are not mutually exclusive.  It is entirely possible that the Queen and Baronness Thatcher disagreed on certain issues while maintaining a strong admiration for each other.  Personally, I think this is likely.

Best wishes,

Jim
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #23 
Really? I hate anyone I meet who disagrees with me on anything. Kidding, you're entirely right of course, and I do think it quite likely that the Queen personally likes Lady Thatcher and admires some things she did, while disagreeing on other points, or even the overall approach. Just speculation, Her Majesty never says. Which was my point about the general impression that they didn't get on, Her Majesty never says, so there is no basis for it. We just have to glean an impression from actions, as I did.
Virregis

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #24 
Well this thread does go to show that history is not a matter of black and white.  Washington, for instance I admire.  He had many virtues (most of which I cannot say I possess), although I think he was, strictly speaking, a traitor to his King.  About Jefferson, or that poor fool Wilson  I have not much good to say. 

Classical political theory (a la De regimine principum or De Monarchia) would say that all states have a republican element in their makeup, and that this must be matched with a monarchical and an aristocratic element for a healthy society.  However, modern "republicanism" is simply a denial of kingship, indeed, it is a denial of personal responsibility in the policy of the state, and when it becomes democratic it is a very effective denial of personal responsibility—just look at Congress, or the local borough council.  Thus, being a fundamental negation of a positive good, I cannot muster any sympathy for republicans or republicanism. 

The problem with American parties is that they are both fundamentally political Liberals.  As J.V. Langmeade Casserly used to point out, both Capitalism and Marxism as economic and political ideologies are essentially materialistic.  One may be somewhat worse than the other, but that's not saying much.  The thing that disturbs me is the degree to which the Republican party has co-opted social conservatives to advance their ends, without really doing all that much to support them, nor by and large believing in them.  A lot of this has to do with the Puritan heritage of this country, which is largely a curse: but that is another subject for another time. 

Vivat Rex!
Michael
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #25 
Puritan Heritage?
Up in Yankee land maybe.

Down here (anywhere south of Maryland), were Good Catholics trapped by time, or Rustic Anglicans (Methodists) or Baptists, or old fashioned criminals and seekers after fortune....



__________________
"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
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.