Are there any Monarchists here?

HamletOrHecuba

The Divine Right of Kings is much more of Protestant and Orthodox theological understanding than a Roman Catholic one thanks to the influence of St Augustine, though particularly in France you do find Roman Catholics who are dogmatic Monarchists, but with the fact both the fact that the High Church as been historically weak in Ireland and the fact that the British Monarchy lost most of its numinousity with the "Glorious Revolution" Im wondering are there any Monarchists here?

Manach

In general when there is a revolution that overthrows a monarchy, a period of extreme disorder followings (France, Germany, Russia). This is not good for a society. So on purely cost/benefit basis there is much to said for an evolved constitutional monarchy.

HamletOrHecuba

Manach wrote: »

In general when there is a revolution that overthrows a monarchy, a period of extreme disorder followings (France, Germany, Russia). This is not good for a society. So on purely cost/benefit basis there is much to said for an evolved constitutional monarchy.

Pretty utilitarian argument you have there and one that a convinced Monarchist would surely spit upon because they believe that monarchy is willed by God and so cost/benefit dont enter into the equation.

philologos

It's not really a Christianity question, more than a question surrounding what institutions have said. I couldn't care less as to whether or not there is a King / Queen or anything else over a country. Ultimately our King is Jesus.

getz

philologos wrote: »

It's not really a Christianity question, more than a question surrounding what institutions have said. I couldn't care less as to whether or not there is a King / Queen or anything else over a country. Ultimately our King is Jesus.

being a monarch has nothing to do with religion,its only added on to support them,

Peregrinus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The Divine Right of Kings is much more of Protestant and Orthodox theological understanding than a Roman Catholic one thanks to the influence of St Augustine, though particularly in France you do find Roman Catholics who are dogmatic Monarchists, but with the fact both the fact that the High Church as been historically weak in Ireland and the fact that the British Monarchy lost most of its numinousity with the "Glorious Revolution" Im wondering are there any Monarchists here?

Not to be quarrelsome, but I’m going to quarrel with some of this.

Augustine is hugely influential in Western Christianity - Protestantism and Catholicism - but less so in Orthodox Christianity. If you’re arguing that Protestant and Orthodox Christians have something in common that isn’t true of Catholics, Augustine is very unlikely to the at the bottom of it.

Until quite recently, Catholicism strongly favoured monarchy - at least, at the magisterial level. It wasn’t until the middle of the 2Oth century that the Catholic church formally dropped the idea that the optimal form of government was a Catholic monarchy.

Protestantism, by contrast, is more diverse. Anglicanism certainly favoured the British monarchy, for obvious historical reasons, but Calvinism much less so - which is how you get people like Oliver Cromwell. As a broad generalization, Anglicans and Lutheran tended towards political conformism and conservatism, and therefore tended to favour stability and whatever government happened to be in power, which was mostly a monarchy, and they were not particularly sympathetic to republican/radical ideas. Whereas Calvinism and, to a lesser extent, Anabaptism tended more towards political radicalism or republicanism.

In the Irish context, republicanism at first had significant support from both Presbyterians (in Ulster) and Catholics (elsewhere), but it should be noted that the Catholic support was mainly from the peasantry and the parish clergy. The higher up the social ladder you went, the more conservative opinion became, and Irish Catholic bishops were mostly horrified at the idea of republicanism, with the example of the French Revolution before their eyes.

Over time, as Catholics became more politically assertive and a growing Catholic middle class became more influential, Presbyterian support for Republicanism waned. By the second half of the nineteenth century, Republicanism in Ireland was supported almost exclusively by Catholics. But, still, this was the Catholicism of the rural working class; the church officially, and the Catholic middle classes, were conservative and generally pro-monarchy, and all the signals from Rome were strongly pro-monarchy. Constitutional nationalism in Ireland was generally monarchist at this time or, at least, not aggressively republican.

If anything, the independence of (most of) Ireland with a republican form of government in 1922 was presented to the church as something of a fait accompli; the new state was strongly supported by most of its Catholic population, and if Rome kicked up too much the consequence would be the alienation of Irish Catholics from Rome, not from the Irish state. High-level church attempts to damp down the struggle for independence had failed dismally.

