Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 7      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Everyman

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #1 

Although I am new to the study of monarchy, one thing has leaped out at me as being terribly off-base. Why do so many monarchists want to "reclaim" America for the British monarchy? I understand the nostalgic anglo-envy many Americans have for the prim-and-proper ways of the British; I'm right there with you. But shouldn't we realize--even if you don't accept the legitamacy of the American Revolution--that with all the time that has passed, if we want monarchy for our own country, it has to be a purely American kingdom?

 

What would be wrong with that? I mean, the very fact that Britian has a hold (of sorts) on Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. is the result of imperialism. That is precisely what disgusts me about America's role in foreign affairs: It's undefiled imperialism, trying to "spread democracy."

 

While I am becoming increasingly convinced of the superiority of monarchy as a political structure, I resent the work some folks do in equating monarchy with empire. So, what do you think about an America that establishes itself as a monarchy unto itself, no Commonwealth ties? A non-interventionist, isolationist nation following the advice of G.K. Chesterton: "A great nation does not boast of its largeness but of its smallness."

 


__________________
Everyman

"Christus' lore and His apostles twelve
He taught, but first He followed it himselve."
-Geoffrey Chaucer


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #2 

While I agree that we should not simply adopt the British Royal family for reasons I've posted on other threads, I do have a question. Who would you propose for an American "Royal" family?

SupremeDirector

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #3 

I too have wondered that. I usually shrug it off with the idea that first we need to try and work to create a throne in a throneless nation. Who sits in it can be worked out later. Just as long as its not one of the Clintons or Kennedys....


__________________
Long Live The King, Long Live Louis XX!

"So pride yourself on what you are, And hold them all to words they can't take back. I've seen a place (it comes) to me in dreams, Where fires die but light still shines for us to see! Would God bless a murder of the innocents? Would God bless a war based on pride? Would God bless a money-hungry government? Noooo! Would God bless our ineffective court system? God bless the sweatshops we run. God bless America? God bless America?" ~Rise Against (Blood Red, White & Blue)


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupremeDirector

I too have wondered that. I usually shrug it off with the idea that first we need to try and work to create a throne in a throneless nation. Who sits in it can be worked out later. Just as long as its not one of the Clintons or Kennedys....

 
Unfortunately, I think the popular psychology militates against your position. It's a lot easier to convince someone that "Prince Murgatroyd" or even "Joe Sixpack" should be king than to convince them that monarchy should be adopted and we'll decide who the king is later.
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #5 

  Being one of them of whom you speak let me reply.  

 

 If we are to bring about a restoration of the old order it is unlikely to be brought about upon a new foundation. Monarchs do not simply spring up from the soil.  Before the victory of the Revolutions the colonists looked back at their mother country as their source. The Americanist see the U.S. as their source, looks to the new order, sees the U.S. as the New Israel, with a duty to shine the light of “Liberty” on the rest of the world. 

    

 

    I am an old world order man with no sentimental love for the Founding Fathers or the early American myths.  I look back to old institutions. I am the son of Europeans and a legitimist.  Who has a right to claim this newly invented throne?  You?  Me?  The Bush family or the Kennedys?   We lack a monarchal tradition from which to draw upon.  Any rise of monarchy, without attaching it to a stable tradition of monarchy, would force us to draw from our republican and democratic roots.  That is to say it would start out as a dictatorship.   The ideal of legitimate hereditary monarchy creates stability, and a father and son relationship between the people and the monarch.  If Christendom was torn by dynastic disputes imagine what would happen here where there is no development of the ideal of legitimism through hereditary monarchy.   We would open the door to revolution.  While it does not have to be the reigning monarch of Britain (though this would be the most likely to succeed) or anywhere else for that matter it most certainly does need to be a prince of the blood. 

Short of a tribal remnant left after some disaster I would fight any "American Monarch". 


__________________
"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  #6 

WhiteCockade--

 

I agree!

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #7 
As a strong Supporter of Her Majesty as Sovereign, at least in the Former Colonies of Florida, I'd like to remind everyone that only the middle 13 revolted against our King.

It is also worth noting, that the rights of the Catholics to worship freely were guaranteed by His Britannic Majesty to both the Floridan (former Spanish) and Quebec (Former French) Colonists, as part of the Treaty of 1763. 

The Catholics in both groups preferred to remain  subjects of the Anglican Monarch rather than become 'Citizens' in the 'Republic'.

As for American becoming again a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, I think it would do the Republic Good to join such and international organization.  Where helping each other, not forcing your political system on them, is the goal of the Commonwealth - Something the 'neocons' could uses a large dose of!. 

The Commonwealth has Republics, Dominions (Realms), and even Local Native Monarchies as members. 


__________________
"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
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #8 

Jovan, and I both favor Louis XX if we had the power to select the monarch ourselves.   I think that you can make something of a case for the lands of the Louisiana Purchase since that deal was about as lawful as me selling my neighbors farm. The Republic had no authority to sell those lands.  As we live in lands where the former British colonies turn United States would succeed, it seems appropriate to me that monarchist look to Britain, especially since we speak the language and are culturally similar.   In this sense I am a Loyalist. 


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

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #9 

I understand your arguments for looking back to Britan, but don't you think its been too long? America has developed its own culture (and imported the rest). With the current demographics it would make more sense to look to Spain than to Britan. America, for better or for worse, is a unique country, with subject of many other crowns in our nation. It wouldn't make much sense to me that a immigrant from Pakistan to America has to recognize the British monarch as his own. It makes more sense to me to make our own, based upon the older European ones.

