Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Daniel9

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 44
Reply with quote  #1 

What country in your opinion has the ideal monarchy?  I am speaking in terms of power, effectiveness, etc.

 

Personally, I would say the Kingdom of Jordan would be my choice.  The Monarch has substantial power, tempered by the National Assembly.

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,815
Reply with quote  #2 
I like the Jordanian monarchy and royal family, but as far as the "ideal" is concerned, I prefer Christian monarchies to Muslim ones. Since the contemporary Christian monarchy in which the sovereign has the most real power is the Principality of Liechtenstein, that would be my choice for the currently existing monarchy closest to the ideal.
BlueEmperor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #3 

I doubt I'll shock anyone when I say that I believe the United Kingdom - albeit with the potential for a little bit of tweaking - is the ideal monarchy.

 

B.E.


__________________
"The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other." ~ Walter Bagehot
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #4 

 

I am not very familiar with Islamist monarchs so I can not comment on them.  I am far too much of a medievalist to find any monarchy currently reigning as ideal. They all to some extent are democracies with figureheads.   The Principality of Liechtenstein, I will agree is the best of the current examples, but even this falls far short as the people can elect to dethrone him according to the constitution, something which I find immoral and distasteful (and impossible).   The current British structure I would consider to be one of the least ideal as Parliament has usurped to itself the King’s body politic, leaving the king’s body natural (in this case a queen) as little more than a tourist attraction. 

 

 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #5 

My ideal Monarchy would be Great Britain. Some reforms are needed, of course, but essentially Great Britain is the one for me.

 

 

BlueEmperor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #6 

I chose King Edward VII as my avatar because I feel he was the ideal monarch - he exercised his power less than his mother, Queen Victoria, and in a more appropriate way but more often than his son and successor, King George V, who I feel allowed too much power to ebb away.

 

B.E.


__________________
"The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other." ~ Walter Bagehot
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #7 

I just read an interesting book review of Philip II in the Remnant (a traditional Catholic newspaper) which I intend to purchase (once I have read a few of the books I have already order that are collecting dust on my shelf).  Given recent discussions I find this powerful Catholic monarch more my ideal.  I am not as enamored with even relatively powerful monarchies of the 18th and 19th century (with some exceptions).  Monarchism is a very large umbrella (perhaps too large) and our divisions show the advantage the republicans have over us.  All political difference are ultimately theological and we are most assuredly divided here.  I would say that we differ on the theology of monarchy as can be seen easily by the discussions of what religion (if any) should the coronation reflect to more subtle theological questions such as the legitimacy of regicide. 

 

If the book review is ever posted on their site I will post it here.  The book can be found here: 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/RemnantBookstore/  


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
pauljluk

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 202
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

All political difference are ultimately theological

How can political differences be theological to those who exclude theology from their political views?

WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #9 

 

 

Secularism can be as fanatical as any other religion, just ask the French Catholics who witnessed the Terror.   Secularism is relatively peaceful for now because it has a temporary victory over Western states. 

 

 

Paul, since you asked….

 

 It is impossible to exclude religious views because almost every position betrays man’s religious beliefs.  Ultimately secularism does hold its own religious doctrine even if they are not formulated as such.  These doctrines are preached, more often than not, in the negative rather than the positive even if only implicitly.   Anathemas of general councils, though negatively formulated, are theological and no less so for the secularist.   The following are at least implicit in most secularist creeds:   

 

Authority does not descend from God and is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces.  As a result the Incarnation and divine law are ultimately irrelevant to the governance of a nation, furthermore since divine law can not be known, human intellect alone is the arbiter of truth.  Since truth is either unknownable or unable to bind, every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.  It follows thus that the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.  That despite its claims to be the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic religion should not be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.  All religions then are basically good in as much as they serve man.  Government need not look after the spiritual needs of man but only his material needs because man is basically good (denial of the effects of original sin). 

 

I could go on but I hope you understand by now that all of these positions which are at least implicit in most secularist philosophy and are by their nature theological. 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
darthkorbus

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 228
Reply with quote  #10 

I think that both the pricipality of Liechtenstein and the kingdom of Tonga are the most ideal (Christian) monarchies in existence.  Both countries have their problems (esp. in Tonga, where there seems to be a growing pro-democracy movement), but they seem to have the strongest monarchical powers.


__________________
"To progress as a society we must regress. To go forward we must go backward. Our future lies in the past."--Me

http://altarandthrone.blogspot.com
darthkorbus

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 228
Reply with quote  #11 

"Personally, I think Vatican City has the ideal monarch."

 

Why didn't I think of that? Duh!!


__________________
"To progress as a society we must regress. To go forward we must go backward. Our future lies in the past."--Me

http://altarandthrone.blogspot.com
pauljluk

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 202
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

Secularism can be as fanatical as any other religion, just ask the French Catholics who witnessed the Terror.   Secularism is relatively peaceful for now because it has a temporary victory over Western states.


The prime mover of the Terror was Robespierre, whose politics included his religious cult of the Supreme Being, and whose victims included the atheist Hébertists. I was asking about those who's politics includes no theology (e.g. atheists).


Any type of person can be fanatical if they're given a sufficient dogma or ideology to follow (in which I include pseudo-religious dogmas such as Stalinist Communism). But I have yet to see such fanaticism inspired by non-belief as such : there have been no Atheist or Agnostic crusades, inquisitions or jihads. I would venture to suggest that western states are relatively peaceful because they are increasingly secular, and that, as so often in the past, the biggest threat to that peace is religion.


Quote:
It is impossible to exclude religious views because almost every position betrays man’s religious beliefs.  Ultimately secularism does hold its own religious doctrine even if they are not formulated as such.  These doctrines are preached, more often than not, in the negative rather than the positive even if only implicitly.   Anathemas of general councils, though negatively formulated, are theological and no less so for the secularist.   The following are at least implicit in most secularist creeds:   

 

Authority does not descend from God and is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces.  As a result the Incarnation and divine law are ultimately irrelevant to the governance of a nation, furthermore since divine law can not be known, human intellect alone is the arbiter of truth.  Since truth is either unknownable or unable to bind, every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.  It follows thus that the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.  That despite its claims to be the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic religion should not be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.  All religions then are basically good in as much as they serve man.  Government need not look after the spiritual needs of man but only his material needs because man is basically good (denial of the effects of original sin). 

 

I could go on but I hope you understand by now that all of these positions which are at least implicit in most secularist philosophy and are by their nature theological. 


This is like arguing that Christian doctrine is secular because the rejection of secularism is implicit in its philosophy.

But the "creed" you describe is not the basis of most non-religious philosophy, and some of it is meaningless in Humanist and other non-religious worldviews.

Non-religious worldviews such as Humanism do not define themselves in relation to their non-belief in god, although they often have to explain themselves that way to a populous brought up on religious traditions. They define themselves in relation to what can be observed, measured, tested and logically deduced; and anything which falls outside of those parameters is simply absent, whether it be god, fairies or giant planet-eating one-eyed space monsters.

WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #13 

First off a secularist need not be an atheist (though it perhaps should logically follow).

 

“There have been no Atheist or Agnostic crusades.”

 

That is preposterous, but I have a feeling you would disqualify any example I gave as pseudo-religious so I will not bother.  I am not surprised to find pseudo religious positions within atheistic and agnostic crusades for as I have argued they are theological positions and man by his nature is theologically inclined even when he is rejecting the very existence of God. I believe I made my point on this matter and so I am happy to leave it at that but for the sake of clarification let me answer this:

 

“This is like arguing that Christian doctrine is secular because the rejection of secularism is implicit in its philosophy.”

 

Not at all. Your example is inaccurate because I never claimed that secular doctrine was Christian because it implicitly contain statements regarding Christian doctrine.  What I said was that secular philosophy is theological, that it has its own doctrine and that it rejects creeds outside its own. 

 

It think I will leave it there for between you and me there is a vast gulf, one which can not be shrunken with words.

 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
InquisitorGeneralis

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 70
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

First off a secularist need not be an atheist (though it perhaps should logically follow).

 

And an atheist need not be a secularist.


__________________
"In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors—all the ancient priests, bishops and kings—all that was once the glory of England." St. Edmund Campion, English Martyr
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #15 

"And an atheist need not be a secularist."

 

LOL, true.


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.