Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 119

Thread: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

  1. #1

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    A couple of weeks ago (today being Sunday the 30th of December 2012) I could not believe my eyes when I saw footage of the queen of England sitting at a cabinet meeting becoming the first Royal to do so in 231 years. See here for the details: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...placemats.html

    As a result I could not help remembering Charles I (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649) who was the last Royal that tried to take control from the parliament in an attempt to become an absolute monarch:
    "Charles's last years were marked by the English Civil War, in which he fought the forces of the English and Scottish parliaments, which challenged his attempts to overrule and negate parliamentary authority, whilst simultaneously using his position as head of the English Church to pursue religious policies which generated the antipathy of reformed groups such as the Puritans. Charles was defeated in the First Civil War (1642–45), after which Parliament expected him to accept its demands for a constitutional monarchy. He instead remained defiant by attempting to forge an alliance with Scotland and escaping to the Isle of Wight. This provoked the Second Civil War (1648–49) and a second defeat for Charles, who was subsequently captured, tried, convicted, and executed for high treason. The monarchy was then abolished and a republic called the Commonwealth of England, also referred to as the Cromwellian Interregnum, was declared." - source wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
    Last edited by Witis; Mar 3rd, 2013 at 01:31 AM. Reason: Revised title
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  2. #2

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    Charles was beheaded on Tuesday, 30 January 1649.
    "The execution took place at Whitehall on a scaffold in front of the Banqueting House. Charles was separated from the people by large ranks of soldiers, and his last speech reached only those with him on the scaffold. He declared that he had desired the liberty and freedom of the people as much as any, 'but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having government.... It is not their having a share in the government; that is nothing appertaining unto them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.'

    Charles put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke. His last words were, 'I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.' "

    Some of the eye witnesses were recorded as saying:
    "Now that be some good whaling."
    "Thar went the royal sperm whale, the great brain of Great Britain, the royal supercomputer."
    "Whenever I think of blowing it I will always remember you Charles."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGGCVE2lKY
    "That was one of the most satisfying and memorable intestinal eliminations I have ever seen."
    "What are we going to do with his blue suede shoes?"
    "I always thought he was a basket case even before his head ended in one."
    "My word that was a fast way to lose some weight."
    Last edited by Witis; Mar 3rd, 2013 at 01:36 AM.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    Liz is our head of state so has always had the legal right to observe cabinet. None of our monarchs have done that recently but not because it's in some way dangerous to our democracy, they just haven't got round to it. I suspect that's mostly because they can't affect it, only observe it. You don't have to go back as far as Charles to find a monarch sitting in on a cabinet meeting though, Victoria used to do it all the time.

    The monarch does have some theoretical legislative rights (e.g. she technically "appoints" the prime minister and can therefore, theoretically, over-rule the result of an election and appoint someone of her own choice, she also has a theoretetical right of veto on any piece of legislation the government passes) but no monarch is going to exercise them in the foreseeable future because it would be entirely self defeating, the government would simply legislate to remove the right. It would be a political tussle the monarch would have no hope of winning.

    The civil war's interesting but didn't ultimately, diminish the powers of the crown much in the long term. Mainly because Cromwell was so disasterous as a ruler and ended up being far more dictatorial that Charles ever was. He literally banned Christmas for crying out loud! And if, like me, you're of Irish descent you'll reserve a special hatred for him because he massacred us by the thousand. When Charles II was restored in 1660 it largely just re-established the status quo and us Brits went back to being a monarchy with considerable gratitude.

    The history of the balance of power in England is far more complex than it's often portrayed. There's a temptation to look at the civil war and view it as an isolated event that moved us from a despotic monarchy to an open democracy in one fell swoop but that's really not accurate. Power has been gradually shifting from monarch to parliament throughout our history and the balance has yo-yod several times. Victoria, for example, had far more influence than, say, the Georgians or Queen Anne who preceded her. And English Kings as far back as King John were having their powers removed by their subjects in the 13th century.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  4. #4

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Liz is our head of state so has always had the legal right to observe cabinet. None of our monarchs have done that recently but not because it's in some way dangerous to our democracy, they just haven't got round to it. I suspect that's mostly because they can't affect it, only observe it. You don't have to go back as far as Charles to find a monarch sitting in on a cabinet meeting though, Victoria used to do it all the time.
    For me the problem is that it creates a public image that the queen is much more closely involved in the day to day governing of the country and in doing so perpetuates or brings back to life the myth that the English Royals, in reality, have all of the power and have voluntarily delegated some of it to the government in order to allow them to back seat drive rather than get their hands dirty. For example and almost incredulously the official website of the British monarchy places the queen above the law:
    "Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law." source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Qu...andthelaw.aspx


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    The monarch does have some theoretical legislative rights (e.g. she technically "appoints" the prime minister and can therefore, theoretically, over-rule the result of an election and appoint someone of her own choice, she also has a theoretetical right of veto on any piece of legislation the government passes) but no monarch is going to exercise them in the foreseeable future because it would be entirely self defeating, the government would simply legislate to remove the right. It would be a political tussle the monarch would have no hope of winning.
    I have to agree with you Funky, especially regarding the government's ultimate power to modify or obviate any royal power e.g the bill of right of 1689, although there is often a lot of confusion surrounding the royal powers (also called the royal prerogative) due to terms such as the United Kingdom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and the Royal Armed Forces which superficially give the impression of an underlying absolute monarchy.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    The civil war's interesting but didn't ultimately, diminish the powers of the crown much in the long term.
    I have to disagree on that point Dex, the beheading of Charles I and the dissolution of monarchy is a permanent reminder to any would be absolute monarchists trying to force themselves on the people of the consequence of trying to do so. There is nothing like the satisfying "plop" of an absolute monarch's head hitting the ground to really bring to a certain end the unrestricted power of the royal institution. Thar went the view that the king was all powerful, divine and above both the clergy (especially since King Henry VIII) and the law. Thar went Charlie's angles.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Mainly because Cromwell was so disasterous as a ruler and ended up being far more dictatorial that Charles ever was. He literally banned Christmas for crying out loud! And if, like me, you're of Irish descent you'll reserve a special hatred for him because he massacred us by the thousand. When Charles II was restored in 1660 it largely just re-established the status quo and us Brits went back to being a monarchy with considerable gratitude.
    Importantly Charles II was only invited back to form a constitutional monarchy rather than as an absolute monarch which as an institution died with Charles I.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    The history of the balance of power in England is far more complex than it's often portrayed. There's a temptation to look at the civil war and view it as an isolated event that moved us from a despotic monarchy to an open democracy in one fell swoop but that's really not accurate. Power has been gradually shifting from monarch to parliament throughout our history and the balance has yo-yod several times. Victoria, for example, had far more influence than, say, the Georgians or Queen Anne who preceded her. And English Kings as far back as King John were having their powers removed by their subjects in the 13th century.
    Yep those freedom loving parliamentarians have been raining on the royal parade at least since the time of King John of England and the Magna Carta in 1215 and continued after the execution of Charles I to include the glorious revolution of 1688 (the overthrow of King James II of England) which resulted in a monarchy further restricted by the Bill of Rights in 1689. Moreover reforms to remove further powers from the royals is an ongoing process, for example in 1958 the government introduced non hereditary life peers via the Life Peerages Act and from then on the creation of hereditary peerages (except for members of the Royal family) rapidly became obsolete, essentially ceasing after 1964. Additionally the House of Lords Act 1999 abolished the hereditaries' right to sit in the House of Lords. The net effect was to allow the parliament to take control of the house of lords and prevent the growth of royal hereditary titles.

    Also did you know that Big Ben (Old Bluey) which was officially called the clock tower was renamed Elizabeth Tower this year as part of the diamond jubilee celebrations? Check out the queen's face in the photo: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.1102779). Nonetheless the aforementioned discussion should apply to any royal wales be they blue, sperm, killer, porpoise or weasel.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    For me the problem is that it creates a public image...
    I don't think anyone really believes the Monarch has real power though and I'm not conviced her sitting in on a cabinet meeting or two is going to change that. Its mostly a PR exercise to show that she cares rather than any garner any degree of power.

    the Royal Armed Forces
    Yeah, it's always amused me that our armed forces swear allegienace to the queen before they do the government. It's kind of the ultimate screw you to the likes of Tony Blair and David Cameron. Interestingly, if you talk to most squaddies they'd list their loyalties in that order too, and would swear that they'd defend the queen's interests before they'd defend the prime minister. I suspect that's mostly bravado but it's endearing bravado.

    the beheading of Charles I and the dissolution of monarchy is a permanent reminder
    and
    Importantly Charles II was only invited back to form a constitutional monarchy rather than as an absolute monarch which as an institution died with Charles I.
    Ah, so your point there is more about the impression it gave rather than the absolute legislative power each side held. I guess I'd agree that it upped parliaments position in the immediate term but I'm not so sure Cromwell's tenure didn't actually harm the parliamentary cause in the longer term. After all, he himself purged parliament and declared a military dictator. If anything was going to send the message to the British people that Monarchies weren't so bad after all, that would probably do it. Couple that with the popularity of Charles II (who was hugely popular during his reign) and the whole affair saw the Monarchy ascend in popularity.

    Basically, I guess it depends what you call the start and finish. If you take the civil war in isolation of course it diminishes the Monarchy. If you include the inter regnum and restoration it probably enhances the monarchy. If you include the glorious revolution as well you're probably back to diminishing them. I think that's my point, really. Our history is our history as a whole and it represents a gradual trend from absolutism to democracy with lots of to-ing and fro-ing as it's gone along. If you pull out any bit in the middle you end up creating a somewhat missleading impression.

    Big Ben
    I didn't know they'd renamed the clocktower. Big Ben was always the bell, not the clock. It probably makes sense to rename it though because everyone does tend to use "Big Ben" to mean the tower, the clock itself and all the bells in it.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  6. #6

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I don't think anyone really believes the Monarch has real power though and I'm not conviced her sitting in on a cabinet meeting or two is going to change that. Its mostly a PR exercise to show that she cares rather than any garner any degree of power.
    Atlhough you are absolutely correct I am not sure that everyone actually knows it to be the case as not everyone has studied English history and politics or even knows the difference between the head of government and head of state.

    For example there seems to be a constant stream of Royal impersonators such as Elizabeth Hurley (I thought she was excellent in Bedazzled trying to sign up big Brendan Fraser) and Dr Phil. I hate Dr Phil as it looks to me like he is effectively promoting the royal head of state by virtue of his profession and in doing so promulgating the false view that the English head of state is actually the overall ruler of the Commonwealth of Nations rather than a purely ceremonial appointment and as a result think he would be better off getting some professional help rather than giving it.

    Sometimes the Royaling even makes it as far as some relatively high level political shows allowing the royal impersonators (typically those with names such as Chalie King, etc) the ability to get involved in some real back seat driving.

    It may be that the English Royals are falsely perceived, Dr Phil style, as the actual ruler of the Commonwealth of Nations even at an international level and with the Commonwealth having so many votes in the United Nations, far more than the US which only has one, it would make the English royals the illusory primary political power in the world. If so, as the queen is quite the feminist dragon, it would result in the appearance of a large number of stogie smoking (just like the queen bee it calms them down when they smoke) monster sized, skull and cross bone waving, land wales on a global scale including in the US which is effectively a subset of the Commonwealth from a political perspective. It would also account for the mistaken belief that the queen is above the law as published on the official royal website.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Yeah, it's always amused me that our armed forces swear allegienace to the queen before they do the government. It's kind of the ultimate screw you to the likes of Tony Blair and David Cameron. Interestingly, if you talk to most squaddies they'd list their loyalties in that order too, and would swear that they'd defend the queen's interests before they'd defend the prime minister. I suspect that's mostly bravado but it's endearing bravado.
    It is pretty funny to think of squaddies believing their job is to protect a queen who only gets enough of an allowance from the public fisc in order to maintain her ceremonial duties and has had no means of paying for any of the armed forces since the bill of rights in 1689 annulled taxation by royal prerogative. Moreover the 1689 Bill of Rights also decrees that no standing army may be maintained during time of peace without the consent of Parliament which is given via the Armed Forces Act and passed by the parliament every 5 years, and the Royals can only ever exercise control over the armed forces on the advice of the parliament, making the prime minister the defacto head of the armed forces.

    What I did not know was that members of the Royal Navy have never been required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy as Head of the Armed Forces. Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Ar...medForces.aspx
    So at least the naval servicemen are less likely to believe they are defending the queen instead of the nation.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Ah, so your point there is more about the impression it gave rather than the absolute legislative power each side held.
    Not quite, I am indicating that there is a difference between an absolute monarch and a constitutional monarchy and when Charles I died it marked the end of the tolerance for and the role of English royals as absolute monarchs. So when Charles II was invited to form a constitutional monarchy he was only invited as a public servant, a head of state, rather than as absolute ruler of the people.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I guess I'd agree that it upped parliaments position in the immediate term but I'm not so sure Cromwell's tenure didn't actually harm the parliamentary cause in the longer term.
    As far as I can tell substantial constitutional reforms to completely remove the monarchy were never undertaken by the interregnum parliaments and as a result the role of Lord Protector turned out to be a caretaker position until they reestablished a constitutional monarchy involving Charles II in 1660 only 11 years after Charles I was executed. Essentially the death of Charles I marked the end of absolute monarchs in England, not the end of the monarchy in England.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    After all, he himself purged parliament and declared a military dictator. If anything was going to send the message to the British people that Monarchies weren't so bad after all, that would probably do it.
    I have to agree that he was quite arrogant when he forcefully cleared the rump parliament with forty musketeers simply because it refused to do as he said in relation to setting election dates, religious reforms and establishing a caretaker government, and when he dissolved the first Protectorate parliament as he did not agree with their parliamentary reforms, although I don't believe it had any impact whatsoever on the English public's view in relation to absolute monarchs.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Couple that with the popularity of Charles II (who was hugely popular during his reign) and the whole affair saw the Monarchy ascend in popularity.
    I am not so sure about his popularity. Don't forget that his reign included the great bubonic plague of London (1665-1666) - the black death which killed 20% of the population and the great fire of London in 1666. Moreover although he had agreed to a constitutional monarchy his reign was marred by depostism for example when he issued the Royal Declaration of Indulgence in 1672 which in contravention of the constitution attempted to arbitrarily suspend laws passed by Parliament. Of course when the parliament challenged the declaration on constitutional grounds Charles II backed down rather than lose his head like his father.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Basically, I guess it depends what you call the start and finish. If you take the civil war in isolation of course it diminishes the Monarchy.
    It did not just diminish the Monarchy, it brought the absolute form of the monarchy to a satisfying end allowing London to flush itself of despotism.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    If you include the inter regnum and restoration it probably enhances the monarchy.
    Don't agree, the interregnum is an essential component ensuring the death of Charles I is interpreted as the definitive end of absolute monarchism in England. Without any break it may have been viewed as business as usual, and not a substantial historical event. Should any royal ever try to take control of the nation again then they would clearly risk losing the monarchy to a permanent interregnum.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    If you include the glorious revolution as well you're probably back to diminishing them. I think that's my point, really. Our history is our history as a whole and it represents a gradual trend from absolutism to democracy with lots of to-ing and fro-ing as it's gone along. If you pull out any bit in the middle you end up creating a somewhat missleading impression.
    To me the beheading of Charles I is the moment when the English people rose up and damned a king trying to exert his control and will onto every other man in the nation. From that moment onwards no Royal would dare challenge the power of the parliament without fear of losing their head or the monarchy, in any form, forever. It is the moment when the people established themselves as dominate over any and all royal prerogative powers and in doing so became the unchallengeable main driving force in England.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I didn't know they'd renamed the clocktower. Big Ben was always the bell, not the clock. It probably makes sense to rename it though because everyone does tend to use "Big Ben" to mean the tower, the clock itself and all the bells in it.
    To me Elizabeth Tower still doesn't have quite the same ring to it as Big Ben or even Old Bluey.
    Last edited by Witis; Jan 12th, 2013 at 08:40 AM.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    For example there seems to be a constant stream of Royal impersonators such as Elizabeth Hurley (I thought she was excellent in Bedazzled trying to sign up big Brendan Fraser) and Dr Phil. I hate Dr Phil as it looks to me like he is effectively promoting the royal head of state by virtue of his profession and in doing so promulgating the false view that the English head of state is actually the overall head of the Commonwealth of Nations rather than a purely ceremonial appointment and as a result think he would be better off getting some professional help rather than giving it.

    Sometimes the Royaling even makes it as far as some relatively high level political shows allowing the royal impersonators (typically those with names such as Chalie King, etc) the ability to get involved in some real back seat driving.
    I've got to be honest, I've got absolutely no idea what you're referring to with either Dr Phil or Liz Hurley or who the Royal Impersonators are. I'm not convinced there's anyone out there who really believes the queen rules though (which seems to be the central point). Is there really?

    The Common Wealth is an interesting point as I suspect many of the Common Wealth countries do still have a certain loyalty to the UK. I'm not sure that it translates into a real power block at the UN but it might still have some small influence. Still, history is what history is and I'm not sure removal of the Queen as head of state would really diminish the cultural ties the Common wealth represents. After all, several of teh Common wealth countries already have presidents rather than the queen as heads of state and still seem to enjoy the same cultural ties.

    I have to say, I like the idea of the US as part of the common wealth but I suspect many of the American members of the forum would strongly disagree with you on that one

    Not quite, I am indicating that there is a difference between an absolute monarch and a constitutional monarchy and when Charles I died it marked the end of the tolerance for and the role of English royals as absolute monarchs.
    That's the thing, I'm not really sure it did. there are two main reasons for that:-
    1. The English Monarchy was by no means absolute prior to the civil war. They were already dependent on parliament to raise taxes and go to war, for example. The power of the monarchy had been dimishing ever since the end of the tudor period. Bess was the last monarch who'd really enjoyed the unconditional support and even then she was frequently pressured into decisions she didn't really like, particularly in her early reign. You probably have to go back to Henry VIII before you can identify a true despot who could utterly disregard his parliaments wishes. Mary certainly couldn't and ended up wearing a full suit of armour at all times in case she was attacked by her own courtiers.
    2. Although Charles I did attempt to take back some of that power (which is really what led to the civil war, of course), Cromwells despotism and the ensuing popularity of Charles II following the restoration really just set everything back to the status quo as it existed in the early Stuart period.

    I agree with you that the civil war does provide a significant milestone but it does so more for how it's remembered than for what it actually changed.

    I am not so sure about his popularity. Don't forget that his reign included the great bubonic plague of London (1665-1666) - the black death which killed 20% of the population and the great fire of London in 1666.
    Oh he was definitely hugely popular and the plague and great fire were a large part of the reason. He did a huge amount to help out those affected by those events and the people loved him for it. Mostly, though, people liked him because he was into hunting and balls and generally prancing around being as flashy as he could. That might not sound like something that would make him popular but after the misery that Cromwell had inflicted on the populace it was exactly what everyone wanted.

    To me the beheading of Charles I is the moment when the English people rose up and damned a king trying to exert his control and will onto every other man in the nation.
    It was certainly a moment but I'm not convinced it was the moment. There have been plenty of moments like that through English history: Magna Carta, the Peasants Revolt, the Tolpuddle Martyrs (though that last one's not so much anti-monarchy as anti-aristocracy). For me, if I had to pick one as the most important (and I'm not sure you really can) it would be the Glorious Revolution, which you mentioned yourself. Oddly, though, that hardly ever gets taught.
    Last edited by FunkyDexter; Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:02 AM.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    I knew it had to turn, and I even knew which way it would turn, I just wasn't quite sure when it would turn.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  9. #9
    Randalf the Red honeybee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    off others' brains
    Posts
    4,345

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    The biggest reason the Americans wouldn't want to be part of the common wealth is because they are capitalist. They would, however, love to be part of any private wealth creation endeavors.

    .
    I am not a complete idiot. Some parts are still missing.
    Check out the rtf-help tutorial
    General VB Faq Thread
    Change is the only constant thing. I have not changed my signature in a long while and now it has started to stink!
    Get more power for your floppy disks. ; View honeybee's Elite Club:
    Use meaningfull thread titles. And add "[Resolved]" in the thread title when you have got a satisfactory response.
    And if that response was mine, please think about giving me a rep. I like to collect them!

  10. #10
    PowerPoster SJWhiteley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    South of the Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    2,256

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    Quote Originally Posted by honeybee View Post
    The biggest reason the Americans wouldn't want to be part of the common wealth is because they are capitalist. They would, however, love to be part of any private wealth creation endeavors.

    .
    The phrase 'common wealth' or commonwealth should be a big clue...
    "Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
    "There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk.
    "Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."

  11. #11

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: In case you forgot or never knew: The beheading of Chales I

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I've got to be honest, I've got absolutely no idea what you're referring to with either Dr Phil or Liz Hurley or who the Royal Impersonators are. I'm not convinced there's anyone out there who really believes the queen rules though (which seems to be the central point).
    I have not viewed the English Royals as anything other than ceremonial since I was at high school; however, as I previously indicated, many have not been educated in the finer points of English history making them susceptible to the impressions conveyed by popular culture. If I did not know any details regarding the true nature of the English Royals then the prevalence of those in the global media with Royal names such as Elizabeth, particularly when one includes all of the 150+ variants such as Lisa, Leeza, Liz, Libby, Bitty, Isabella, Bess, Bindi and my favourite Helsa, and Philip, Phillips, Phil, Pip, and Phelps (son of Philip), would potentially guide me to believing that they are far more powerful than they really are.

    The title Head of Commonwealth, which is the equivalent of head of state, except that the Commonwealth of Nations is a composite of 52 member states, could also causes some degree of confusion until it is clear that it too is a predominantly symbolic/ceremonial position.

    A few more well known examples:
    The creator of "The Doctors" is Phil McGraw while the primary co host is Dr. Lisa Masterson
    Charlie Sheen was the highest paid U.S TV actor until he was fired from three and a half men.
    Lisa Simpson
    Big Bender on Futurama who just loves a stogie.
    Charlie Epps, the fictional mathematical genius and center of the star chamber in the U.S TV series "Numb3rs" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Eppes)
    Castle (U.S TV series)
    Stephen Fry (Stephen means crown/ruler) the host of QI who also played Peter Kingdom in the TV series Kingdom.
    Stephen King (author)
    Steven Spielberg (U.S movie producer)
    Stephen Hawking (Physicist)
    Steve Irwin (wildlife presenter killed by a stingray sting) and his daughter Bindi also a TV presenter (variant of Elizabeth from Queensland Australia)
    Steve Wozniak and the late Steve Jobs (IT entrepreneurs behind Apple computers sometimes said to be a reference to the fruit of the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden)
    Even Albert is a very famous royal name being the consort of Queen Victoria (Victoria died on the 22 January 1901) who was noted for his enthusiastic support of the application of science to the modern industrial age, and the name was subsequently made very famous by Albert Einstein who arguably put the English noble into the Nobel prize that he won in 1921.

    Perhaps the next excerpt from Little Britain sums it up the pop culture view of the Royals best of all, remembering that Bitty is a variant of Elizabeth:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApBVJMfUjbs

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    The Common Wealth is an interesting point as I suspect many of the Common Wealth countries do still have a certain loyalty to the UK. I'm not sure that it translates into a real power block at the UN but it might still have some small influence. Still, history is what history is and I'm not sure removal of the Queen as head of state would really diminish the cultural ties the Common wealth represents. After all, several of teh Common wealth countries already have presidents rather than the queen as heads of state and still seem to enjoy the same cultural ties.
    As far as I can tell the Commonwealth of Nations almost certainly represents a united political force at the UN, and any members in a continual state of disagreement with the rest of the Commonwealth would likely leave of their own volition or be asked to leave. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held every 2 years also ensures that the Commonwealth has a united political view.

    It is important to point out that the Commonwealth of Nations is based on voluntary membership, unlike the domination and subordination of the imperialism of the British Colonial Empire from which the U.S escaped via the American War of Independence (1775–1783), as many still think the terms Commonwealth of Nations and British Empire are interchangeable.

    The Commonwealth of Nations has 54 independent member states, making the commonwealth a large political movement in the U.N.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I have to say, I like the idea of the US as part of the common wealth but I suspect many of the American members of the forum would strongly disagree with you on that one .
    When I mentioned the U.S being a subset of the Commonwealth I meant from a political perspective as the Commonwealth represents a substantial portion of the U.N vote having 54 votes while the U.S only has a single vote. The prevalence of well known Americans with British Royal names popularises such a view. However, the UN currently has a total of 193 member states, so the Commonwealth of Nations with 54 votes only accounts for 28% of the total vote, meaning that it does not have enough votes to put itself in a dominant voting position and therefore does not quite make it over the line from pop culture to fact.

    Instead the group of 77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77), a coalition of developing countries, which has now grown to 132 members, has such a potential. It is unclear how members of both the Commonwealth and the group of 77 would vote in cases where their views diverge on important issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    That's the thing, I'm not really sure it did. there are two main reasons for that:-
    1. The English Monarchy was by no means absolute prior to the civil war.
    Definitely not, although Charles I was, as far as I can tell, the last serious attempt by a monarch at regaining absolute control of England.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    2. Although Charles I did attempt to take back some of that power (which is really what led to the civil war, of course), Cromwells despotism and the ensuing popularity of Charles II following the restoration really just set everything back to the status quo as it existed in the early Stuart period.
    Disagree Dex, although Cromwell behaved arrogantly in certain situations as I previous described he stopped short of despotism by refusing the crown when it was offered to him. As for Charles II, I have seen his reign described as "the most criminal of all English Princes" and "a disgrace to the history of our country".


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I agree with you that the civil war does provide a significant milestone but it does so more for how it's remembered than for what it actually changed.
    Yep it has to be up there with other similarly memorable events like the French Revolution where the absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed and was marked by the execution of Louis XVI.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Oh he was definitely hugely popular and the plague and great fire were a large part of the reason. He did a huge amount to help out those affected by those events and the people loved him for it.
    Charles II of England, his family and his court left the city for Oxfordshire when the plague occurred, and Charles only seems to have reacted positively after the fire in response to fears that it would otherwise result in a rebellion, he was, after all, a true despot at heart. I am very skeptical that plagues killing 20% of the population and gigantic fires were instrumental in making the reign of Charles II popular, instead they are more likely remembered as periods of extreme misery associated with the time of his reign.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Mostly, though, people liked him because he was into hunting and balls and generally prancing around being as flashy as he could. That might not sound like something that would make him popular
    No it doesn't, especially when it is contrasted with the misery being experienced by the English people at the time. The only reason he wasn't executed like his father for trying to implement his despotic ambitions is because he decided to back down in the face of parliamentary opposition meaning the beheading of Charles I was a unreserved success in deterring would be absolute monarchists in England.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    It was certainly a moment but I'm not convinced it was the moment. There have been plenty of moments like that through English history: Magna Carta, the Peasants Revolt, the Tolpuddle Martyrs (though that last one's not so much anti-monarchy as anti-aristocracy). For me, if I had to pick one as the most important (and I'm not sure you really can) it would be the Glorious Revolution, which you mentioned yourself. Oddly, though, that hardly ever gets taught.
    There is no doubt they were all good moments like articles 13, 39 and 40 of the Magna Carta:
    "13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs."
    "39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
    40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."
    source: http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

    Likewise the petition of right which was drafted by parliament in response to abuses of the power by King Charles I (e.g requiring forced loans and imprisoning without charge or trial anyone who would not pay) and fully ratified by the King on the 7th of June 1628 was another important moment.

    The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 "which established that the command of the King or the Privy Council was no answer to a petition of habeas corpus" was another good moment (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679).

    The bill of rights in 1689 which was passed by parliament after the glorious revolution was another very important moment especially as it is said to have been one of the main source documents used to draft the United States bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution) introduced by James Madison in 1789.

    However, there is nothing like heads falling off would be absolute monarchs to turn any good moment into an unforgettable masterpiece, and for me the beheading of Charles I is unequaled in this respect.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  12. #12

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    The Divine Right of Kings

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    You probably have to go back to Henry VIII before you can identify a true despot
    Throughout history the Divine Right of Kings has been the theological justification underlying the religious support for monarchs (as distinct from polyarchs) which allowed them to be appointed the head of the Church, as occurred in England after King Henry VIII was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church and then made head of the Church of England via The Act of Supremacy in 1534 which declared that the King was 'the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England'.

    The Divine Right "asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Right_of_Kings).

    However, I am not at all convinced that having a monarch as the head of the Church of England is in any way a valid theological construct especially given that the Church of England is a Christian church, which, by focusing on the new testament, ultimately focuses on a polyarchistic rather than monarchistic model. For example in Revelations 3 there is clearly an invitation for anyone who overcomes to ultimately gain their own throne: "To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne", while the total number of thrones and kings numbers at least 25, not just 1, according to revelations 4:
    "2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne. 4 Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder" Source: Revelations 4 New International Version 1984 http://niv.scripturetext.com/revelation/4.htm.

    As a result it clear that the new testament is in no way ultimately based on a unitary version of theological power making any argument in favour of the divine right of any Christian monarch highly suspect. In fact I would go as far as suggesting that the Divine Right of Kings is a stand out religious sophistry used to trick Christians stupid enough to believe without needing any evidence. Admittedly believing without needing evidence is one of the fundamental requirements of the bible which unfortunately makes its followers highly susceptible to any such ruse. To me the Divine Right of Kings is merely a way for any power hungry monster to fallaciously justify as holy, and far too conveniently beyond criticism or correction by any institution or the law, their attempts at subjugating as many people as as they possibly can. In other words there is absolutely nothing holy about any Christian monarch be they male or female, be they Elizabeth II or Charles Prince of Wales.

    The aforementioned criticism also applies to the pope who has full and absolute executive, legislative and judicial power over the Vatican City being the only absolute monarch in Europe.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  13. #13
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    If I did not know any details regarding the true nature of the English Royals then the prevalence of those in the global media with Royal names such as Elizabeth, particularly when one includes all of the 150+ variants such as Lisa, Leeza, Liz, Libby, Bitty, Isabella, Bess, Bindi and my favourite Helsa, and Philip, Phillips, Phil, Pip, and Phelps (son of Philip), would potentially guide me to believing that they are far more powerful than they really are.
    Sorry, are you trying to assert that the fact there are alot of people called Elizabeth or Phillip somehow implies that People think the British Monarchy still has legislative power? That's a ridiculous argument. I could just as easily argue that the existence of Oliver Reed, Oliver North and Stone indicate that we're all puritans who hate Christmas and the Irish, or that Professer Brian Cox's parents thought Brian the Snail was the leader of the characters on the Magic Roundabout.

    There's certainly a phenomenon where people tend to name their children after people they like and/or admire, and often royals fall into that category (you can probably expect to see an increase in the number of Williams and Kates in the next few years) but to infer from that that people might think the Queen's position is anything more than ceremonial seems bizarre.

    Given that the most common christian name in the UK is John (probably the most reviled monarch England ever had) I'm not even sure you can draw any meaningful correlation between the number of people called Elizabeth and her popularity let alone a causation. If that type of corellation was really meaningful you would expect to meet alot more people called Winston.

    Charles I was, as far as I can tell, the last serious attempt by a monarch at regaining absolute control of England.
    Yeah, that's pretty much true. If I was being really picky I'd point to James the II but his antics pale in comparison to Charles I. Oddly, the monarch that has enjoyed the most influence since Charles has been Victoria and that's pretty mostly because she didn't seek it.

    he stopped short of despotism by refusing the crown
    Yes he refused the crown... instead he dissolved parliament, had himself declared "Lord Protector of the Common Wealth" and established miliary rule. He was also God touched lunatic who banned anything that didn't strictly adhere to his own puritanical beliefs, including the Book of Common Prayer, Christmas, the theater and dancing. He most definitely did not stop short of despotism.

    And Charles II really was popular. You're looking at his activities through the prism of a modern perspective but that's not what prevailed at the time. Samuel Pepys wrote of his return to England: "The entry to the city was a blaze of thanksgiving. The Lord Mayor and Councillors of rebel London led the festival. The presbytarian divine obstructed his passage only to have the honour or presenting him the bible amid their fervent salutations. Both Houses of Parliament acknowledged their devotion to his rights and person. And all around the masses, rich and poor, Cavalier and Roundhead, Episcopalian, Presbytarian and Independent, framed a scene of reconcilliation and rejoicing without compare in history." And that from a former roundhead who was instrumental in sending Charles I to his execution.

    He certainly had his detractors (the Whig party formed around opposition to his reign) and his popularity waxed and waned but he was still popular at the end of his reign and the public largely blamed his shortcomings on his parliament rather than him. At his death John Evelyn wrote "Thus died King Charles II, of a vigorous and robust constitution and in all appearance promising a long life. He was a prince of many virtues, and many great imperfections; debonair, easy of access, not bloody nor cruel; his countenance fierce, his voice great, proper of person, every motion became him". Of his imperfections Evelyn goes onto to say: "As to the other public transactions nad unhappy misscarriages, it is not here I intend to number them; but certainly never had a King more glorious opportunities to have made himself, his people and all Europe happy, and prevented innumerable mischiefs, had not his easy nature resigned him to managed by crafty men and some abandoned and profane wretches who corrupted his otherwise sufficient parts."

    I'll leave the debate about his popularity and how the public felt about his rule with the last two sentences from chapter 26 from Christopher Lee's "This Sceptered Isle" published by BBC Books: "Maybe the Restoration would have been served by a shorter reign, if not by a more reforming governance. Yet he left behind a people who shared his over-riding belief in the Divine Right Of Kings"

    If you can't accept the words of the two most important contemprary diarists of the age and the Quatercentenary Fellow of Contemporary History and Gomes Lecturer, Emmanualle College, Cambridge then I'm afraid I have no futher argument to offer that could possibly change your mind as to the popularity of Charles II's reign.




    On the matter of whether the restoration saw a diminuation of actual legal power I'm going to continue to quote This Sceptered Isle (mainly because it's open on my lap so it's convenient to do so:-

    "At this stage it would be wrong to believe that parliament had a revolutionary role in government. In many ways parliament had no more effective powers than it had under the previous three monarchs. Power was certainly shifting from the centre which meant the shires had more authority. But that didn't neccessarily bring about a universal improvement of the people's lot. Parliament still suffered the weaknesses of the Republican legislators and the open disagreement between the Commons and Lords hardly helped. And it was still the King, and no one else, who summoned parliament"

    "It is said that Charles II's restoration was conditional. But his reign did not start in 1660. It was declared that it started at the excet moment of his father's beheading in 1649. And so all the parliamentary acts that Charles I had agreed were now legal under Charles II. Everything else was illegal and therefore dropped."


    I've got a few other sources here that are a little more light hearted. 1066 and All That (which I think you'd particularly enjoy as you seem to share it's sense of humour) says:-
    "Charles II was also very merry and was therefore not so much king as a monarch. During the civil war he had rendered vaulable assistance to his father's side by hiding in all the oak trees he could find. He was thus very romantic and popular and was able after the death of Cromwell to descend to the throne."

    Although it supports my argument, you probably shouldn't take 1066 and All That very seriously.
    Last edited by FunkyDexter; Jan 7th, 2013 at 02:41 PM.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  14. #14
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    On this side of the pond, I would suggest that the popularity of the name Elizabeth is not due to the English queen, but a contemporary of hers. The popularity of the name Charles, if it could be said to be popular, also has nothing to do with any English monarch, but something more in pop culture.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  15. #15
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    I'mwracking my brain to thnk who you could be referring to. Charles I'm guessing is Chaplin? A famous American Elizabeth completely eludes me.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  16. #16