Besides, by the 1920s the church knew that its aspiration of the re-establishment of Catholic monarchies throughout Europe was never going to happen, and it was already in the process of the rethink which gave rise to European Christian Democracy as the favoured political postion of the Vatican authorities.

The Catholic church’s acceptance and eventual endorsement of democracy over monarchy is part of a broader liberalizing/progressive trend which began in the late 19th century and also gave us a new emphasis on social teaching and the social gospel, liturgical reform, a new ecclesiology and associated new teaching on inter-church and interreligious and relationships, and more besides. The conservative mindset of those who have resisted all this has also resisted developments in Catholic teaching about government, and accordingly strongly-felt Catholic monarchism is now found mainly among those who are generally conservative/integrist/Lefebvrite in outlook. While this is at times a very visible minority, it’s also a fairly small one.

I’m not sure where Orthodox Christians stand on monarchy. From the fifteenth to the twentieth century, the heartland of Orthodoxy was countries which were mostly Muslim-majority, and all Muslim-ruled, and as a result my impression is that Orthodoxy cultivated a somewhat distant relationship with the state - respecting and obeying civic rulers, but basically hoping that they wouldn’t be too oppressive, and thinking the best way to achieve this was to say as little as possible about what the civic rulers did and who they should be. Hence the Orthodox developed an attitude that it didn’t greatly matter who held civic power, as long as they exercised it responsibly; that was not something that a church concerned with preaching the gospel and pursuing salvation needed to worry too much about. But I’m happy to be corrected by anyone who knows more about the Orthodox tradition than I do.

getz

well the coptic orthodox church was very supportive of a monarchy,in the likes of ethiopia the power of the church was greatly diminished when haile selassie was deposed.

ISAW

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not to be quarrelsome, but I’m going to quarrel with some of this.

A
In the Irish context, republicanism at first had significant support from both Presbyterians (in Ulster) and Catholics (elsewhere), but it should be noted that the Catholic support was mainly from the peasantry and the parish clergy. The higher up the social ladder you went, the more conservative opinion became, and Irish Catholic bishops were mostly horrified at the idea of republicanism, with the example of the French Revolution before their eyes.

Interesting and informative analysis.
i dont wish to me trite about irish Republicanism but recently in a personal discussion someone said "Fine Gael were the party of the Bishops and Fianna Fáil were the party of the priests and Parishoners"

I’m not sure where Orthodox Christians stand on monarchy. From the fifteenth to the twentieth century, the heartland of Orthodoxy was countries which were mostly Muslim-majority, and all Muslim-ruled, and as a result my impression is that Orthodoxy cultivated a somewhat distant relationship with the state - respecting and obeying civic rulers, but basically hoping that they wouldn’t be too oppressive, and thinking the best way to achieve this was to say as little as possible about what the civic rulers did and who they should be. Hence the Orthodox developed an attitude that it didn’t greatly matter who held civic power, as long as they exercised it responsibly; that was not something that a church concerned with preaching the gospel and pursuing salvation needed to worry too much about. But I’m happy to be corrected by anyone who knows more about the Orthodox tradition than I do.

both; they backed the Mongols and even executed non Christians for them but th Mongols eventually succumbed to Islam. Islam didnt always war on Eastern christians and vice versa. I refer here to the third of the worlds christians in the east up to the twelfth century and not to Byzantium. they covered a BIG region Persia and China India and all the way to sri Lanka. It was a christian bishop translated the Bhudist writings from india into chinese and the same translation started Japenese Buddhism and zen. the Islamic prostrations in prayer was something they got from eastern Christians. Africa I dont know about.

Jenkins is good on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVxq13lQESY

The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia — and How It Died, San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008, 315 pp.

The Next Christendom: The Rise of Global Christianity, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 270 pp. (translated into many languages, including Chinese in Taiwan).

HamletOrHecuba

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not to be quarrelsome, but I’m going to quarrel with some of this.

Augustine is hugely influential in Western Christianity - Protestantism and Catholicism - but less so in Orthodox Christianity. If you’re arguing that Protestant and Orthodox Christians have something in common that isn’t true of Catholics, Augustine is very unlikely to the at the bottom of it.

Until quite recently, Catholicism strongly favoured monarchy - at least, at the magisterial level. It wasn’t until the middle of the 2Oth century that the Catholic church formally dropped the idea that the optimal form of government was a Catholic monarchy.

Protestantism, by contrast, is more diverse. Anglicanism certainly favoured the British monarchy, for obvious historical reasons, but Calvinism much less so - which is how you get people like Oliver Cromwell. As a broad generalization, Anglicans and Lutheran tended towards political conformism and conservatism, and therefore tended to favour stability and whatever government happened to be in power, which was mostly a monarchy, and they were not particularly sympathetic to republican/radical ideas. Whereas Calvinism and, to a lesser extent, Anabaptism tended more towards political radicalism or republicanism.

You seem to have chosen to misunderstand my post deliberately- what I was saying was that the influence of St Augustine prevented Roman Catholicism from seeing the same religious significance in monarchy that Orthodoxy and later Protestantism would come to see in it. That is all. I fully realize that he was St Augustine was a huge influence on the Reformers in other areas and not a much of an influence over the Christian East in any area at all.

Also Im aware that Catholics favoured Monarchy- but there is a difference from seeing it as the best form of government available from seeing it as one willed by and established by God where it takes on a profound religious significance. AnaBaptism by the way tended towards outright rebellion and violence much more so than Presbyterianism, but it is a cancerous growth that should be distinguished from Protestantism as such.

HamletOrHecuba

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the Irish context, republicanism at first had significant support from both Presbyterians (in Ulster) and Catholics (elsewhere), but it should be noted that the Catholic support was mainly from the peasantry and the parish clergy. The higher up the social ladder you went, the more conservative opinion became, and Irish Catholic bishops were mostly horrified at the idea of republicanism, with the example of the French Revolution before their eyes.



The Catholic church’s acceptance and eventual endorsement of democracy over monarchy is part of a broader liberalizing/progressive trend which began in the late 19th century and also gave us a new emphasis on social teaching and the social gospel, liturgical reform, a new ecclesiology and associated new teaching on inter-church and interreligious and relationships, and more besides. The conservative mindset of those who have resisted all this has also resisted developments in Catholic teaching about government, and accordingly strongly-felt Catholic monarchism is now found mainly among those who are generally conservative/integrist/Lefebvrite in outlook. While this is at times a very visible minority, it’s also a fairly small one.
.

Irish Republicanism from the middle of the second half of the 19 th century onwards has been about nationalism as opposed to being against monarchy as such (Pearse wanted to bring over a German nobel to be King of Ireland did he not?) so I dont understand why you brought in that subject. And sorry the Roman Catholic Church always accepted democracy as a legitimate though not necessarily wise form of government- look at its acceptance of democracy in Switzerland. The question was whether the French Republic could be accepted.

HamletOrHecuba

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not sure where Orthodox Christians stand on monarchy. From the fifteenth to the twentieth century, the heartland of Orthodoxy was countries which were mostly Muslim-majority, and all Muslim-ruled, and as a result my impression is that Orthodoxy cultivated a somewhat distant relationship with the state - respecting and obeying civic rulers, but basically hoping that they wouldn’t be too oppressive, and thinking the best way to achieve this was to say as little as possible about what the civic rulers did and who they should be. Hence the Orthodox developed an attitude that it didn’t greatly matter who held civic power, as long as they exercised it responsibly; that was not something that a church concerned with preaching the gospel and pursuing salvation needed to worry too much about. But I’m happy to be corrected by anyone who knows more about the Orthodox tradition than I do.

If you are not sure why do you go right ahead and give your opinion?

