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.
In truth I find it fascinating that a poster on a website called free republic would defend monarchy in any form.
Just think carefully what you wrote here. Defend monarchy is not the same thing as defending a monarch. Supposed you here that Danes, who cheerfully live under monarchy, falsely accuse a member of the royal family of rape. Would you say that's unjust and unfair. You probably would: that's an American things to do. Here at home, we pride ourselves in having "a country of laws, not men." Think once again what that means: you let a falsely accused go even he is a horrible person and even committed crimes in the past. I do hope you would defend a murderer falsely accused oi rape. Or a monarch.
So defending monarchy and defending monarchs is not the same thing, and when defending monarchs it matters against what. You seem to be upset about something I did not say.
royalism is an afront to humanity
That does not appear to be the case when you look at the humanity as it is and not as we'd like it to be. We in this blessed country think that loyalism is an affront to us. But great many other people have chosen that form time and time again. So, your statement is unfortunately false: we are not the entire humanity.
I’m going to start some military training right now and go fight some battles. No need for sarcasm here.
You made a claim that all the royalty's riches come from the use of force against its subjects. I have only showed you that that is false, being at odd with history. In great many places kings were elected: sometimes by a a process of representative democracy (Germanic tribes) and sometimes only by the army (some Roman Emperors). In most other cases, when we talk about the nobility just under the kings, the titles and the riches were granted for services. These are just facts. You can verify them in a heartbeat. Not doing so and being sarcastic does not help your cause. at all.
You've done with my last post the same as with the previous one: first you misunderstand what I said, then you put words in my mouth and then vigorously persuade me on something we already agree on.
You've got to think more carefully because things are not black and white. We Americans who hate loyalism cannot speak for the entire humanity. Defending royals in a specific situation where you'd defend anybody else is not the same thing as defending loyalism. And no, in most cases royal riches were not expropriated by force: it's just ain't so, sorry.
Have a good day.