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Sorry, are you trying to assert that the fact there are alot of people called Elizabeth or Phillip somehow implies that People think the British Monarchy still has legislative power? That's a ridiculous argument.
    No, I am no way arguing that it is the truth, I am highlighting the effect pop culture is likely having on the uneducated masses, after all there is a overt dragon as the head of the Church of England and so focusing on her liar, pardon me, I mean lair and lies seems appropriate e.g that she is above the law. The most damning evidence is that queen Elizabeth II is a lady, who, according to the bible, are not even supposed to speak in church: "34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (Corinthians 14:34-35 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...14&version=NIV). It is apparent that having a queen as the head of church is so heretical and sacrilegious, such a biblical perversion and insult, that there can be no doubt of her hatred for and rejection of the Church and its doctrines which should arguably result in a much greater focus on Golithian (who was 6'9 or 9'9 feet tall depending on the account) rather than Davidian subjects, a point which is made in the situation comedy "How I met Your Mother" where some of the characters work for the Phil-istine Goliath National Bank "the world leader in credit and banking", see for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LebN68jFifM.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    There's certainly a phenomenon where people tend to name their children after people they like and/or admire, and often royals fall into that category (you can probably expect to see an increase in the number of Williams and Kates in the next few years) but to infer from that that people might think the Queen's position is anything more than ceremonial seems bizarre.
    Why on earth would you name your child after a Royal if you knew that they were old news, has beens, nothing more that rubber stamps for public policy? I have no doubt that there will be a gigantic increase in the number of Williams and Kates not to mention the potential, if the current zeitgeist is any indication, of attracting the attention of the paparazzo.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Given that the most common christian name in the UK is John (probably the most reviled monarch England ever had) I'm not even sure you can draw any meaningful correlation between the number of people called Elizabeth and her popularity let alone a causation. If that type of corellation was really meaningful you would expect to meet alot more people called Winston.
    Ah, you see, Winston was no royal, ergo not popular. Today to be anyone you have to be Elizabeth, Liz, Lisa, Philip, Phil, Charles or Charlie.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Yeah, that's pretty much true. If I was being really picky I'd point to James the II but his antics pale in comparison to Charles I. Oddly, the monarch that has enjoyed the most influence since Charles has been Victoria and that's pretty mostly because she didn't seek it.
    Yep, that'll be what caused Charles I to get so sick that he could only be cured by head-ot-tomy, which, I think you will agree, was a highly successful operation.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Yes he refused the crown... instead he dissolved parliament, had himself declared "Lord Protector of the Common Wealth" and established miliary rule.
    Yes he was appointed Lord Protector of the first Protectorate parliament which he dissolved when he did not like the parliamentary constitutional reforms which resulted in a period of time, about 18 months, where the military had to act as caretakers prior to the formation of the second Protectorate parliament of which he was also Lord Protector; however, it is very clear that his goal was to reestablish a parliament which he viewed as morally fit rather than to gain permanent military control of England.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    He was also God touched lunatic who banned anything that didn't strictly adhere to his own puritanical beliefs, including the Book of Common Prayer, Christmas, the theater and dancing. He most definitely did not stop short of despotism.
    He didn't personally ban Christmas, it was an act of parliament, unless you have some evidence that shows otherwise. It seems that the puritans preferred to focus on Sundays as holy days and viewed other holidays including Christmas as lacking biblical justification. Likewise puritanical concerns resulted in the Book of Common Prayer being replaced by the Directory of Public Worship.

    After refusing the crown and undertaking so many campaigns against absolute monarchism I don't see how you could possibly justify calling him a despot, instead you could try replacing despot with puritan and it would probably work very well.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    And Charles II really was popular. You're looking at his activities through the prism of a modern perspective but that's not what prevailed at the time.
    Disagree Dex. England had just established itself as completely intolerant of absolute monarchs and absolute monarchists, and so his overt displays of anti parliamentarianism generated substantial revolutionary pressures rather than support which when combined with 20% of the population dying from the black death and gigantic fires ultimately made him the enemy rather than friend of the people.

    It seems to me that there are quite a number of absolute monarchists, that still want the precious, willing to overlook the facts in a futile attempt to try and revive not just the monarchy but absolute monarchism. Such authors tend to demonise the parliamentarians including Oliver Cromwell, call Charles I a martyr, and focus intently on those accomplishments that Charles II did not soil.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I'll leave the debate about his popularity and how the public felt about his rule with the last two sentences from chapter 26 from Christopher Lee's "This Sceptered Isle" published by BBC Books: "Maybe the Restoration would have been served by a shorter reign, if not by a more reforming governance. Yet he left behind a people who shared his over-riding belief in the Divine Right Of Kings"
    On the divine right of Kings, the New Testament clearly adds a polyarchistic dimension not seen in the Old Testament. Essentially the Old Testament starts with the Israelite tribes operating under leaders called Judges until the Kingdom of Israel was formed and popularised by King David (of David versus Goliath).

    However, invoking the divine right of Kings in the context of the New Testament results in being overseen by the kings described in Revelations. Furthernore in Revelations 22 Jesus indicates that he is the bright morning star: “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star” (Revelations 22:16 http://niv.scripturetext.com/revelation/22.htm) which makes it clear that the polyarchy described in Revelations is white (designed for everyone not just a few) and certainly not gray or brown unlike popular cultures' Grey's anatomy and Chris Brown. Effectively it means that Christianity is more the sport of kings (not king singular) rather than the Highlander's immortals fighting to the death until "there can be only one" played by actor Christopher Lambert soundtrack by Queen, see for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRWH_seUNRo. In the context of modern society, democracy, meaning people rule, would be an example of Christian polyarchs ruling over the Royals.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    On the matter of whether the restoration saw a diminuation of actual legal power I'm going to continue to quote This Sceptered Isle (mainly because it's open on my lap so it's convenient to do so:-
    "At this stage it would be wrong to believe that parliament had a revolutionary role in government. In many ways parliament had no more effective powers than it had under the previous three monarchs. Power was certainly shifting from the centre which meant the shires had more authority. But that didn't neccessarily bring about a universal improvement of the people's lot. Parliament still suffered the weaknesses of the Republican legislators and the open disagreement between the Commons and Lords hardly helped. And it was still the King, and no one else, who summoned parliament"
    Revolutionary was precisely what it was, where the parliament and the people overthrew a would be absolute monarchist, and very similar to the the French version, I don't believe there is any way around the word. Then to imply that Charles II was still in charge of the parliament ("it was still the king, and no one else, who summoned parliament") when he was only invited back to form a constitutional monarchy, as a public servant, is an example of the of pop culture lies I have highlighted all though this thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    "It is said that Charles II's restoration was conditional. But his reign did not start in 1660. It was declared that it started at the excet moment of his father's beheading in 1649. And so all the parliamentary acts that Charles I had agreed were now legal under Charles II. Everything else was illegal and therefore dropped."
    I am not sure that everyone was fooled into believing that Charles I wasn't beheaded and that the interregnum didn't occur.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I've got a few other sources here that are a little more light hearted. 1066 and All That (which I think you'd particularly enjoy as you seem to share it's sense of humour) says:-
    "Charles II was also very merry and was therefore not so much king as a monarch. During the civil war he had rendered vaulable assistance to his father's side by hiding in all the oak trees he could find. He was thus very romantic and popular and was able after the death of Cromwell to descend to the throne."

    Although it supports my argument, you probably shouldn't take 1066 and All That very seriously.
    More of the precious. It doesn't matter how many times it gets held up in front of my face, I still don't get it.
    Last edited by Witis; Jan 8th, 2013 at 06:44 AM.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  17. #17
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I'mwracking my brain to thnk who you could be referring to. Charles I'm guessing is Chaplin? A famous American Elizabeth completely eludes me.
    Why people pick names is never all that simple. Most likely, names are chosen largely because a person has positive connotations from the name, which could be related to a regard to royalty, but could be related to ANY context in which they heard the name. The Elizabeth that I was referring to was Elizabeth Taylor, who was most likely far more recognizable on this side of the pond than was the Queen of England during the same period.

    As for the Charles, there was a boy a few years older than I was, who had the name (and still does) Charlie Brown. Considering that everybody who saw the comics page in the newspaper knew that name for decades in the middle of the last century, it's hard to say exactly where the name came from. After all Charles is an ancient name. It may not be quite as ancient as John or James, but it is ancient, still.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  18. #18
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Oh, Liz Taylor! I didn't think of her. You're right, though, people pick names for any number of reasons. It could be a famous person or royal... or it could just be that they like the sound of it.

    If I was a girl I was going to be Polly. I have no idea where my parents got that from. Perhaps they were particularly fond of crackers.

    I think Charles is German in Origin. Charlamagne was a Frank and they originally came from Germany. It might come from Jarl or Karl which was Germanic for Duke but I'm really just guessing at that point.
    Last edited by FunkyDexter; Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:12 AM.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  19. #19
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Had I been a girl I would have been named Elizabeth. Seriously. However, it had nothing to do with either Liz Taylor or the Queen. In fact, it had nothing to do with anything other than the fact that my mother liked the name. She really didn't want me to be a girl, though, cause I guess I was already pretty wild before I was born. The hiking was a bit constrained, at the time. I never really got far on those walks. The spleen was worth visiting, though....except when it was venting.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  20. #20

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
    Why people pick names is never all that simple. Most likely, names are chosen largely because a person has positive connotations from the name, which could be related to a regard to royalty, but could be related to ANY context in which they heard the name. The Elizabeth that I was referring to was Elizabeth Taylor, who was most likely far more recognizable on this side of the pond than was the Queen of England during the same period.
    Liz Taylor (born in 1932 {6 years after queen Elizabeth} in Hampstead an affluent area of London, England, 4 miles north-west of Charing Cross), very famous British American, good one Shaggy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
    As for the Charles, there was a boy a few years older than I was, who had the name (and still does) Charlie Brown. Considering that everybody who saw the comics page in the newspaper knew that name for decades in the middle of the last century, it's hard to say exactly where the name came from. After all Charles is an ancient name. It may not be quite as ancient as John or James, but it is ancient, still.
    Charlie Brown First appeared: 1950 (comic strip) when Prince Charles was 2 years old.
    Don't forget
    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: 1964 when Prince Charles was 15/16
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  21. #21

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Oh, Liz Taylor! I didn't think of her. You're right, though, people pick names for any number of reasons. It could be a famous person or royal... or it could just be that they like the sound of it.

    If I was a girl I was going to be Polly. I have no idea where my parents got that from. Perhaps they were particularly fond of crackers.
    You could ask them, perhaps it was after a relative or one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly
    Won't impress the paparazzi as it is not royalty, more likely to be viewed as democratic as Pollie is an informal name for politician.

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I think Charles is German in Origin. Charlamagne was a Frank and they originally came from Germany. It might come from Jarl or Karl which was Germanic for Duke but I'm really just guessing at that point.
    Names such as Charles seem to be descended from cognates of churl (old English ċeorle) which refer to the middle class, sometimes more towards the lower middle class. Also in Rígsţula, an Old Norse Eddic poem circa 13th century, divides society into 3 different classes: 1. thrall (serfs or slaves), 2. Karl/churl: non servile middle class e.g farmers and craftsmen including the name Smith, 3. Jarl (earl or noble) also includes the name Konr (king) souce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ríg_(Norse_god).

    "While the word churl went down in the social scale, the first name derived from the same etymological source ("Karl" in German, "Charles" in French and English, "Carlos" in Spanish etc.) remained prestigious enough to be used frequently by many European royal families - owing originally to the fame of Charlemagne, to which was added that of later illustrious kings and emperors of the same name. Król, the Polish word for "king", is also derived from the same origin" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churl.

    As there is a strong link between the name and the middle class Charles is a very good name for a constitutional rather than absolute monarch. Other variants include Carel, Chaz, Chad, Chip, Chuck, Karol, Charlton, Chip, Chick and Charlot.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  22. #22
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Witis View Post
    Charlie Brown First appeared: 1950 (comic strip) when Prince Charles was 2 years old.
    Don't forget
    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: 1964 when Prince Charles was 15/16
    And don't forget that Charlie Brown was created by a Charles Shultz, who was born considerably prior to Prince Charles.

    Frankly, I don't think the names of English monarchs has made any difference at all.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  23. #23

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
    And don't forget that Charlie Brown was created by a Charles Shultz, who was born considerably prior to Prince Charles.
    Sure, although his rise to fame only really started around the time Prince Charles was born.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
    Frankly, I don't think the names of English monarchs has made any difference at all.
    Really Liz, I mean Shaggy, no difference whatsoever - they are very well known?
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  24. #24
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Witis View Post

    Really Liz, I mean Shaggy, no difference whatsoever - they are very well known?
    No. No difference at all. I suppose that any name that is mentioned often will cause some people to be more favorable to it, and others to be less favorable to it. The numbers in each canp are probably not equal, so there is probably some bump in some direction for EVERY name that gets lots of press. It's quite possible that the bump is positive for any name that isn't associated with something highly negative, but I don't know, and I wouldn't expect English royalty to cause much of a reaction in the US.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  25. #25

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
    No. No difference at all. I suppose that any name that is mentioned often will cause some people to be more favorable to it, and others to be less favorable to it. The numbers in each canp are probably not equal, so there is probably some bump in some direction for EVERY name that gets lots of press. It's quite possible that the bump is positive for any name that isn't associated with something highly negative, but I don't know, and I wouldn't expect English royalty to cause much of a reaction in the US.
    The thing is that everyone knows the English Royals as they have a global presence and are in office for life, while the pollies come and go in a short space of time, arguably making them the most well known people in the world. Then add in the political pull of the Commonwealth, add some high level defense deals between various commonwealth nations and the U.S which starts to make the U.S look like a de facto member of the Commonwealth, and hey presto you have yourself a royalist outbreak in the U.S.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  26. #26
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    I must say, Witis, you do enjoy a good hyperbole. Of course the US has defence deals with members of the common wealth. It has defence deals with most of the world. It's a major arms exporter. I really don't think you can draw the conclusion that the US is finally going to wise up and realise that it was far better off as part of the British Empire.

    Of course, if the US ever does decide to be contrite and move back home we'll welcome you back and won't mention that unpleasant hissy fit you threw in 1775. We know you were still young then and had alot of growing up to do and we won't hold it against you. You can even have your old room back but while your under our roof we'll expect you to obey our rules. That means no more getting into drunken fights with those muslim boys from across the road. We know you say they started it but we're sure you're partly to blame too. And we're a bit worried about your health too so we've removed all the cakes from the cake tin and you can only have a burger once a week, honestly, a salad now and then wouldn't do you any harm.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  27. #27
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Don't get calling the kettle black there, ol' Funkmeister. I understand that the British waist is expanding at an equal or greater rate (I forget the exact stats and I don't feel like looking them up, but you're all in the running).

    @Witis: A large percentage of the US population can't name our own president. Do you really think we can name some foreign monarch? To be fair, it may be the case, considering our preference of form over function, but it seems like our collective ignorance is likely to be far stronger than your monarchy.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  28. #28
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Well I must admit, I seem to be doing my bit. I tuurned 40 and mine's definitely expanding. I might have to take up hiking.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  29. #29

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
    @Witis: A large percentage of the US population can't name our own president. Do you really think we can name some foreign monarch? To be fair, it may be the case, considering our preference of form over function, but it seems like our collective ignorance is likely to be far stronger than your monarchy.
    Yes, quite a lot of people don't keep up to date regarding politics for various reasons, so that if you ask the average U.S citizen if they can name any current domestic or international politicians or royal heads of state, I bet that the Queen of England and Prince Charles of Wales would be contenders for the title of the most well known international personality in the U.S at the moment. Hell they might even make the top 10 for most well known international personalities, be they politicians or royal heads of state, of all time, in the U.S.

    What is scary is if you combine such a wide level of recognition with a complete lack of understanding of constitutional monarchies and terms such as United Kingdom and Royal Armed Services which can result in an underlying case of Unitary Royalist fever, even in America, of which most people are consciously unaware, as they drift by following everyone else while being exposed, day in day out, to popular royalist dogmas which pervade every aspect of their life until it becomes the accepted norm, and they become trapped inside an unofficial royal hierarchy having sacrificed their freedom without even noticing.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  30. #30
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    A large percentage of the US population can't name our own president.
    Is that really true? It's one of those things you hear reported quite alot but I've always assumed it was just media hype to make a story when there isn't one.

    It went round recently that more English school leavers knew who Mickey Mouse was than know who Winston Churchill was. Of course, it was total rubbish. Ask any teenager and they know who Churchill is. Particularly the 17 year olds because they're old enough to drive so they're in the market for car insurance.
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  31. #31

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I must say, Witis, you do enjoy a good hyperbole.
    Which part was hyperbolic?