The majority of Orthodox Christians lived in Russia and of course other Orthodox Christians looked to Russia as their leader and protector. Its really wonderful that you left out the lack of resistance to the abolition of the Patriarchate in the Russian Empire by the Tsar and the fact that the Tsar appointed the Synod he created to replace it and over all exercised authority over it. Or how disobedience to and unacceptance of the Tsar's authority figures so prominently in what is anathemized on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in traditional Russian parishes.

LordSutch

As a matter of interest, there is a 'Diamond Jubilee' debate currently running in the Politics forum!

I am a Monarchist.

HamletOrHecuba

LordSutch wrote: »

As a matter of interest, there is a 'Diamond Jubilee' debate currently running in the Politics forum!

I am a Monarchist.

Do you have a Royal line that you would like to see ruling the 26 counties of the ROI?

Peregrinus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

You seem to have chosen to misunderstand my post deliberately- what I was saying was that the influence of St Augustine prevented Roman Catholicism from seeing the same religious significance in monarchy that Orthodoxy and later Protestantism would come to see in it. That is all.

I may have misunderstood you but, I assure you, certainly not deliberately. And I may still be misunderstanding you. If the influence of Augustine prevented Catholicism from adopting a certain position, would it not equally have prevented Protestantism from adopting that position? Augustine is, after all, generally as influential in Protestantism as in Catholicism - perhaps even more so, given that he is sometimes called the “father of Protestantism”.

Possibly my misunderstanding is also fuelled by the fact that I don’t agree that Protestantism is stronger on the Divine Right of Kings than Catholicism is. Protestantism is, of course, diverse, but if anything the mainstream Protestant traditions are not particularly strong on “Divine Right”.

Augustine in the City of God gives us the notion that we have here “no lasting city”, arguing that the earthly rule of the (by then Christianised) Roman Empire was transient, but that this didn’t matter because Christians should concern themselves with the mystical, heavenly kingdom which would endure.

And this, it seems to me, feeds fairly directly into the Lutheran idea of the “two kingdoms” - the contrast between the transcendental and eternal Kingdom of God, to be brought about by divine action, and the earthly kingdom, produced by human effort and destined to pass away. For Luther, the church’s mission is one of preaching the gospel and celebrating the sacraments until the Kingdom of God comes in all its fullness, which will happen through God’s action and in God’s time. This doesn’t lead to an endorsement of the divine right of kings; at most, it contributes to a passive acceptance of secular power on the basis that exercising or opposing secular power is not the concern of the church (unless the secular power attempt to impede the church in preaching the gospel or celebrating the sacraments). In practical terms, of course, this translates into a political conformism/quiescence which tends to favour the status quo, and for most of history the status quo in Lutheran countries has been a monarchy. But that’s very different from endorsing the divine right of kings.

If you look for Protestants endorsing the divine right of kings, I think you’ll find the strongest examples among the Anglicans. But the Anglicans are, of course, the most “Catholic” of the Protestant traditions, and it’s no coincidence that the stongest exponents of the theory bridge Anglicanism and Catholicism - the (Protestant) James VI & I, the (Catholic) James VII & II, and the (Catholic) Louis XIV.

To be honest, it’s also no coincidence that the strongest exponents of the theory are not bishops or theologians, but kings. Both Catholic and Protestant traditions teach that there is a proper role for civic power and its exercise, that this is part of God’s plan for humanity, and this tends to translate into a degree of political conformism. It’s not the church but the kings who have an interest in leveraging this into the “divine right of kings”, and in particular those kings whose position is insecure or challenged - usually, at this time, by a religious minority arguing that, because the king is a heretic, he has forfeited his throne. I think the “divine right of kings” is really a response to this.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

AnaBaptism by the way tended towards outright rebellion and violence much more so than Presbyterianism . . .

At first, yes. But that worked out very badly for them, and at an early stage the Anabaptists - or those who survived - had a fundamental rethink and adopted almost the contrary position, eschewing all political power and tending towards pacifism. And that’s a position which has characterized the Anabaptist tradition for about four hundred years now.

