Muslims Radicals Plan Royal Wedding Protest......
#41
If all rulers would have to "earn" the right to rule, society would be chaotic. There's no way it would work, that's why hereditary rules are the safest and stablest.

A tyrant may be deposed, a tyrant electorate cannot.

Monarchies have served Christendom well since the beginning (bar some notable exceptions). Republics (and democracy) have been directly responsible for its demise. That's the way it is. Modern constitutional monarchies, which are basically democratic republics with a king, have been amputated of their real power and therefore cannot offer any real solution for the ailments of the western world.
Reply
#42
Yes and those same monarchies berated the church more then once
surely a good look at France and their end to that monarchy woudl suffice
black masses
u name it
served Christendom indeed
sonvetus mybfriend would ubfollow an incompetent leader? Would u giv the wheel to your vehicle to a numbscull that could barley drive? Wpuld untrustworthy the education of your son to those who havnt earned your trust oe have the skills up to the task?
Leadership is earned
men need leaders
not born ragdolls barking orders and demanding a dole for castles
we need leaderand leadership is earned as is trust
Reply
#43
(04-21-2011, 09:29 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Yes and those same monarchies berated the church more then once
surely a good look at France and their end to that monarchy woudl suffice
black masses
u name it
served Christendom indeed
sonvetus mybfriend would ubfollow an incompetent leader? Would u giv the wheel to your vehicle to a numbscull that could barley drive? Wpuld untrustworthy the education of your son to those who havnt earned your trust oe have the skills up to the task?
Leadership is earned
men need leaders
not born ragdolls barking orders and demanding a dole for castles
we need leaderand leadership is earned as is trust

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The failures of European monarchies pale in comparison with the track record of republics.

By default great leaders are rare. Most people are just mediocre and selfish, even when we consider the natural elites, so you must take this reality into account when analysing any political system. Which kind of regime would help us defend God's laws and promote the common good: a regime whose authority is drawn from the immutability of divine power and is enshrined in deep-seated cultural traditions shaped by Christianity or a regime whose authority is drawn from an easily manipulated electorate, often infantile, every four or five years?

A poor leader is always regretable but that fact alone does not help us to establish the superiority of democracy over monarchy, does it? As I said before: a tyrant may be deposed, a tyrant electorate (which is the case today) cannot. By nature, monarchies are the stablest poltiical institutions there is and they have been able to survive poor monarchs since the dawn of time.

In fact, a traditional monarchy was better equipped to deal with a poor monarch than a democracy ever will be in order to deal with party politics, incompetent (or illiterate) electorates and poor presidents and prime-ministers.
Reply
#44
(04-21-2011, 07:56 PM)Andrew Ryan Wrote: I think you're all missing the bigger picture, he is marrying Kate Middleclass, someone of non-royal lineage, am I the only one who cares about this?

I care, but only slightly. If a British royal proposed to me, I wouldn't say "no" (based solely on this principle), that's for sure. So my opinion doesn't count for anything.
Reply
#45
(04-21-2011, 10:23 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(04-21-2011, 07:56 PM)Andrew Ryan Wrote: I think you're all missing the bigger picture, he is marrying Kate Middleclass, someone of non-royal lineage, am I the only one who cares about this?

I care, but only slightly. If a British royal proposed to me, I wouldn't say "no" (based solely on this principle), that's for sure. So my opinion doesn't count for anything.

I would hope that you'd say no.  Aside from weakening your blood line, they'd expect you to convert to their sham state church.    There's talk again in Parliament about amending the Act of Settlement to remove the anti-Catholic provisions, but even if they do, they haven't demonstrated sufficient contrition for the centuries of oppression (and those martyrs).   
Reply
#46
(04-21-2011, 11:05 PM)frerejacques Wrote: I would hope that you'd say no.  Aside from weakening your blood line, they'd expect you to convert to their sham state church.    There's talk again in Parliament about amending the Act of Settlement to remove the anti-Catholic provisions, but even if they do, they haven't demonstrated sufficient contrition for the centuries of oppression (and those martyrs).   

Good point about the bloodline. But the Church of England stuff would be their problem, not mine. I'd be happy if the Act of Settlement were brought to the forefront of news over it. Either it'd be repealed to make way for a papist (good), or my spouse would lose the claim to the throne (which is fine) but stir up a storm of public outrage over anti-Catholicism in the law. It's a win-win situation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)