 

That, and the fact that England is a Consitutionalist monarchy just sickens me. I could never live under a castrated monarchy like that: it would seem like a never ending mockary of what monarchy should be.


__________________
Long Live The King, Long Live Louis XX!

"So pride yourself on what you are, And hold them all to words they can't take back. I've seen a place (it comes) to me in dreams, Where fires die but light still shines for us to see! Would God bless a murder of the innocents? Would God bless a war based on pride? Would God bless a money-hungry government? Noooo! Would God bless our ineffective court system? God bless the sweatshops we run. God bless America? God bless America?" ~Rise Against (Blood Red, White & Blue)
Everyman

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #10 

Well, guys, this is a tough issue to discuss. There are those of us who believe that the history of the American Revolution has been skewed by those who favor it and we should then go back to our legitimate Sovereign, the monarch of England. And there are those of us who think that history is so far behind us that it no longer is relevant and that no American would actually go for that.

 

So, then I come around--as green to this conversation as could be--wondering how my love for monarchy could be married to my love for my homeland. All I know, is that I need some more persuading before I can fully understand what the Founding Fathers did that was so bad.

 

Who could be chosen as monarch or royal family? I don't know, but how has history chosen them in the past? I know at times it was chosen initially because someone did something brave and the people made him king, then his offspring inherited the throne from him.


__________________
Everyman

"Christus' lore and His apostles twelve
He taught, but first He followed it himselve."
-Geoffrey Chaucer
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #11 

I was a republican and…well a Republican, who at one time found the Revolution to be heroic.  I hope you stick around and we get a chance to discuss this topic more and perhaps those of us who have spent more time on this issue can convince you or at least explain where we are coming from.    


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #12 

SupremeDirector,

 

I believe the American culture is bankrupt and polluted with pluralism and multiculturalism.  The time elapsed makes reunion more difficult but not less important. I do not believe kings can be made, at least not overnight.  Out of democracy a dictator springs.  Perhaps over time a patriarchal and parental relationship develops in this dictatorship and maybe a monarchy blooms but not at the beginning but over many generations.  I agree with your disgust of the emasculated nature of the British monarchy, but I am talking about small steps in the right direction.  The grace that would be need just to get Americans to accept a powerless monarch would be enormous let along the monarch we would have.  If you are Catholic you should also be praying for their conversion.


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

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #13 

I am a Catholic, and I pray for the ending of the Republic and the supremacy of the throne. Also, I wholeheartedly share your view of the modern American culture, but is Europe really that much better? England is run by Socialists and filled with Islamic Nazis. Do we really want to look to that as our guide? Wouldn't it be better for us to go to the Pope and ask for him to crown us a new King, since he is the Vicar of Christ, reminiscent of Samuel anointing King David at the instruction of the Lord? Wouldn't that not  only give us a Catholic monarchy, but also a legitimate Monarchy?

As to the problems of getting the people to accept, the people will never accept any monarch, without a HUGE miracle. As long as the ACLU, NAMBLA, NOW, and the rest are allowed to exist, I doubt we will get any of the grace we need as a nation to do anything. But as long as we are praying for the grace, and for the things to happen which are necessary for us to obtain the grace, shouldn't we pray for everything instead of just for little steps? Because Monarchy is Divinely instituted, Democracy is Satanically instituted, and anything less than a full institution of the Monarchy would be a sacrilege, mixing hevenly with evil.


__________________
Long Live The King, Long Live Louis XX!

"So pride yourself on what you are, And hold them all to words they can't take back. I've seen a place (it comes) to me in dreams, Where fires die but light still shines for us to see! Would God bless a murder of the innocents? Would God bless a war based on pride? Would God bless a money-hungry government? Noooo! Would God bless our ineffective court system? God bless the sweatshops we run. God bless America? God bless America?" ~Rise Against (Blood Red, White & Blue)
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #14 

    Europe is as infected with heresy and error if not worse than that of the U.S. When I speak of looking to the institutions of Europe I mean this as a Medievalist. First we must work for the restoration of all things in Christ.   The Pope selecting a king is a great idea in theory, but in order for the men of the Republic to want a king they have to grow in the ideals inherent in monarchism.  If we are to foster the ideal of filial loyalty and legitimism (which is necessary for a hereditary monarchy to function) we need to attach it to a family.   Paternal concerns for the nation do not develop overnight either and so it is easier for an old family to have this than one designated on the spot by some future Pontiff.  We can not ask people to develop these things without attaching them to some one.    In the U.S. at this time that is simply not possible, but Royal families in Europe retain the loyalties of many monarchists even today and provide the foundation on which to build these ideals.  I believe we can be loyal today to a monarch even if we must resist their leftist errors. 


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #15 

Time And the King

 

What is interesting and I do not know that it relates in anyway to the Treaty of Paris of 1783, but the Medieval concept of the king’s two bodies just recently came to mind.  What I write is more my line of thought than any real position.  According to the theory then the king’s public body never dies, it is immortal (his natural body being quit mortal of course dies. For Catholics, think of when the Pope acts in his official capacity in union with tradition he is said to be acting as Peter).  This is summed up in “The King is dead, Long live the King!”.  Thus the king, in a certain sense, that signed the treaty in 1783 is still alive and well (or if we are speaking from the Jacobite position in which I included myself, the king who had his lands illicitly signed away is still alive)   This is understood in property law and prescription in the Latin phrase, Nullum tempus currit contra regem or “Time does not run against the king”.  The Medieval Jurist Henry Bracton writing regarding the injustices in this regard writes, that the “length of time…does not diminish the wrong but makes it worse.” Does this have any significance to the loyalists case or am I reaching?

 


__________________
"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.