Peregrinus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Irish Republicanism from the middle of the second half of the 19 th century onwards has been about nationalism as opposed to being against monarchy as such (Pearse wanted to bring over a German nobel to be King of Ireland did he not?) so I dont understand why you brought in that subject.

Well, you’ve got your heavily French-influenced Republicanism at the close of the eighteenth century, obviously.

Then, a generation or so later, you have the Catholic Emancipation movement - influenced by enlightenment and egalitarian ideas, obviously, but very far from republican and perhaps not even nationalist.

That in turn is succeeded by the Repeal movement, which is nationalist but not republican. At the same time as the Repeal movement, you have the romantic Young Ireland movement, which is strongly nationalist and somewhat liberal - in that, we can situate it within a growing European tradition of liberal nationalism.

Right. The famine causes something of a disruption in Irish political evolution - as in so much else - and a generation later we have the Fenian/IRB movement which is both explicitly nationalist and explicitly republican, but looks much more to the US than to France for its republican model. And there is a direct line from there, through Sinn Féin, down to present-day Irish republicanism and nationalism.

It’s true that in the late nineteenth century nationalism was probably a stronger theme than republicanism, but I don’t think that means that the movement wasn’t republican; it certainly was. If nationalism was the stronger of the two themes, that’s partly because it was seen as the key to the realization of both; it was taken for granted that an independent Ireland could and would adopt a republican form of government (which, in the event, is of course what happened).

I think it’s overstating the case a little to say that Pearse “wanted” to bring a minor German royal to be king of Ireland; it’s possibly something he would at one time have been prepared to do, if that would have been politically advantageous in the struggle for independence, but there’s no doubt that he would have been compromising his ideals in doing so. And the move would certainly have been unacceptable to some of the other 1916 leaders, such as Tom Clarke and James Connolly.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

And sorry the Roman Catholic Church always accepted democracy as a legitimate though not necessarily wise form of government- look at its acceptance of democracy in Switzerland. The question was whether the French Republic could be accepted.

I never said that the Catholic church didn’t accept a democratic government as potentially legitimate; I said that it held that the optimal form of government was a Catholic monarchy. And I don’t think there’s any example before modern times of the Catholic church looking with favour on a republican form of government which has overthrown an existing royal form of government.

This preference for monarchy reached what was perhaps its apogee in Pius IX in the mid-nineteenth century. He was a firm believer in the divine right of kings and in the alliance of throne and altar. He formally condemned the idea that the will of the people was the basis of law, and taught (echoing the earlier Pope Leo) that royal power was given by God for the governance of the world and the protection of the church.

Manach

From my knowledge of Germany political history from the era of Bismark's wars of unification (starting with Windthorst), the democratic political parties that embraced a Catholic ethos were solid contributors to a stable state. By a mix of social conservatism with a mix of economic liberalism taken from the trade union movement, they've positivity added to the strength of Germany.

LordSutch

QEII, sixty years on the throne, never put a foot wrong and still going strong. Big respect.

Manach

LordSutch wrote: »

QEII, sixty years on the throne, never put a foot wrong and still going strong. Big respect.

More a follower of Prince Philip myself - that man is awesome.

RichieC

Me, I wear a monocle.

muppeteer

Manach wrote: »

More a follower of Prince Philip myself - that man is awesome.

Indeed, a god amoung men:D

An Ri rua

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Pretty utilitarian argument you have there and one that a convinced Monarchist would surely spit upon because they believe that monarchy is willed by God and so cost/benefit dont enter into the equation.

Monarchy? In a Republic? We have informal gods alright despite signing up to sovereignty in the people; but no, monarchy may be willed by God but it is (thankfully) killed by bullets.

snafuk35

Why the hell should someone rule if they are not elected? What is the difference between mafia chiefs and monarchs if not only the degree of power they have?
Look at the history of the monarchs of Europe - they started out as warlords in charge of an army of thugs in armour who set about building forts on prominent hills and enslaving the ordinary people. They accumulated wealth and power in order accumulate more wealth and power as they fought one another. The warlord who wiped out or forced his enemies to acknowledge him as their overlord became top dog. If he held on to sufficient territory he called himself King. The church needed converts and kings saw attractions in the Christian model which promises salvation in the next world. If he converted his followers would have to too and anyone who refused was a pagan or a heretic and could be destroyed - ideal if the King sought to expand his realm and steal new lands and territories. It also helped if he made his relatives bishops and cardinals or even pope using intimidation or assassination.
The divine right of kings is no more than an astute political contrivance.
It has no place in the modern world where governments should be of the people, by the people and for the people.
The continued presence of unelected monarchs who live in unbridled luxury purely because of who their ancesters were while hundreds of millions go hungry is an obscenity.

