Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 7      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
Rosa

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #31 

But China is in a very bad spot geographically, and since they were so advanced they considered everyone else barbarians. Have you ever read what the Emperor Kangxi wrote in reply to ambassadors of George III?

 

He pretty much said that China was self-sufficiant and did not need any "strange objects". His way of saying thanks but no thanks.


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #32 
While there is no doubt territory was conquered, yet ignored is that much of it was purchased. Keep in mind that one of the colonist’s complaints was that they were being prohibited by the crown from expanding across the Applation Mts. This came to an end in many ways after the American Revolution, when the new Republic decided to drive the natives from their lands. We must also get passed this idea that the Indians were some sort of peaceful and noble society before we came. These stone aged men were driving each other out of ancestral lands, raping, torturing and killing tribes to the man, and in some cases cannibalizing each other. While all races, by nature maybe equal, not all religions and cultures are equal. Thus there are countless natives beholding the face of God now, because of the missionaries brought with the colonists.
__________________
"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  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahaneloyalist

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?

 

In a certain sense you are right but in as much as God is the author of history He places over each people a monarch.     From my medievalist Catholic point of view the divinely appointed monarchs would include Papacy, France as the continuation of the Davidic line (Regnum Davidicum), and the Holy Roman Empire.  At one time (and will be again) the throne of France and the Empire were one.  

 

As far as resistance goes, any acts against a lawful reigning family or monarch must be in order to reestablish order in society which has been lost.  Thus the Baron's war against King John or the Jacobite uprising were understood as attempts to restore order and not a revolution.

 

 

 


__________________
"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  #34 

Baron,

 

I am not sure people "buy in" to most of what I say or write but for me it is more about saying what I believe is true unless it can be shown otherwise. 


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #35 

Well I'm into History, so I say that if sheep,horses,pigs,and cows were availiable in the Americas, they would have conquered the world and not us.

 

Interestingly enough, most of the domesticated animals and crops we use come from the Fertile Cresent.

 

It's like in Papa Bay New Guinea where Mr.Diamond did his research,the reason they are so 'primitive' had nothing to do with the people themselves but the resources surronding them. They began farming around the time the Mesopotamians did (4000sBC) but the plants like Tarot & Banana have little nourishment.


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

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #36 

Look at the cultures and peoples of the Fertile Cresent, are you going to try and tell me they are civilized or advanced in any way Rosa? They had the resources, but they were too buzy killing each other to do anything with it.


__________________
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  #37 

I take World History, SupremeDirector. You cannot deny that the Sumerians had irrigation,complex institutions,architecture,astronomy,and a record system. The Akkadian conquer Sargon is the world's first Emperor.

 

The early Babylon Empire had Hammurabi's famous code.

Then there was a break as the Hyksos & Hittites invaded.

Then the Egyptians rose, the Assyrians became an Empire. The later Babylons conquered lots of land and left the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

This all lasted until the Mede-Persian Empire emerged.


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

Registered:
Posts: 192
Reply with quote  #38 
Yes, but we are referring to two different things. I am referring to Monarchies and civilizations which took over almost all of the world: Rome, England, etc. The nations you are talking about are not only not around anymore, but have instead devolved into nothing more than bloodthirsty groups of people. And excuse me if I'm not impressed by your taking World History. Take a few A.P. history courses and go to college and then I'll be impressed, and then you may know what your talking about. Come join one of my Political Science courses in my college sometime if you actually want to learn something.
__________________
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  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

Baron,

 

I am not sure people "buy in" to most of what I say or write but for me it is more about saying what I believe is true unless it can be shown otherwise. 



Sorry for the choice of marketing terms.  My point was only that the ability to get others to see any validity to the argument that the lands reverted to the crown with the death of the soveriegn colonies might be very limited.  If you find the position tenable, then by all means feel free to espose and support it. 


__________________
"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  #40 

Quote:
From my medievalist Catholic point of view the divinely appointed monarchs would include Papacy, France as the continuation of the Davidic line (Regnum Davidicum), and the Holy Roman Empire.  At one time (and will be again) the throne of France and the Empire were one.     
 Are you claiming the kings of France to be male-line descendents of David HaMelech?

 

Also according to the Catholic view point does the Pope have the right to appoint a individual to the Monarchy who is not descended from Kings?



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #41 

Taken from an article by Solange Hertz:

 

“I have found David, my servant: with my holy oil I have anointed him. . .  And I will make him my first-born, high above the kings of the earth. I will keep my mercy for him forever: and my covenant faithful to him. And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven: and if his children forsake my law and walk not in my judgments: if they profane my justices and keep not my commandments: I will visit their iniquities with a rod and their sin with stripes. But my mercy I will not take away from him nor will I suffer my truth to fail. Neither will I profane my covenant: and the words that proceed from my mouth I will not make void. Once have I sworn by my holiness: I will not lie unto David:  HIS SEED SHALL ENDURE FOREVER.  (vs. 21-36).

           In Ascendances Davidiques des Rois de France,  the Marquis de la Franquerie says, “Thus God swore an irrevocable oath to David that his descendants  would reign till the end of time, and the terms of this renewed oath are such that they apply not only in the double mystical and real sense to the person of Christ, the Son of God, God himself, who in fact will reign eternally, but to the racial line itself.  What happened to them? What throne do the descendants of David and those kings who ruled over the chosen people of the Old Testament occupy?” This throne would be that of France, a nation which, according to Pope Gregory IX was prefigured by the ancient tribe of Judah.

