Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 7      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupremeDirector

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.


Pakistan's last Monarch was Her majesty Queen Elizabeth II.  For the Pakastani, it would be returning home.

Just because the United Kingdon has marginalized Her Majesty, it wouldn't neccessarily follow that all her other Realms would need to do so. 



__________________
"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
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

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?

 



The Paris Treaty of 1783 Signed by His Britannic Majesty recognized NOT the United States (there wasn't one yet), per se, but each of the Colonies as individual States. 

(The related Versailles Treaty of 1783 gave the Floridas to his Catholic Majesty, who abdicated surrendering all claims, etc in 1808).

You might be able to work from the supposition that Republics expire when they 'abdicate' by surrendering Sovereignty (1789) to another.  Perhaps, a semi-legitimate case could be made that with the 'death' of Rhode Island, etc in 1789, the lands reverted to the Crown, as fiefs do when their is a failure of heirs.

Getting anyone to 'buy in' would be more than a little difficult.  We in the Dominion aren't making much progress in a state that DID stay loyal to His Majesty King George III.

__________________
"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


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

    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. 

 
I am reminded of a quote from a monarchist convert from republicanism. Jan Smuts fought the British Empire as a general in the Boer republican army during the Boer war. After his conversion he said, "If the people do not want a King, change their wants. If the people do not need a King, change their needs."
Rosa

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #19 

In a way I sort of hope if there is ever a return to a Monarchy, it will be set up and run by Native Americans. Just to show that all of this George & Louis nonsense gets cleared away.

 

A great Iroqois chief once said, "If you can go to another land and claim to Discover it, then I can sail to England and 'Discover it' ".

 

As for monarchy, well I think I may have to much ambition to live peacebly with an absolute one. I have a drive/hunger for power. Without politics I think my life would be really boring.


__________________
If all the world is a stage,can I be Carmen?
SupremeDirector

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #20 

Absolutist monarchies do not stifle ambition Rosa, they give it a focus. Instead of trying to butter up endless bureaucrats or are constantly trying to help only themselves, you need only prove yourself to the King. It enhances and focuses ambition, it does not destroy it. Also, I think you may have a wrong impression of what Absolutism entails; its not like a dictatorship at all, for one of those, while not only being morally reprehensible, do in fact stifle ambition.


__________________
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)
Rosa

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #21 

Sorry, it's just with Absolutism I always hear Louis XIV say "I am the State."

 

Well, if you are the State then why am I even standing here? Why shouldn't I just pull a Starscream style coup and rule myself,if you need me?


__________________
If all the world is a stage,can I be Carmen?
SupremeDirector

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #22 

Because he is the legitimate ruler. Kingship is more than who wears the Crown. Its a Divinly originated system. Napolean's coup did not make him a King, nor would your coup make you a Queen. Also, HM King Louis XIV was a far differant ruler than any France had ever known. His saying that he is the State means that all decisions come from him. Meaning there is no use for Parlements. The King has his advisors, but in the end the Kingship and the decisions come from him. Its a social and spiritual contract, that the King has the right, the authority, and the duty, to rule over and govern his subjects.


__________________
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)
Rosa

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #23 

Ok, I get it now. Sort of like Sunstorm. (I'm sorry if all the TF referances are annoying but with the Movie coming up I'm totally absorbed into the franchise)

 

So then Victoria was not the Empress of India because they conquered it? I am so confused, I thought that conquest is an option. All the Germanic tribes were conquerors. I like it. I'm no wimp.


__________________
If all the world is a stage,can I be Carmen?
SupremeDirector

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #24 

There is a differance between a conqueror and a userper. A country may be taken over the the monarchy thrown out, but while the new monarch may be the legal ruler, the natural ruler is still out there, waiting to regain his throne. (I know I'm probablly gonna tick off a lot of people with that, but that is how I view it.) A usurper is not legitimate either legally nor naturally, for they gained nothing through the spoils of war and they toppled the legitimate king of that nation and did not replace it with a legitimate king of another.


__________________
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)
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #25 
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, (And I probably am):

Conquest of  lands is a valid method for expansion of one's domains, but not the creation of a Royal House.

At times, the establishment of a new Monarch by Force is also permissible.

Neither of the above is  'normal' or 'preferred'.

If a King fully and completely defaults in the performance of his Duties to God and People, it may be necessary to replace him, by force if needs be.


__________________
"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
SupremeDirector

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #26 

Yes, but the King which would replace an ineffectual King would be the next in line, not a usurper from another line or from no royal line at all.

 

Also, I fundemantally dissagree with the notion that a nation can come in and just create a new monarch which would be subordinate to them. Monarchy is not just a social construct, it must be blessed, and someone not fit for the throne would not be blessed in his rule. So yes, conquest for expansion is alright, however, in my opinion the now ruling monarch, while legitimate because of the spoils of war, is only completly legitimate to rule in its original country, and the true king is instead living as a captive in his rightful land. Many probablly dissagree, but it may just be my isolationism coming out again.


__________________
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  #27 

Quote:
Also, I fundemantally dissagree with the notion that a nation can come in and just create a new monarch
Every Monarchy had to start at some point unless a Monarchy is directly appointed by G-d, as was the case of David HaMelech and his descendents. So what claim does any non-divinely appointed Monarch have to his throne?

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupremeDirector

Yes, but the King which would replace an ineffectual King would be the next in line, not a usurper from another line or from no royal line at all.

 

Also, I fundemantally dissagree with the notion that a nation can come in and just create a new monarch which would be subordinate to them. Monarchy is not just a social construct, it must be blessed, and someone not fit for the throne would not be blessed in his rule. So yes, conquest for expansion is alright, however, in my opinion the now ruling monarch, while legitimate because of the spoils of war, is only completly legitimate to rule in its original country, and the true king is instead living as a captive in his rightful land. Many probablly dissagree, but it may just be my isolationism coming out again.



We are agreed that the 'Replacement King' should be from the same Royal House, and next in line to the throne, unless that successor suffers from the errors as the dethroned monarch.

When the expansion is into areas that did not have a Monarch (the majority of  North America), there is no 'rightful king' to be displaced.  (So we don't have to worry about Her Majesty displacing any legitimate King of the Cherokee).

If the natives had a legitimate local King, his continued rule and reign, as a subordinate Monarch actually occuried in the British Empire (the princely states of India, Tuuvla, Fiji, etc)

__________________
"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
Rosa

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #29 

Well, the thing is that America has so many diverse climates and vegetation that the people in these regions were very different from one another,only in areas with the same languages & climate & culture did complex leagues form (like the Iroqois Confederation,which is one of the systems which influenced the Founding Fathers)

It's because the American continents go Up-down,while the eastern hemisphere goes Left-right. It's easier for cultures to spread along latitude lines because they have the same time zone & conditions.

 

Guns,Germs,and Steel my friends. Oh and a tiny bit of ambition is the reason why Europeans took over most of the world.

 


__________________
If all the world is a stage,can I be Carmen?
SupremeDirector

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #30 

If that was true then it would have been the Chinese who took over the ancient world, seeing as they are the ones who invented gunpower and who had the more developed civilization.


__________________
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)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.