British Monarchy

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:06 pm

WeiWenDi wrote:
:shock:

Am I about to agree wholeheartedly with something Dong Zhou has just said here? By Jove, it looks like I am!


Lies! Horrible, evil lies!

Actually, I probably shouldn't be so surprised, since you and I are probably closer in our political beliefs than either one of us would let on, but here I think you're right on. Being a member of a religion is more than just a box you tick, it is a binding commitment and a way of life, and it is bad faith (in both the religious and the existential-philosophical senses) to brush it aside for personal reasons or reasons of expedience.


I'll be honest, if I fell in love I'm not 100% of quite how I would react in such a situation. That's my own flaws, the state though should not be asking that of it's people.

The British monarchy is a sacral institution and requires some tie to the institutions of the Church. To argue for disestablishment of the Church of England is to give the Republicans even more fuel for their insipidities.


I don't see an offical split between church and state giving the Republicans much joy, at least not initially. There may well be serious ramifications if Prince Charles, on becoming Church, and the Church seek to separate but I can't see that being one of them. I can see plenty of other things that would harm the monarchy's cause. Where I think you have a point is that if, for example, Charles makes the monarchy unpopular or the monarchy drifts into the dangerous land of apathy, a little less lack of tradition, "appointed by God", may be a real problem.

There is always a good argument to be made, though, that the Church of England should seek a reconciliation with Rome to keep these problems from continuing to crop up...


One of us, one of us :wink:

And so you will always find me arguing on the side of antidisestablishmentarianism. And looking for excuses to actually use the word in its proper context. :P


I bet Rees-Mogg will fit that in somehow if there is ever such a debate.

My stance is this: if it ain't broke, don't fix it! As SunXia has pointed out, we have had Catholic and Catholic-convert consorts under pre-Settlement succession laws, so that isn't a reason to change the law. And there is no good reason to change the succession laws from agnatic-cognatic primogeniture to anything else, and I especially look askance at the invocations of human rights and political correctness in justifying the changes to the succession law. No matter what you do, succession is going to discriminate against somebody - younger siblings come readily to mind.

If you're going to do away with the Act of Settlement, at least do it for a good reason - like keeping the kingdoms united. It's simply not good enough to do it on the basis of what is politically fashionable amongst the technocrats and banktators of Europe, and certainly not by a law which, as Rees-Mogg put it, is being 'treated as if it was terrorism legislation' in the way it is being rushed through.


I'm fine with a big, long look at seeing what needs changing. I would be fairly happy with the gender thing changing quickly if Clegg and others said "and then we will start a major review on the succession laws" and put some sort of stop-gap to ensure the bill didn't mess with either hereditary issues in the mean time. The Monarchy needs to keep evolving as well as having a strong route in tradition and I don't think we need our monarchs to be male. If the church is disestablished then we can really look at if we need an Anglican Monarch

Republicanism in Britain (as represented by these folks here) gains traction, as far as I can tell, on mining the Royals' tabloid fodder, garnering outrage over public expenditures of the monarchy and the like. And let's remember that the track record of republicanism in Britain isn't really all that hot when it comes to things like religious toleration and respecting human dignity, as I'm sure SunXia can readily attest.


It got us back the King of Bling :wink:

The last popular rise of Republicanism was, as I remember, over expenditure on castles/palaces, a sense of disconnect with a Royal Family seen as lavish and extremely arrogant, scandals and public hysteria over the death of Princess Diana.

I do see apathy as more of a problem once the Queen dies and the young Princes age then Republicans.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15626
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby Sun Fin » Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:39 pm

WeiWenDi wrote: Monarchy is a civic institution which derives legitimacy, ultimately, from the idea that God or some transcendental power or principle places rule over human beings in their hands.


And that was correct within the context of Christendom. However we’re in a new era now; one where Britain is secular in all but name and if the Monarchy is deriving its place in the modern world based off the Divine Right of Kings then its time in this world is limited.

WeiWenDi wrote: There is a 'taproot in Eden' for the idea of the monarchy, as CS Lewis says. Take this away, and basically all you have is - as you put it - 'tradition for tradition's sake', or worse still, celebrity for celebrity's sake. Monarchy, when it loses its tie with the Church, loses its principle and becomes rule by historical accident, the outcome of a cosmic farce. Either that, or it relies (as do all dictatorships, and many democracies) upon the logic of naked power for its continuance.


What I see here is an argument for the Monarchy, something I don’t object to, unless the price for keeping it is the theological credibility of the Anglican Church. I want to point you back to the bible where the idea of a Monarchy is not the ideal for Israel; instead its institution is a rejection of God as a personal king to every individual (I Samuel 8:7). So no, without a Monarchy we are not all going to become barbarians because we can, instead have a true King.

WeiWenDi wrote: True, perhaps that belongs in a theology thread. But I will note that sola scriptura is not a doctrine you will find in the Bible, in any of its canons.