          Over the centuries a strong tradition has persisted that Clovis, the first of the French kings...was indeed a descendant of David. Researching the bases of the tradition, the Marquis unearthed evidence that the line of David survived the Babylonian conquest in the four daughters of Sedecias, the last ruling king of Judah. One of these, Tea-Tephi, married Heremon, a collateral descendant of David’s line, and this royal couple were the progenitors of the early kings of Ireland and Scotland and eventually of all the Christian kings of Europe from Clovis on down.  That the French monarchy, beginning with the Merovingians and passing collaterally to the Carolingians and Capetians, is the only royal family in world history to have ruled in an unbroken salic succession of males  for  over 1300 years, argues for extraordinary divine predilection, to say the least. Not to mention the fact that on one occasion God himself intervened in the person of  St. Joan of Arc to preserve the integrity of the line when it was threatened by absorption into that of the English. 

          St. Remi, the Apostle of the Franks, had been appointed papal legate to the French nation newly constituted under Clovis by Pope St. Hormisdas, who wrote him,  “We confer on you all our powers for the entire kingdom of our dear spiritual son Clovis, whom by the grace of God you have converted along with his whole nation by an apostolate and miracles worthy of the days of the Apostles.” At the Baptism of his convert Clovis, St. Remi had declared prophetically,  “Know that the kingdom of France is predestined by God for the defense of the Roman Church, which is the only true Church of Christ. . . . This kingdom shall one day be great among all others. It will include the limits of the Roman Empire and will submit all peoples to its scepter. . . . It will endure until the end of time. It will be victorious and prosper as long as it is faithful to the Roman faith, but it will be severely chastised whenever it is unfaithful to its vocation.” He ended with these words: “May from this race arise kings and emperors who, confirmed in truth and justice now and in the future according to the Lord’s will for the extension of Holy Church, will reign and increase daily in power, thus deserving to sit on the throne of David in the heavenly Jerusalem, where they will reign with the Lord throughout eternity. Amen.”

          Beginning with Clovis’ royal consecration as “Christ’s lieutenant” with a holy oil miraculously produced on the occasion and administered by St. Remi in Reims Cathedral in 476, the kings of France are the only monarchs to have been thus chrismated. The Marquis de la Franquerie writes, “Only for the kings of France did the Church institute the ceremony of consecration which rendered them God’s representatives in the temporal order and heads of all other sovereigns. She declared them  -- which is true historically -- the elder sons of the Church. The special liturgy she instituted is quite remarkable, as well as the prescribed prayers.”  For instance: “May the king be honored over the kings of other nations. . . . May he be the most powerful of kings. . . . May successors to his throne be born from him throughout the ages to come.”



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #42 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Over the centuries a strong tradition has persisted that Clovis, the first of the French kings, whose reign marked the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, was indeed a descendant of David. Researching the bases of the tradition, the Marquis unearthed evidence that the line of David survived the Babylonian conquest in the four daughters of Sedecias, the last ruling king of Judah.
The line in fact did survive, in the persons of the Reish Galutot(Jewish kings of Jews in Exile) until the 12 centrury when that institution was destroyed, and the line has continued to this day with three surviving confirmed male-lines still existant. There were many male lines that survived the abolishment of the post of Reish Galuta. They were the official leaders of the Jewish community for centuries many of our greatest rabbis to this day are descended from David HaMelech.

 

Beyond the fact that the French kings were not Jews, which I doubt you think important, is the fact that even if as you claim Clovis was descended from the daughters of Sedecias it wouldnt matter, for only male-line descendents are eligable for the throne of David HaMelech.

http://members.aol.com/rdavidh218/davidicdynasty.html

WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #43 

I clicked your link, and there is way to much there and I am far to ignorant of these purported lines to comment.  As I read, and we spoke of before, the Romans searched for and did not find a successor of David.   I find numerous examples being traced to the 5th century let alone today to be unlikely.  All this said you do not expect Catholics to believe that God continued the line of David through a non-Catholic?


__________________
"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  #44 

Why do you say the Romans searched for a heir to David's line?

 

When did this take place, as the last Jewish revolt against Rome was led by Shimon Bar Kochba in 137 CE and he was a male-line descendent of David HaMelech. Perphaps the reason they were unable to find descendents is that the members of David's line were living in Persia during the height of the Roman empire.

 

The Jewish people had always intended to restore the Malchut Beis David and for this reason the men who made up male-line descent from David HaMelech was always not forgotten. Even the Jewish King in exile until the 12th century was a male-line descendent of David HaMelech.

 

Quote:
All this said you do not expect Catholics to believe that God continued the line of David through a non-Catholic?  
Why not? the evidence is there, both in the ancient records of the Babylonian and Persian empires as well as their succsesors, and in the Jewish records of the Gemara and later sources.



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

 All this said you do not expect Catholics to believe that God continued the line of David through a non-Catholic?

 
Of course, he didn't any more than he would allow the Temple sacrifices to be resumed since the Ultimate Sacrifice on Calvary!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.