Posted on 10/03/2004 4:27:44 PM PDT by JB_90
Pope John Paul II on Sunday put the last Austro-Hungarian emperor, Charles I, on the road to sainthood in a solemn beatification ceremony in St. Peter's Square, prompting angry reactions in Austria and splitting the Roman Catholic community there.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Of course, I meant HIH Otto rather than Karl. Thanks for the correction.
And please feel free to use the graphic.
The French demagogues, Hitler AND Charley I are all spending special time in Hell.
Is that material, or are copies, made available to laymen or is it only to be found in archival storage somewhere in Vatican City? I would love to read more examples of his heroic sanctity.
There are monarchists who would otherwise be Berkeley leftists. The country to your north has redefined the meaning of constitutional monarchy to the point that they reflect more of Kerry-Clinton multi-culti fuddi-buddi rather than historic majesty of James I. I have seen Canadian "conservatives" flock to a known Chomskyite statist politician and not to his principled conservative counterpart (political issues speaking) just because he happens to pepper his speeches with "God save the Queen!"
Monarchy in the mold of Queen Victoria is not bad, but if you force me to choose a constitutional monarchical system with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, Helen Clark or Jean Chretien as head of government, and a republic with George Washington as both head of state and government, I will choose Washington, thanks.
I have never read that ANY Austrian peasants starved. Can you give me soe source documents?
I realize that this is possible, since I used to be one myself before I moved rightward on issues other than monarchy. However, as I wrote two years ago, the left-royalist position (what I call "neomonarchism") is becoming less plausible since leftists are becoming more openly hostile to constitutional monarchy, especially in the English-speaking countries.
I have seen Canadian "conservatives" flock to a known Chomskyite statist politician and not to his principled conservative counterpart (political issues speaking) just because he happens to pepper his speeches with "God save the Queen!"
Really? Somehow I doubt that this is all that common. I just find it difficult to believe that today's Canadian leftist politicians are eager to prove their enthusiasm for the monarchy.
if you force me to choose a constitutional monarchical system with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, Helen Clark or Jean Chretien as head of government, and a republic with George Washington as both head of state and government, I will choose Washington, thanks.
Helen Clark, as you probably know, is a republican who has announced that she thinks it is "inevitable" for New Zealand to break with the Crown, so no monarchist would want her in power either; I'm not sure what your point is. And the George Washington option is not currently available. In any case, as an unreconstructed Tory/Loyalist, between George Washington and King George III, I would have chosen the latter--without denying that the former was an honorable man, far superior to most of his successors.
Are you God? If not, please stop defiling this thread with your revolutionary filth. Come back when you've learned something other than leftist propaganda about the Habsburgs, and begged God for forgiveness for slandering His faithful servant Charles. You disgust me.
Yes, I remember that thread. Discovering it belatedly, I tried to revive the discussion, but no one took the bait. Charles Coulombe, the author of the FAQ you posted (hosted on my website) is an occasional correspondent of mine, and someone whose writings I greatly admire and who has been very influential in shaping my own thinking.
I think monarchy is much like democracy in that a lot of good can come from it but in the wrong hands, both are equally evil.
Perhaps, but I believe that monarchy is less likely to place power in evil hands than elections. The nature of the political process is such that unscrupulous people are more likely to succeed. In contrast, in a monarchy there is at least a chance that a totally decent person (like Emperor Karl) will attain the top position. It should also be noted that the modern democratic state is far more intrusive of its subjects' lives than any king ever dreamed. From a traditionalist conservative point of view, one of the worst dangers of democracy is that it inevitably promotes the idea that inequality is an outrage, encouraging statist redistribution of wealth (as well as obscene privileges such as affirmative action). Obviously, a monarchy, built on inequality, has no such inherent opposition to it and therefore has no incentive to engage in the redistributive, social engineering schemes that democratically elected politicians have been so fond of.
Are you the thread god? Thanks for not kicking me off. Worship dead kings of you like. I'll worship the Living King.
Oh yes they do. Have a look at the Monarchist League of Canada's forum. ( http://members.boardhost.com/monarchist/ ) It is full of monarchists who would be classified as Howard Dean Democrats on everyday issues. There are even posts cheering Adrienne-Clarkson despite how wacky her background is and how bad her conducts in office have been just because she is the current Governor-General of Canada! I'm a conservative-by-issues person (but then, like Mark Steyn, I think it is best for the Queen to stay as HOS), and I can never agree with such people.
One thing to note in particular is the perspective of "brownie nationalists". Indigenous peoples in New Zealand and Canada have respectively stated their support of continuation of the monarchy because historically they had signed treaties with the Crown and they could use the link with the Crown to re-engineer New Zealand (or Canadian) into an "ideal state" where the indigenous peoples are more equal than the others. Sorry, but this is class-race-gender New Left ideology, and I can never justify my support of monarchy linked with this fad.
It has often been said that the best leaders one can have is a omnipotent benign autocratic monarch, or popularly known as "the good tsar". But the flip side is that the very worst human leaders is "the bad tsar".
Mathematically you are bound to run into a bad tsar much more frequently in a hereditary succession of political leaders, and besides, n-th generation descendent of great leaders are far more likely spoiled brats, black sheeps, or worst, lunatic ideological socialists. (It has been repeatedly shown that sons and daughters of mega-riches with political interests tend to be the most leftist politicians you will ever see)
It is just not worthwhile to have such a system where people are put to ransom UNLESS as you say we have a perfect, merciful, and just King of kings, Jesus, ruling over the entire world. The Bible says such a Kingdom on earth will come in the future. I will gladly accept such a Kingdom because we will then have a perfect system of government.
Christ's Kingdom will be filled only with people who WANT to obey.
You beat me to the point. :-) Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore is, for instance, much better than Jimmy Carter. And similarly, you would rather live in Prussia of Frederick the Great than Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Human nature itself is defective and deeply (in Christian jargon, it is because of our sin nature inherited from Adam) and in this age God has authorized human leaders to do His will to uphold justice (Romans 13:1-8).
I think the best possible way of human government (short of Jesus returning today) would be to have an alert citizenery coupled with leadership that is constrained. We can't afford to have a Nero or Peter the Great just because we don't want to have a Schroeder or Clinton.
God impowered the Hebrews to over throw the corrupt monarchies of Canan, and promised them the land to live in as free men. A couple of generations later, they put their necks back in the yoke. God found them unworthy of freedom.
You mean the one where they couldn't stop slaughtering each other over religious differences for hundreds of years? A real bunch of saints, to be sure.
In case it may have escaped your estimable powers of observation, that same European aristocracy were neck deep in WWI, the implosion and utter self-destruction of the greatest civilization the world has ever known.
Perhaps it was the inbreeding. It leads to idiots.
Hold on a sec, professor. In case it might not have caught your attention, democracy is more or less what got us to where we are today, and, since you seemed to have slept through "History of the Weimar Republic 101", Hitler came to power through a bitch's brew of intimidation, subterfuge and critical problem with the constitution, article 48, which actually worked to undermined German Democracy.
The NAZI party in the 30 election and both elections in 32 got the plurality of the vote, and gave them the biggest share of seats in the German legislative body(dont feel looking up its name right now), and this is what gave Hitler the stage and platform to expose Germany to his "ideas". Yes, the NAZIs never gained a majority, but they gained enough influence to grab power without a coup. Kaiser Wilhelm II on the other hand would have thrown Hitler in jail in the 20s for his actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.