I guess my interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 disagrees with you.
Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7141
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:40 am

Sun Fin wrote:And that was correct within the context of Christendom. However we’re in a new era now; one where Britain is secular in all but name and if the Monarchy is deriving its place in the modern world based off the Divine Right of Kings then its time in this world is limited.


And secularism, as a worldview, has already begun to disintegrate at its core. One of the reasons why you see Islam, even in its radical forms, gaining popularity worldwide (especially in Europe) is because it provides a credible political and existential alternative to the anaemic and deracinated worldview presented by secularism. Islam is not a threat to Europe because of terrorism or political violence, and it is not a threat to Europe because of demographics (though ignoramuses and demagogues will use both as excuses) - it is, however (as both Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict XVI have recognised), a challenge to Europe's traditional value-constellations, and this challenge simply cannot be met with appeals to the abstract ideals of 19th-century liberalism. It can, however, be met with the older ideas of Christendom - including the Divine Right of Kings and the responsibilities of kings that such right entails.

Sun Fin wrote:I want to point you back to the bible where the idea of a Monarchy is not the ideal for Israel; instead its institution is a rejection of God as a personal king to every individual (I Samuel 8:7).


Ehhh... careful. If I am remembering my high school 'Bible as Literature' class correctly, quote-mining I Samuel for arguments either for or against monarchy is a very tricky business, because it basically presents both points of view and then opts for the pro-monarchy position. I Samuel 8 and I Samuel 12 offer anti-monarchist views, whilst the rest of the book basically argues the pro-monarchist position - this is in keeping with the times, when the priestly class of Israel were divided over whether or not to adopt sacral kingship as a form of government, and they ultimately decided for (as the appointment of Saul, David and Solomon bear witness).

Jesus himself was also legitimated as a monarch, being the adoptive descendant through Joseph of King David. Indeed, this is the central literary conceit of the Gospel of St Matthew, and one of the points which made Christianity such a compellingly subversive force against Roman tyranny. Turning this into a personalised and 'spiritualised' doctrine robs the story of its world-transformative power, and can probably be considered a heretical position.

Sun Fin wrote:I guess my interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 disagrees with you.


This is a point which I think is interesting enough to answer, but not here. I've made a separate thread for it...
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:45 am

Despite passionate speeches from the likes of Rees-Mogg, Flynn, Leigh and Republican McDonnell, amendant to allow the monarch to be any faith heavily defeated. Seen better responses by Chloe Smith but she had a point on the chaos this would cause trying to get it through the Commonwealth.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15626
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:12 pm

It has been confirmed, the bones are of Richard III.

Still wish he was buried in York and the body his wife moved to join him.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15626
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:44 am

The third in line to succession is a boy. Then thunderstorms start to emerge, bad omen? :wink: Glad most of the journalists can now enjoy the shade after weeks of waiting and I suspect constitutional experts are breathing a sigh of relief as the attempts to change the rules of succession have failed to pass in some parts of the Commonwealth. Some have issue with it, others seem to be not bothered enough.

For the latter, why not just withdraw since they don't care or we should perhaps release them so they can't mess things up by laziness again.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15626
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby SunXia » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:32 pm

Oh my lordy already the weight loss articles for Kate are popping up, that poor woman!!
If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!

I'm Out4Marriage!!!Are You??

It is a CHOICE!!
User avatar
SunXia
Warrior Princess
Warrior Princess
 
Posts: 6541
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Keeping Evils from this world at bay...with a smile!!

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:58 pm

While the Guardian battles to get the Prince letters to the government ministers in public eye, Mail claims the Prince has had 36 meetings with cabinet members and 17 with junior ministers since the election. Mail doing those Prince of Wales+constitutional monarch not being a natural fit that comes up every now and again. I do worry about the perception difference between the current monarch and her successor, particularly on the issue of neutrality.

I do think King Charles III time will be an intresting one for the monarchy and the British institutions.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15626
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:57 am

It is hoped that a bone found in a museum storeroom in Winchester is from King Alfred the Great or his successor King Edward the Elder. If excavations find it Edward's, we may hear nothing about it but if Alfred, expect Richard III only bigger
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15626
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: British Monarchy

Unread postby Lady Wu » Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:57 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:It is hoped that a bone found in a museum storeroom in Winchester is from King Alfred the Great or his successor King Edward the Elder. If excavations find it Edward's, we may hear nothing about it but if Alfred, expect Richard III only bigger

British history fail... I didn't know Alfred the Great was real... :oops:
"Whatever you do, don't fall off the bridge! It'll be a pain to try to get back up again." - Private, DW 8
User avatar
Lady Wu
There's no better state than Wu
There's no better state than Wu
 
Posts: 12846
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 2:35 am
Location: Wu-ere else?

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved