Is republicanism a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjje1995
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the one biggest and main reason for and against the monarchy in the UK?

I don’t know much about Republicanism and the monarchy in Britain.
 
I can dream man, you can’t kill my dreams (need a dirty hippie emoji)
 
I’m a bit frightened now. You don’t mean to say you’re sympathetic to groups like the IRA? Also, I saw on your profile you’re a socialist so I feel morally obliged to inform you it isn’t possible to be both a Catholic and a Socialist.
 
I ask again. If today in 2018 a member of the crown became Catholic, would they be removed from the crown. I believe the answer is yes.
 
anon65111186 said:
What is the one biggest and main reason for and against the monarchy in the UK?

I don’t know much about Republicanism and the monarchy in Britain.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the biggest reason but the two I’ve seen most frequently are the (debated) cost of the Royal Family, and the idea that they are superior by accident of birth.

With regards to the OP, I can’t see how it would be a sin to oppose the monarchy.
 
Unrepentantly socialist Irish Republican and Fenian from a long line of similar awkward, stubborn individuals…

You’ll pardon people for thinking Socialism is incompatible with Catholicism. Especially when you hear every single Pope for the past 200 years condemn it in no uncertain terms.
Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth
Click to expand...
 
The monarchy also generates a lot of revenue for England. Think of the papers and mementos sold when a monarch does something noteworthy.
 
Sure, but it’s also worth noting that “socialism” as they condemn it has probably never actually existed.
 
Had a family member born the same day as Will and Kate’s first. Even us yanks tried our hardest to get one of those coins they put out in celebration.

Auction prices were too high. 😂
 
Shouldn’t you be checking with the Church of England and not a Catholic site?
 
twf said:
I remember reading a paper arguing that modern US presidents have more power than King George III did at the time of the US Revolution. Throwing off the “tyranny” of a king is a nice story but in reality Britain was effectively an oligarchy in many ways with the ministers in Parliament running the government.
Click to expand...
Parliament wrested control bit by bit, with taxation as the basis.

The king couldn’t demand more than his feudal dues, so when he needed more revenue, he had no choice but to call a parliament which consisted of those with wealth–the nobles and the upper class commoners.

Over time, parliament figured out a policy of “redress before purse” or something similar: no money until the king consented to their legislative demands.

This is the origin of western representative government.

Over centuries, the king’s prerogative shrunk more, and more . . . and Lords lost more and more power to Commons.

That said, by the time the last US election rolled around, there were some of actively wondering jut how bad Charles III was . . . and if we could get him back . . . 🤣

hawk
 
We are told that a small number of billionaires in the world control 80 + % of the worlds wealth. Just think of how many people they employ while the homeless sleep on the street.
 
I would not doubt it for a second. I don’t know what the lifespan of well-sealed whiskey is, but I’m sure it would be in centuries. I have sometimes “prospected” for interesting old bottles in old, abandoned residential dumps in the country. Now and then I run into a whiskey bottle that has probably been there 60 or 70 years and has a tiny bit of whiskey in the bottom. I always take the cap off and smell to see if it’s still “good”. It always is, going by smell. I don’t care to drink any of it, though because I dont’ know what bacteria or virus might be in there with it.
 
Bruce, would the abolition of the British royal family alleviate the homeless sleeping on the street? Would it?
You seem to believe that one woman and her family are somehow ‘controlling’ untold billions and trillions and BECAUSE OF THAT, they cause homeless people.

Bruce, some homeless people are offered shelter. They refuse. How would the abolition of the monarchy affect these people? Not a whit. (Reasons for refusal include things like drug use and mental illness. You cannot --in this country, and I believe in GB–FORCE a person into treatment or MAKE them safe.)

It seems to me that you aren’t able, or willing, to look into the root causes of poverty beyond your contention that somehow ‘rich people’ are causing the problem and that infusions of money will somehow solve poverty and homelessness. . .

Look at the US. We spend billions and billions on social programs, shelters, treatment centers; the vast majority of us aren’t rich, those who are, are often the most philanthropic. . .

Emotionalism, false dichotomies, and strawmen arguments about how ‘the rich’ need to sell everything because, well, "the poor’, are useless. . .without having clear goals in mind like, "Needing to address problem of homelessness. 1. Build more housing. 2. Make it affordable. 3. Create more jobs. 4. Carefully adjust the infrastructure of the area so that it can handle the needs of more people. 5. Listen to feedback. 6. adjust to adjusting goals. 7. Move at a balanced pace. 8. Keep needs not just met but anticipated and reserves building. 9. keep the programs that work, evaluate those that don’t. If changes can make them work, try the out. If they can’t, try a different approach, but realize that SOME PROBLEMS MAY NOT HAVE SOLUTIONS and instead of going for all out success, make a plan for the failure and how to deal with THAT.

Remember, problems that have been us since the dawn of humanity–and which in fact predate WEALTH–aren’t going to be solved by ‘throwing more and more money’.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
Do you know why a German prince was placed on the throne ahead of a hundred more legitimate heirs? Because they were Catholic.
Click to expand...
By the time of the Act of Settlement, Parliamentary supremacy had been established in law and in fact for twelve years. Parliament thus had the right to determine who sat on the throne. Britain became a Constitutional Monarchy the moment James II tossed his Royal Seal in the Thames and fled for the Continent.
 
Abdication is all but impossible. It would require not only the consent of the British Parliament, but also the Parliaments of all the Commonwealth Realms. The amendments to the Act of Settlement which ended male primogeniture, for instance, required all the Commonwealth Realms to agree, because the Sovereign of the United Kingdom is also the sovereign of those countries as well. The Statute of Westminster essentially makes the Parliaments and Crown of all the Realms coeval.

Abdication in Britain has a very bad association, unlike monarchies on the Continent. Edward VIII abdicated under a cloud, and was basically forced to because His Government threatened to resign if he proceeded with his marriage to Wallis Simpson (though interestingly enough Winston Churchill actually backed Edward and thought abdication unnecessary). Prior to that it was James II, who was deemed to have abdicated and fled, and Parliament recognized his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as co-sovereigns (thus establishing Parliamentary supremacy as a matter of constitutional fact at the same time).
 
You could use a little more compassion. Perhaps one day you will find yourself in need and then you will change your attitude.
 
Where have I 'lacked compassion?" I want to help people and that’s why I have offered suggestions that CAN help.
 
The question is if it ever was drinkable 🙂

If it was, and was properly sealed, it should be fine.

But age won’t make rotgut drinkable . . .

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top