JimiTime

I suppose I am a Monarchist, in that I await the return of Jesus as my king. In terms of human politics, and self governance, well we'll continue to fail at ruling ourselves whatever means we use. Give me a good King over any other governance any day. BUT, the problem is that Kings die like everyone else, and the next one may be the biggest of tyrants, so at least with democracy we can vote out the tyrants every few years, so we can have a change of tyrant

PDN

I'm a republican (with a small 'r') - as in that I believe a democratic republic to be my ideal form of government.

HamletOrHecuba

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/democ.htm

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/americanism/democracy.htm

Interesting articles, though I can see problems with them.

PDN

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

If you are not sure why do you go right ahead and give your opinion?

Mod's Note
Probably because that is the whole point of an internet discussion board - so people can share their differing opinions. And posters should be free to share their opinions without being badgered.

Wh1stler

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Pretty utilitarian argument you have there and one that a convinced Monarchist would surely spit upon because they believe that monarchy is willed by God and so cost/benefit dont enter into the equation.

Anyone who thinks that must believe that it was God's will to have Herod on the throne and the time of Jesus' birth.

I neither spit on the utilitarian argument nor do I believe that monarchy is willed by God.

On the contrary, I believe that if God considers all men equal then He would disapprove of the idea that some men would be elevated above others by virtue of the gold placed on their head.

Wh1stler

snafuk35 wrote: »

The divine right of kings is no more than an astute political contrivance.
It has no place in the modern world where governments should be of the people, by the people and for the people.

Monarchs (with power)? Government? A rose by any other name.

Power corrupts.

HamletOrHecuba

Wh1stler wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that must believe that it was God's will to have Herod on the throne and the time of Jesus' birth.

Yet Christ recognized Pilate's authority.

Given we are dealing with fallen humanity there is going to be evil under any system, its a question of which system restrains evil best.

Wh1stler

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Yet Christ recognized Pilate's authority.

Given (my contention) we are dealing with fallen humanity there is going to be evil under any system, its a question of which system restrains evil best.

Fixed.

No political system is concerned with 'restraining evil', they are all about self-preservation, are self-serving and are therefore exclusive.

Kings, governments, GAA committees; none are concerned about the welfare of those outside the 'family'.

snafuk35

Wh1stler wrote: »

Monarchs (with power)? Government? A rose by any other name.

Power corrupts.

Democracy as flawed as it is, is still infinitely better than monarchy.

Festus

snafuk35 wrote: »

Democracy as flawed as it is, is still infinitely better than monarchy.

When Jesus returns will you be arguing for democracy?

Festus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/democ.htm

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/americanism/democracy.htm

Interesting articles, though I can see problems with them.

There are some interesting points. Topically the one that demonstrates it was democracy that led to Christ being crucified.

Wh1stler

snafuk35 wrote: »

Democracy as flawed as it is, is still infinitely better than monarchy.

You think that Ireland would be in a worse state than it is under a monarchy?

Wh1stler

Festus wrote: »

There are some interesting points. Topically the one that demonstrates it was democracy that led to Christ being crucified.

That's a little unfair. It was Jewish prophecy that led to Christ being crucified.

Cato Maior

Wh1stler wrote: »

You think that Ireland would be in a worse state than it is under a monarchy?

The argument in favour of democracy has little to do with any claim to being the most efficient or effective form of government, but rather the most legitimate (or at least the one that would have the broadest acceptance of being legitimate).