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Of course the US has defence deals with members of the common wealth. It has defence deals with most of the world. It's a major arms exporter.
    Not just arms deals, full defense/security treaties.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    I really don't think you can draw the conclusion that the US is finally going to wise up and realise that it was far better off as part of the British Empire.
    Hopefully it would put some pressure on ending all of the silly knife wielding, mace spraying, semi automatic packing behaviour that the U.S is so fond of.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Of course, if the US ever does decide to be contrite and move back home we'll welcome you back and won't mention that unpleasant hissy fit you threw in 1775. We know you were still young then and had alot of growing up to do and we won't hold it against you.
    Did you know the voice of Darth Vader is actually James Earl Jones?


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    You can even have your old room back but while your under our roof we'll expect you to obey our rules.
    Not quite, the Commonwealth does allow each member to be completely legislatively independent from England and the U.K.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    That means no more getting into drunken fights with those muslim boys from across the road. We know you say they started it but we're sure you're partly to blame too.
    If you don't catch something after those two lines you dropped in the water I would be very surprised.


    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    And we're a bit worried about your health too so we've removed all the cakes from the cake tin and you can only have a burger once a week, honestly, a salad now and then wouldn't do you any harm.
    Step away from the cows Dex, they are cheese and milk making machines and not designed to be eaten as burgers.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  32. #32
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Witis View Post
    Hopefully it would put some pressure on ending all of the silly knife wielding, mace spraying, semi automatic packing behaviour that the U.S is so fond of.
    When have we been known for either knives or mace? It would be rather nice if we would ever stop at such half measures.

    Did you know the voice of Darth Vader is actually James Earl Jones?
    Did you know that responses to a quote from somebody else generally have something to do with the quote itself?
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  33. #33
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    When have we been known for either knives or mace?
    True, knives are kind of a Brit thing, sadly.

    Did you know the voice of Darth Vader is actually James Earl Jones?
    Yes. Did you know that the rest of Darth Vader is the Green Cross Code Man?
    You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  34. #34

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
    When have we been known for either knives or mace? It would be rather nice if we would ever stop at such half measures.
    I was watching a show just yesterday that had a 21 year old U.S woman who had a license to carry a gun which in her case was a 22. She also had a knife with a really ugly cut out section from the rear edge of the blade so that "it tears the flesh just as much on the way out as on the way in", and then to cap it all off she had a bottle of mace, "just press the button".

    The thing is that carrying any sort of offensive weapon be it mace, knives, guns, and even loud personal alarm devices are usually against the law in most Commonwealth countries. I agree that offensive weapons are a bad idea in peace time even when used or licensed for defensive purposes only, as they turn naturally unarmed and civilised humans into fully armed and hostile wild animals, so much for sitting up and talking the problem through. Although I have a lot of sympathy for purely defensive items, i.e those items that can only be used for defense and can not be used offensively to harm anyone else, e.g bullet proof vests. Sadly I saw a new range of bullet proof vests in primary school kids sizes just about to be released in the U.S after the recent spate of firearm murders in schools.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
    Did you know that responses to a quote from somebody else generally have something to do with the quote itself?
    You didn't like Darth Vader as the rumours that he soiled his pants while on set were probably true, although you are now looking forward to officially rejoining the now deVadered and much more friendly Commonwealth and trading in all of your guns for batons and doing it baseball style instead?
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  35. #35

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    True, knives are kind of a Brit thing, sadly.
    What sir, no batons, what has the world come to?

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Yes. Did you know that the rest of Darth Vader is the Green Cross Code Man?
    Are you sure? I watched the movie and I am fairly sure Darth died when he took his mask off after being zapped by the Emperor.
    Last edited by Witis; Jan 11th, 2013 at 10:18 PM.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  36. #36

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Disclaimer

    Please also be aware that even though I submitted a number of theological views in relation to the Church of England I am in no way endorsing any religion which I view as purely fictional and non scientific pursuits. Furthermore, many biblical laws are illegal by modern standards making any Bible studies highly controversial from a legal perspective.

    For example the very first commandment is: "And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' ".

    The implementation of the first commandment is explained in Deuteronomy:
    "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

    If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes." (source Deuteronomy 13:6-12 New International Version http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...13&version=NIV)

    The overt lack of tolerance for any other religion, the lack of religious freedom which could trigger another world war if implemented as described in the Bible, is illegal according to international law, for example article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

    There are many other similar biblical laws that are illegal according to the modern rule of law e.g see here. Although these biblical laws seem heartless and draconian don't forget that the bible was written thousands of years ago and even the laws that were created in the 18th century are abysmal by modern standards, for example in the 18th century slavery was legal the world over. At the time they were written the biblical laws were almost certainly cutting edge, for example the implementation of polyarchy in Revelations was over a thousand years ahead of the Magna Carta. Essentially it is important not to judge historical events and laws by modern standards instead they should only be judged according to the reasoning and laws that were in place at that time.
    Last edited by Witis; Jan 13th, 2013 at 02:53 AM.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  37. #37
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    35,024

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by Witis View Post
    You didn't like Darth Vader as the rumours that he soiled his pants while on set were probably true, although you are now looking forward to officially rejoining the now deVadered and much more friendly Commonwealth and trading in all of your guns for batons and doing it baseball style instead?
    This is about as strange a sentence as I have ever seen in Chit-Chat. Good job with that. I have no idea who you are talking to, or what you are talking about. The more times I read it, the more rich confusion I find in it. It took me some time to realize that there was a question mark at the end, but that's in keeping with the flavor of the rest of the sentence, as it makes no more sense as a question than it does as a statement. A true monument to randomness that even the Golden Chair can rarely match.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  38. #38
    PowerPoster
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    21,036

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Every time I peek in on this thread I expect to turn around and see Rod Serling behind me talking to an unseen camera.

  39. #39

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Witis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VB Forums Online Freedom Mode: Operational
    Posts
    213

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    Quote Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
    Every time I peek in on this thread I expect to turn around and see Rod Serling behind me talking to an unseen camera.
    Yep, I call it monarchiaphilia:
    Monarchiaphilia (from Latin monarchia meaning monarchy and -philia from Greek meaning unnatural attraction or love as in the case of paedophilia or necrophilia) a mental disease marked by an excessive desire to create, take part in, or promote an artificial monarchial environment. The disease almost always includes megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur and narcissist overtones, idolisation of gigantism, and is inextricably linked to criminal feelings and actions. Sexually the disease is frequently marked by a strong predisposition towards sadomasochistic interactions and activities.
    Last edited by Witis; Jan 13th, 2013 at 08:18 AM.
    All men have an inherent right to life, the right to self determination including freedom from forced or compulsory labour, a right to hold opinions and the freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. Be aware that these rights are universal and inalienable (cannot be given, taken or otherwise transferred or removed) although you do risk losing the aforementioned rights should you fail to uphold them e.g Charles Taylor; United Nations sources: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx. Also Charles I was beheaded on the 30th of January of 1649 for trying to replace parliamentary democracy with an absolute monarchy, the same should happen to Dr Phil and Stephen Fry; source: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ute-Monarchism.

    The plural of sun is stars you Catholic turkeys.

  40. #40
    PowerPoster
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    21,036

    Re: Freedom versus Absolute Monarchism

    I always assumed that most denizens of the U.S. who obsess over the British Monarchy are just engaging in a sort of Soap Opera/People Magazine effect. A form of mental illness, like listening to people singing with false twangs and drawls accompanied by clattering washboard, jug huffing, and steel guitar about topics such as infidelity and old dogs (Country/Western music) as entertainment.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width