Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SpringtoLiberty
Yes, the wealth was produced by the subjects and taken by force or threat of force by the monarchy.

You merely repeat the opinion you stated earlier. I've asked you to please provide evidence.

It’s kinda why our forefathers fought a war for liberty.

Kinda but may not exactly?

I am very cautious when someone suggest that all wealth is stolen (because this coincides with what Marxists want us to believe, and there is plenty of that propaganda in our textbooks). The truth is, much of wealth was acquired by luck (settling on a more fertile land), working harder than neighbors, etc. Much royalty in our Western neck of the woods, heavily influenced by Germanic traditions, comes from success in the battlefield. This applies to Gothic Spain, Gallic France, and Germany itself. In Rome, even midlle-level officers could receive land for services. The title of Marquise (count of a march, a border settlement) was granted for services.

In sum, great many noble titles and the accompanying wealth was earned, not stolen by means of expropriation or intimidation.

Some societies view services performed by monarchs as useful and compensate monarchs accordingly: royalty earns its keep. Consider, for instance, the fact that the British taxpayers pick up many of the Queen's expenses. Do you think she intimidates them into submission today.

Just something to think aboout, but I don't think the issue as simple as you suggested it to be.

102 posted on 03/02/2011 1:20:05 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: TopQuark

You’ve completely convinced me.

I’m going to start some military training right now and go fight some battles. Maybe then I can get “lucky” and be proclaimed the Duke of Houston and get rich!

In truth I find it fascinating that a poster on a website called free republic would defend monarchy in any form.

Whatever the economic or poloitical realities of the past were, royalism is an afront to humanity and to the true King, Jesus Christ.

The setting up of one man to rule over others is wrong. The truth behind royalism is the belief that one man’s DNA is somehow superior to another man’s and that that superiority can be passed down from one generation to the next. Royalism says that because of the circumstances of our birth one man may prosper while the other man toils in perpetual servitude.

I reject royalism in all it’s forms. And if the British people agree to subject themselves to tyranny so be it, but don’t try to tell me that it is somehow ok because she’s polite and doesn’t force them to do it.


107 posted on 03/03/2011 6:31:40 AM PST by SpringtoLiberty (Liberty is on the march!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson