Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 7     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next
darthkorbus

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 228
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everyman

I do not accept impirialism. I think it is an intrinsic evil. Does this mean I'd make a poor monarchist? Must the two be connected?  

 

This forum is open to all monarchists, as RoyalCello has explained, from the medievalists to the constitutionalists.  So to answer your question, no.


__________________
"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
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

I am just curious do I come across as an imperialist?

 



Only in the 'Of Course everything belongs to HM King Louis XX' kind of way......

__________________
"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
Everyman

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #63 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Quote:
Originally Posted by "everyman
But that's the love of small government side of me coming out. And I don't think this "smallness" attitude must exclude a love for monarchy


Some of the Smallest independent countries in the world have a 'shared monarch' in the person of Queen Elizabeth II.  the Bahamas, St Kitts, Belize, Antigua etc have their own local governments, under Her Majesty, as Queen in right in each 'realm'.

A return to each Colony as an nation of its own, in the British Commonwealth, sharing Her Majesty as Queen would retain the smallness of each colony, the Monarchy, and a shared international 'brotherhood' of equals.

A Dominion Realm is a Sovereign Nation that is Personal Union with the other Dominion Realms.  Just as Scotland and England were different Kingdoms with the same King (James I/VI, and following until Anne), and Canada and New Zealand, and the Bahamas are currently different nations, sharing Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as Queen in each nation.

 

Okay, this is what is causing me headaches. Is having all these countries, islands, and various whatnots from all over the globe sharing the same monarch not the result of imperialism? Is the Commonwealth not an empire?

 

I mean, really, small government provides a sense of identity within localism for the people, but what kind of national identity can exist when your monarch is on the other side of the planet? This strikes me as incredibly antithetical to what I'm after.


__________________
Everyman

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


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCockade

I am just curious do I come across as an imperialist?

 



Only in the 'Of Course everything belongs to HM King Louis XX' kind of way......
 
Everything doesn't belong to His Most Christian Majesty, just the best parts!
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Everyman"
Okay, this is what is causing me headaches. Is having all these countries, islands, and various whatnots from all over the globe sharing the same monarch not the result of imperialism? Is the Commonwealth not an empire?



I mean, really, small government provides a sense of identity within localism for the people, but what kind of national identity can exist when your monarch is on the other side of the planet? This strikes me as incredibly antithetical to what I'm after.


Well, some of the islands (like the Falklands) had no residents until the Europeans showed up, so that's just expansion, not what is usually meant by 'imperialism'.
Others places, like North America, Australia, etc did have local populations, but neither I nor the majority of the current residents are descended from them, - perhaps imperialism is the correct term for how my culture developed where it now is.  That doesn't mean that I support the continuation of the process.  -  The Shared culture may be a RESULT of past Imperialism, but it doesn't neccessarily PROMOTE imperialism.

As for National Identity with Her Majesty 'half-way round the planet', Let me provide an example Hong Kong:
Do you not think that the culture of Hong Kong was distinct from that of mainland China? 
Wouldn't you agree that Her Majesty's Government had a lot to do with shaping that culture? 
Are Hong Kongers culturally distinct from Scots, or Canadians? 

Yes, you can have a Unique Culture, a small Nation, and Limited Government under the Crown! 

God Save Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Dominion of British West Florida, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith



__________________
"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  #66 

Charles A. Coulombe has just written a new piece for his website entitled,

EUROPE AND THE EMPIRE, which I believe may be of some interest to those in this discussion.  It is very long or I would post it all on site.  I have not read it all myself.  The beginning though made me smile for it is what I have been trying to express here:
 
"I am a European. This may sound rather strange, given that I was born in New York, have lived most of my life in Los Angeles, and will be buried in my family plot in Massachusetts."  

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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #67 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Yes, you can have a Unique Culture, a small Nation, and Limited Government under the Crown!

 

But wouldn't it be best for them to be able to rule themselves? Why would we want the queen to have a hand in it at all?

 


__________________
Everyman

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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everyman

But wouldn't it be best for them to be able to rule themselves? Why would we want the queen to have a hand in it at all?
 

Paul, feel free to help me out here!

Her Majesty currently serves more as a 'referee' than as a player in the political life of her Subjects.  The people, of each realm, by methods they themselves have chosen, determine the degree to which Her Majesty is active in the process of Government.  The people do essential govern themselves, Her Majesty serves to act as a constitutional check on elected officials, to safeguard the rights of the people, and as a symbol of continuity and unity. 

Her Majesty is the embodyment of the nation in a way a flag or constitution can never 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
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #69 
WhiteCockade,

Thanks for a very interesting read.


__________________
"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
Everyman

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #70 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Her Majesty currently serves more as a 'referee' than as a player in the political life of her Subjects.  The people, of each realm, by methods they themselves have chosen, determine the degree to which Her Majesty is active in the process of Government.  The people do essential govern themselves, Her Majesty serves to act as a constitutional check on elected officials, to safeguard the rights of the people, and as a symbol of continuity and unity. 

Her Majesty is the embodyment of the nation in a way a flag or constitution can never be.

  

I understand that her role isn't all that authoritative; they govern themselves. But I don't buy that she is needed to embody the nation. Why can't they have their own sovereign, one that is from the nation, one of their own? What would be wrong with that? What advantage could there possibly be in having a British monarch?

 

And, please, let's keep in mind the original question of how this relates to America.


__________________
Everyman

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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everyman

I understand that her role isn't all that authoritative; they govern themselves. But I don't buy that she is needed to embody the nation. Why can't they have their own sovereign, one that is from the nation, one of their own? What would be wrong with that? What advantage could there possibly be in having a British monarch?



Her Majesty represents the Crown, passed down by birth and the will of Parliament since the Conquest, over nine hundred years of History.  No 'local yokel' can match that claim. 

As for Dominions in North America, here's a link to the monarchist league of the largest Dominion in North America, Canada.   http://monarchist.ca/new/index.html
  
When did citizenship become limited to a single nation?  Her Majesty is Canadian, and Australian, and Bahamian, and many other nationalities as well.  The Dominions do NOT have a 'British Monarch' they have a Monarch who is ALSO queen of the other realms, of which the United Kingdom is the first, - but it is by no means the only.

The Advantages of retaining Her Majesty as Monarch are many, I'll list a few:

1) Accession issues are avoided, no need to 'fight' over who wears the Crown, it is the same person that it has 'always' been, and the line of succession is determined and sure.

2) Retention of the rightful crown maintains ties to the rich history and culture of the founding colonists.

3) Ministers that seek the Advice of the Sovereign have access to a Monarch with many ministers, and a great deal of experience.

4) The Expense of properly maintaining a Regal Presence, and Royal Residences is reduced, after all, she doesn't come back home that often.

As for keeping it focused on America, the founders where Englishmen for the most part,  Ever see the original Continetal Flag?  http://www.sos.state.ga.us/museum/html/flag_1775-1777.htm  The thirteen colonies (13 stripes), and the Union of Great Britain.  Even the founders wished to retain ties to the mother country.  Granted, as the war progressed, they became increasingly hostile to their rightful King, but even after the Declaration of Independence, they retained the tie to the Mother Country.  -- Also please don't forget that both East and West Florida remained Loyal to the Crown during the rebellion..

__________________
"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  #72 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

Only in the 'Of Course everything belongs to HM King Louis XX' kind of way......

 

LOL, okay but while I believe in the idea of the Christian Empire that is not to say that I do not believe in a subsidiarity of power.  Even after the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, we will have kings ruling their kingdoms.  


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #73 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Her Majesty represents the Crown, passed down by birth and the will of Parliament since the Conquest, over nine hundred years of History.

Why on earth would that matter to another country? Is colonialism not mere imperialism?

 

I'm not meaning to be oppositional, but I am finding none of these arguments to be very persuasive. I like the idea of monarchy, think it's probably better than democracy, but have yet to find anyone that can provide a clear, rational explanation as to how this can work today without being just as imperial as a democracy-spreading, neoconservative, Republican American.


__________________
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  #74 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
WhiteCockade,

Thanks for a very interesting read.

 

I can not deny that Charles has influenced my monarchist position. In fact it is possible I would be a republican right now if I had not come run into some of his articles.   In this article (and others) he paints an image of medieval Christendom which I believe, if not perfectly realized then, should be worked for.   


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everyman

Why on earth would that matter to another country? Is colonialism not mere imperialism?

 

I'm not meaning to be oppositional, but I am finding none of these arguments to be very persuasive. I like the idea of monarchy, think it's probably better than democracy, but have yet to find anyone that can provide a clear, rational explanation as to how this can work today without being just as imperial as a democracy-spreading, neoconservative, Republican American.



Because its NOT another nation's heritage.  It is ours. 

You continue to refuse to open your eyes and see that as a family grows and expands the children and grand children start 'families' of their own, without relinquishing the attachment to the parents and grand parents.  As grows the family, so do cultures.  Her Majesty is every bit as much my Queen as she is Paul's Queen, even though he lives in the United Kingdom, and I live in West Florida.  Her Majesty belongs to us both, as does the use of the English Language, and the enjoyment of Shakespeare.  Does your 1st cousin's Grandma also being your Grandma make her any less your Grandma? - Of course not. The Shared Crown works in the same way.

No, Colonialism preceded Imperialism.  The Colonies (as administered by Great Britain) were confined to the strip of land between the sea and the mountains.  The Proclamation of 1763 made it quite plain that the colonists were NOT to interfere with the Indians, nor steal anymore of their land.  This restriction of aggressive expansion was part of the build-up to the war of 1776. 

It IS working today, for the 16 Nations collectively know as the Commonwealth Realms.  Do the Canadians seem especially neoconservative to you?  Perhaps St. Lucia is?  Or what about Belize? -- Oh I know you must be talking about the aggressive Antiguans.   You claim you haven't read about how this can work today - Did you visit the Canadian Monarchy site? 

__________________
"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.