Cato Maior

Festus wrote: »

There are some interesting points. Topically the one that demonstrates it was democracy that led to Christ being crucified.

Nonsense - the state that oversaw crucifixion in Israel at the time of Christ was not a democratic one.

Cato Maior

LordSutch wrote: »

QEII, sixty years on the throne, never put a foot wrong and still going strong. Big respect.

Indeed, but she is a monarch in the context of a democracy - she has no executive, legislative or judicial power or authority.

Wh1stler

Cato Maior wrote: »

The argument in favour of democracy has little to do with any claim to being the most efficient or effective form of government, but rather the most legitimate (or at least the one that would have the broadest acceptance of being legitimate).

True but in reality there would be no difference between a benevolent dictator, a benevolent monarchy or a benevolent democracy.

I think the reverse is also true.

Whoever it is in charge is simply some form of privileged family in the end

HamletOrHecuba

PDN wrote: »

I'm a republican (with a small 'r') - as in that I believe a democratic republic to be my ideal form of government.

A truelly democratic republic though is a tad utopian.

Democracy is in any pure sense is impossible outside of small units. Who holds power is ultimately he has the power to suspend the normal rules, and that in Ireland is not "the people", so could Ireland be described strictly as a democracy? No it cannot. Paddy Whack on the street is in no position to decide such things; infact in real terms how much power do they actually have? This is the danger of parliamentary representative democracy especially in the age of the mass media and culture industry spectacle, that it becomes a facade for the most insidious type of totalitarianism imaginable where the lowest passions of the masses are catered too and flattered making them increasingly subhuman while they become the pawns of a shadowy elite.

Doc Farrell

Please take this talk of subhumans and shadowy elite to the conspiracy or politics forum. This entire thread is an embarrassment to the intelligence of readers and considering many here are in favour of democracy, also an insult.

The talk of divine right of monarchs is nonsense, primary school children could knock holes in that theory, a monarch is the descendant of a land and power hungry egotist, nothing more. render onto Caesar ....

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Please take this talk of subhumans and shadowy elite to the conspiracy or politics forum. This entire thread is an embarrassment to the intelligence of readers and considering many here are in favour of democracy, also an insult.

The talk of divine right of monarchs is nonsense, primary school children could knock holes in that theory, a monarch is the descendant of a land and power hungry egotist, nothing more. render onto Caesar ....

Sadly this subject involves the eternal salvation of immortal souls. The present system that we have in the west which is wrongly called democracy has already resulted in the perdition of countless millions of souls when you think about it seriously. Its also interesting that someone asking if there are those here who hold a different view point to the yours is an insult to you and those who hold that view in your belief- pretty totalitarian no? A statement indeed which says a LOT about "Irish Democracy".

St Thomas Aquinas believed monarchy was the best form of government, and he considered democracy as possible form of government, was he thicker than the average primary school student? If you believe that you should check out his writings.

I dont favour monarchy by the way- though I have to admit it has its strong points- I was just curious if there were any dogmatic Monarchists here- thats all.

HamletOrHecuba

Festus wrote: »

When Jesus returns will you be arguing for democracy?

Indeed there will be no democratic vote at the Last Judgement.

The Age to Come will be pretty autocratic.

One of the arguments for Monarchy of course is that it reflects the Heavenly Order.

HamletOrHecuba

Wh1stler wrote: »

That's a little unfair. It was Jewish prophecy that led to Christ being crucified.

A hallowing majority led by corrupt religious leaders (look out fans of John Paul II!) were responsible, Pilate bowed to popular pressure.

Did the majority have the right to murder God Incarnate?

Something ideological democrats who claim to be Christian should dwell on.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

HamletOrHecuba

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Please take this talk of subhumans and shadowy elite to the conspiracy or politics forum. This entire thread is an embarrassment to the intelligence of readers and considering many here are in favour of democracy, also an insult..

