T
thistle
Guest
This is nonsense. The British monarchy is a net contributor to the UK economy!!
- Status
P
PickyPicky
Guest
It’s Bells. Blended, admittedly, and not over-subtle, but by no means rotgut.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 . . .
B
Brucejlb
Guest
“net contributor” … how did you come to that conclusion ?
B
Brucejlb
Guest
And what suggestions do you offer to stop racial and social divisions ?
B
Brucejlb
Guest
And who gets all the money from the souvenirs and momentos ?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
In part, the vendors.
S
stpurl
Guest
So you admit the answers I had regarding homelessness and poverty had some merit? That’s nice. But you know, I’d like to hear YOUR views on racial and social division first. How would YOU stop this?
W
whyeyeman
Guest
This is a myth. The monarchy makes a profit for the British government.
All earnings from property owned by the monarchy goes straight to the government, and the Royal family is then paid a fixed salary.
Not to mention tourism.
B
Brucejlb
Guest
I read that they are paid about 90 million dollars a year. Not bad for just sitting around and looking pretty.
B
Brucejlb
Guest
I am not in one of the 1% who own most of the wealth. You should ask them.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Is republicanism a sin?
Nope, or else the papal support for the Northern Italian city-republics during their conflict with the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages would have been pretty darn impossible to envisage.
The popes were allied with the Lombard League, a concert of republics fighting to defend their independence from the expansionist tendencies of the German Emperors:
en.m.wikipedia.org
www.britannica.com
First things first, answer me this question: where does political power come from?
God? The sovereign? The people?
The traditional Catholic response is that political power originates from God, who gives it to no “particular person” (i.e. a king, like divine right advocates claim) but to the whole people as a multitude of equals where no one dominates over the others. The collective body then “transfers” this authority to an appointed ruler or rulers, whom they consent to be ruled over by and under this act of transference the people determine which form of government they agree to live under (kingdom, republic, democracy etc.).
Since this power resides ultimately in the people by the prevenient will of God, the body politic has the right to resist and change the constitution of their government if it becomes tyrannical or breaks the conditions underpinning the original pact between rulers and subjects.
Given this, a kind of “natural democracy” is the most primitive and divinely ordained mode of “pre-political” governance, for as the great scholastic theologian Francisco Suarez stated in 1613 at the behest of Pope Paul V in his refutation of the Anglican divine right theory promoted by Filmer: “men are by nature equally free and subject to no one [save God]” (DL 3.1.1).
Catholic and later Calvinist authors thus justified tyrannicide and regime change if the “pact” between ruler and subjects was broken by those in power, since they claimed that the power always remained in principle with the body politic even when delegated to a ruler or rulers.
Nope, or else the papal support for the Northern Italian city-republics during their conflict with the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages would have been pretty darn impossible to envisage.
The popes were allied with the Lombard League, a concert of republics fighting to defend their independence from the expansionist tendencies of the German Emperors:
Lombard League - Wikipedia
Lombard League | Holy Roman Empire, Papal States, Guelfs
Lombard League, league of cities in northern Italy that, in the 12th and 13th centuries, resisted attempts by the Holy Roman emperors to reduce the liberties and jurisdiction of the communes of Lombardy. Originally formed for a period of 20 years on Dec. 1, 1167, the Lombard League initially
www.britannica.com
Let’s look at what the sacred tradition of the Church through its canonists, scholastics and theologians has to say.
First things first, answer me this question: where does political power come from?
God? The sovereign? The people?
The traditional Catholic response is that political power originates from God, who gives it to no “particular person” (i.e. a king, like divine right advocates claim) but to the whole people as a multitude of equals where no one dominates over the others. The collective body then “transfers” this authority to an appointed ruler or rulers, whom they consent to be ruled over by and under this act of transference the people determine which form of government they agree to live under (kingdom, republic, democracy etc.).
Since this power resides ultimately in the people by the prevenient will of God, the body politic has the right to resist and change the constitution of their government if it becomes tyrannical or breaks the conditions underpinning the original pact between rulers and subjects.
Given this, a kind of “natural democracy” is the most primitive and divinely ordained mode of “pre-political” governance, for as the great scholastic theologian Francisco Suarez stated in 1613 at the behest of Pope Paul V in his refutation of the Anglican divine right theory promoted by Filmer: “men are by nature equally free and subject to no one [save God]” (DL 3.1.1).
Catholic and later Calvinist authors thus justified tyrannicide and regime change if the “pact” between ruler and subjects was broken by those in power, since they claimed that the power always remained in principle with the body politic even when delegated to a ruler or rulers.
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
The principle quod omnes tangit (what touches all should be approved by all) was already a staple of the canon lawyers and decretists of the church in the 12th century. This was a general principle of these medieval jurists which contended that the head of a corporate body (like a state) had to obtain the consent of its members in all matters which affected them. It was incorporated into the Liber Sextus Decretalium compiled under Pope Boniface VIII in 1298.
The idea that every people had a right to elect their own ruler and determine their own preference choice of government was becoming common by the fourteenth-century. Kingdoms, republics, democracies, mixed governments, communes etc. The Church was content to tolerate a variety of political regimes so long as its freedom of action and the natural rights of the people were upheld.
Actually, Pope St. Gregory VII wrote a diatribe against monarchy in 1081 during the Gregorian Reform (when he was declaring the freedom of the Church from imperial domination), going so far as to claim that monarchy originally sprang from the devil! I’m not joking either, read it below:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/inv14.asp
The idea that every people had a right to elect their own ruler and determine their own preference choice of government was becoming common by the fourteenth-century. Kingdoms, republics, democracies, mixed governments, communes etc. The Church was content to tolerate a variety of political regimes so long as its freedom of action and the natural rights of the people were upheld.
Actually, Pope St. Gregory VII wrote a diatribe against monarchy in 1081 during the Gregorian Reform (when he was declaring the freedom of the Church from imperial domination), going so far as to claim that monarchy originally sprang from the devil! I’m not joking either, read it below:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/inv14.asp
Last edited:
L
LoyalViews
Guest
The monarchy is far from expensive. Try being the Queen of so many countries - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, etc. These are her realms.
She pays her own taxes. The cost of the monarchy has largely been disputed. Everywhere. A google search confirms that.
Not to mention that the Queen, as governor of the Church of England, has in every realm supported the Church’s outreach to the poor.
She pays her own taxes. The cost of the monarchy has largely been disputed. Everywhere. A google search confirms that.
Not to mention that the Queen, as governor of the Church of England, has in every realm supported the Church’s outreach to the poor.
Last edited:
B
Buddyroe
Guest
When Denmark overthrew the isles (they weren’t named ‘England’ until the Danes called it such) and subsequently the Normen overthrew the proud old dynasty (1066 and all that rot); all sides were Roman Catholic including the proud old dynasty.
Subsequent acts of history have dramatically altered the direction and effectiveness of Christendom and that includes Protestantism. We are certainly living in the post-Protestant era and need to take a sober look at the essentials of Christendom. Forms of government are regrettably temporal and should not distract us from the purpose for which our Lord Jesus has called us namely to proclaim His Gospel, His atoning crucifixion, His victorious resurrection and the promise of His return in glory, not our glory, but His.
Republicanism? Jesus met with the ‘publicans’ and was criticised but He was true. Today He will meet with the ‘Re-publicans’ and some of them will come into His grace but there will be Judases, alas many Judases.
Never let any idea of temporal politics assume primacy over the Lordship of our Savior.
Subsequent acts of history have dramatically altered the direction and effectiveness of Christendom and that includes Protestantism. We are certainly living in the post-Protestant era and need to take a sober look at the essentials of Christendom. Forms of government are regrettably temporal and should not distract us from the purpose for which our Lord Jesus has called us namely to proclaim His Gospel, His atoning crucifixion, His victorious resurrection and the promise of His return in glory, not our glory, but His.
Republicanism? Jesus met with the ‘publicans’ and was criticised but He was true. Today He will meet with the ‘Re-publicans’ and some of them will come into His grace but there will be Judases, alas many Judases.
Never let any idea of temporal politics assume primacy over the Lordship of our Savior.
Last edited:
B
Brucejlb
Guest
Yes Britain sent troops to subjugate nations around the world . This is what we now call colonialism.
D
dochawk
Guest
I’ m not familiar with that, but in general, our life on earth is too short for blended whiskey.
OK, or Irish.
For that matter, or a good bourbon.
hawk
A
Arkansan
Guest
No, although it’s dumb.
Rebelling against the government to establish a republic, as the founders of America did, would of course be sinful.
Rebelling against the government to establish a republic, as the founders of America did, would of course be sinful.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
If anyone is honestly interested in the financing of the monarchy in the UK, or in the duties of members of the Royal Family and whether they really do, as was alleged above, simply sit around looking pretty, the answers to your questions will probably be found here:
https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2016-17
https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2016-17
T
Theo520
Guest
Should they have them apply for the available jobs, or perhaps you want them to hire them for fake work, or no-show jobs that don’t really add anything to their organizations.
We could make it a ‘hire the homeless’ tax that only the most wealthy must pay. The extra benefit is that we would start to see turnover in the ranks of the wealthiest as their enterprises start running in the red.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I hope ‘republicanism’ is at very low levels of popularity in the UK. As an American, I admire the British monarchy and consider it a perfectly acceptable, respectable British institution. The world, not just Americans, admire them. They promote social stability and continuity with the past. The Queen especially (and Prince Charles) are thoroughly informed and engaged in the politics of their country - they promote many good causes and charities and their influence in this regard extends across the globe. I agree though that the monarchy as a source of leadership or government or service to the public is mostly a (costly) show at this point - but it is still an integral, historic and cherished part of UK culture, I would hope. It makes Britain very unique. I think that is a good thing. The day we lose the Queen will be a very very sad one for me - she has been Queen of England my entire life. Long may she reign.
Last edited:
- Status