Im not talking about "the Illumanti" or "Freemasons" controlling things as part of a great master plan. Or even conscious Satanists, though I suspect that most are conscious Spinozians which amounts to the same thing. Seriously do believe that our not "brain-trusts" behind social engineering, the mass media and geo-political carrying on?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Wh1stler

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Sadly this subject involves the eternal salvation of immortal souls. The present system that we have in the west which is wrongly called democracy has already resulted in the perdition of countless millions of souls when you think about it seriously. Its also interesting that someone asking if there are those here who hold a different view point to the yours is an insult to you and those who hold that view in your belief- pretty totalitarian no? A statement indeed which says a LOT about "Irish Democracy".

St Thomas Aquinas believed monarchy was the best form of government, and he considered democracy as possible form of government, was he thicker than the average primary school student? If you believe that you should check out his writings.

I dont favour monarchy by the way- though I have to admit it has its strong points- I was just curious if there were any dogmatic Monarchists here- thats all.

What purpose would be served by removing the British royal family?

The Queen might not have much power but it is good that someone other than the government have some. If there were no Queen then the government would have even more power and that would be worse than having a royal family.

Booting out the royal family will not lead to extra schools and hospitals being built or a reduction in taxes, it would mean nothing more than increased unemployment.

What purpose would be served by removing the British royal family?

Biggies

I agree this thread has not much to do with religion. In the past, there was a divine right for kings, they were kings "by the Grace of God" but now, with the separation of Church and State, a king isn't very different from a president of a republic, except that he has a job for as long as he sees fit.

Now, I'm a Monarchist. But I must specify, I'm from Spain. If you know anything about Spain's political history, having an unelected head of State is a guarantee of stability, because the king doesn't belong to any party and takes no sides. We had two republics in the past, in 1873-74 and 1931-36. Both ended in civil war, and the second gave way to almost 40 years of autocratic rule. Still, you have people saying in Spain that we should elect our head of State, that having a king isn't democratic and so on. But I wouldn't change something that works with something else that our history has proven very dangerous.

doctoremma

I live in a monarchy system and have very conflicting feelings about it. I'll start by saying that having discussed it many times among friends, I've never heard it talked about in the context of religion so not sure that's part of the debate.

So, I know the Royals bring in a shed-load of tourists and money to UK PLC and that's great for the economy. However, it's therefore slightly beyond me why I'm expected to subsidise them with my hard-earned cash. People will argue that tourists come for the history, the buildings, and I can't imagine many of them meet any of the Royal family so I don't see why we need actual Royal family in order to maintain the buildings and the parks and the history. Prince Phillip is a joke, Charles will be a disaster (predicting many Commonwealth referenda when he makes it to the throne) - he talks to plants and thinks homeopathy works?!?

The monarchy (in the UK, at least) is sexist, racist and closed to other religions.

But mostly, I hate the idea that by sheer accident of birth, there are people to whom I am supposed to bow and scrape. Forget the money, plenty of people are born into money, it's not that. It's the assumed superiority, that I am a minion. I mean, have to curtesy to someone who happened to meet Prince William at university? What?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I live in a monarchy system and have very conflicting feelings about it. I'll start by saying that having discussed it many times among friends, I've never heard it talked about in the context of religion so not sure that's part of the debate.

So, I know the Royals bring in a shed-load of tourists and money to UK PLC and that's great for the economy. However, it's therefore slightly beyond me why I'm expected to subsidise them with my hard-earned cash. People will argue that tourists come for the history, the buildings, and I can't imagine many of them meet any of the Royal family so I don't see why we need actual Royal family in order to maintain the buildings and the parks and the history. Prince Phillip is a joke, Charles will be a disaster (predicting many Commonwealth referenda when he makes it to the throne) - he talks to plants and thinks homeopathy works?!?

The monarchy (in the UK, at least) is sexist, racist and closed to other religions.

But mostly, I hate the idea that by sheer accident of birth, there are people to whom I am supposed to bow and scrape. Forget the money, plenty of people are born into money, it's not that. It's the assumed superiority, that I am a minion. I mean, have to curtesy to someone who happened to meet Prince William at university? What?

Hah! I knew doctoremma and I would eventually agree on something if she kept posting here long enough. Off with their heads!