Restorations of monarchies in Europe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timi_Celcer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Timi_Celcer

Guest
I have read some discussions about the possible restoration of monarchy in countries like Portugal, Serbia, Germany, Russia and even France. Monarchy movement appears to have some support and growing, or alot of support like in Serbia. If monarchy is restored in the future, that might lead to de-secularization in those countries, because monarch pretenders are all religious.
Do you believe that monarchy would be a good thing or not? Of curse im talking about the constitutional monarchy not absolute monarchy.
 
If it lead to a greater flourishing Catholic culture in Europe (i.e. a restoration of Christendom) then I’d be all for it (and I speak as an EU citizen). Otherwise, no.
 
Pax Christi!

Genuinely Christian monarchs would be good.

Duchess Katey for Empress!

God bless.
 
Has the constitutional monarchy of England brought about a christian revival? Australia has a constitutional monarchy and it is one of the most secular countries on earth. Simple answer -No.
 
I think something terribly traumatic would have to happen for people in a democratic country to open their arms to a return of absolute monarch rule. We are conditioned as a people now to embrace revolution (ie. Power to the People) and reject authority if it does not agree to our will. That could be by changing who you vote for, changing political parties or an actual civil revolution where you toss out or chase out the person legally voted in.

The problem is our will is so easily manipulated by the corrupt, especially if they are also in charge of our education and how to process information and be rational, objective people. There’s a reason Jesus frequently refers us to “sheep” and “flock”.

What’s really interesting to learn about is the French Revolution and the amount of propaganda and years and years of patient political manoeuvring behind the scenes, behind the kings, to create the situation and people in France to the point of revolution (and to reject the Church). We are way beyond that now and the techniques used are much more sophisticated.

I don’t know if we can return to the concept of submitting to authority, to absolute rule with the understanding that God gives those in authority the power to be there. The vast majority of people would have to be able to not only grasp that but accept that and tolerate that, especially considering that we now live in a secular, mostly non-Christian world.

Hundreds of years ago we had to patiently suffer for years (sometimes a lifetime) under a sinful, abusive monarchy until there was relief (hopefully) under the new King. I don’t know if that’s possible nowadays and I certainly don’t ever see France, the eldest daughter of the Church who is now on a lost path, ever returning to that other than in “the last days”.

In terms of constitutional monarchy, why bother? There is some slight benefits to aligning a country to a monarchy, but in general they are negligible. I may be blind to how much influence a constitutional monarchy has though.
 
I think something terribly traumatic would have to happen for people in a democratic country to open their arms to a return of absolute monarch rule. We are conditioned as a people now to embrace revolution (ie. Power to the People) and reject authority if it does not agree to our will. That could be by changing who you vote for, changing political parties or an actual civil revolution where you toss out or chase out the person legally voted in…
Need I remind you Hitler was democratically voted in as an absolute ruler? Mussolini also assumed absolute power via the democratic process. Even here in these United States of America the executive power (and federal power in general) has been growing over the last 100 yrs. Obama wields more power than Taft could have dreamed of. If we look back to antiquity (Athens & Rome) or even to the citizen ruled city states of the Italian Renaissance (Florence) we see a tendency for democracies to “evolve” into autocracies. I don’t, however, see how the legitimate successors to the crowns of yester-year’s Europe would ever regain power. We might see kings, but I doubt they will be Hapsburgs.
 
I think…I am speaking from uk…that a constitutional monarchy is good. I think the monarch has a big influence on economic policy. If we had a catholic monarch I think the economic policy would change away from the present usury model. I pray that this royal family convert to catholism as I think the whole protestant movement to start with was more based on introducing interest rates into the economy…lobbied by the venetian bankers. Im probably rambling but my hunch is a catholic monarch is stronger and more protected from the huge rogue banking policy that we see today who I think are pushing this secular policy.
 
If it lead to a greater flourishing Catholic culture in Europe (i.e. a restoration of Christendom) then I’d be all for it (and I speak as an EU citizen). Otherwise, no.
👍

I agree completely with this.

If monarchy is going to lead to a revival of Catholic kingdoms, culture and values, yes.

If monarchy is being viewed simply for its own sake - well, the system has its advantages, but again, who the monarchs are is very important.

If monarchy (neutered by “parliamentary” mechanisms) is going to boil down to a liberal democracy based on secular culture and values, then why bother? 😉
 
Need I remind you Hitler was democratically voted in as an absolute ruler? Mussolini also assumed absolute power via the democratic process. Even here in these United States of America the executive power (and federal power in general) has been growing over the last 100 yrs. Obama wields more power than Taft could have dreamed of. If we look back to antiquity (Athens & Rome) or even to the citizen ruled city states of the Italian Renaissance (Florence) we see a tendency for democracies to “evolve” into autocracies. I don’t, however, see how the legitimate successors to the crowns of yester-year’s Europe would ever regain power. We might see kings, but I doubt they will be Hapsburgs.
Here’s an excellent article covering this very thing:

Does the Church Condone Tyrannicide?
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0476.html
Please note that the Church has not definitively taught on this subject. The Church not only recognizes the authority of legitimate rulers and their duty to uphold the common good of the community, but also the duty of citizens to support a legitimate government. However, the Church also has set standards of just war and even capital punishment which would be applied to a conflict between a community against an unjust tyrannical leader. Keep in mind that an act of justifiable tyrannicide would have to be an act of last resort, when no other reasonable course of action is available to protect the community.
I think we are on a journey towards something never yet seen in history and it started with rebellion and the overthrow of monarchy (or at least showed its ugly head at that time). But God has forewarned us about the antichrist so this isn’t new to anyone here. If you look back over history, you can see how we are being groomed for this…and willingly so for the most part…, especially when studying the French Revolution, Russia and in U.S. politics (but America is still rolling out its story, not sure of the ending yet).
 
I’m against it.

But, as an American, restoration of their monarchies is not particularly a concern of mine.
 
I have always enjoyed the pomp and circumstance of European monarchies. I think the traditions and history are interesting. There are many people who support the restoration of their monarchs. Even in America there are a growing number of Hawaiians who would like to see their old monarchy restored.

This could be a good thing for Europe, economically and spiritually. If the monarchs aligned with Rome we could see the restoration of CROWN CARDINALS.

Allowing the Catholic Church to influence the governing of a country can be a very good thing.
Malta is a prime example. Although they are a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution of Malta establishes Catholicism as the state religion and it is also reflected in various elements of Maltese culture. What could be better…???
 
I have read some discussions about the possible restoration of monarchy
Where did you read of such discussions?
in countries like Portugal, Serbia, Germany, Russia and even France. Monarchy movement appears to have some support and growing
Growing from what percentage to what percentage?
If monarchy is restored in the future, that might lead to de-secularization in those countries, because monarch pretenders are all religious.
Do you believe that monarchy would be a good thing or not? Of curse im talking about the constitutional monarchy not absolute monarchy.
You mean they’ll be as de-secularized as the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway . . . ?
 
I have always enjoyed the pomp and circumstance of European monarchies. I think the traditions and history are interesting.
I agree. It adds to the decor of a country. I recall reading an account of the funeral of England’s King Edward VII. It included a glittering cortege of kings, emperors, sultans, etc. Even plain old French and American delegates were sort of elegant in their plainness amid all that tinsel.

Think how the opening ceremonies of the Sochi Olympics would have been adorned by, let’s say, the Tsar of All the Russias and the Tsarina prancing into the amphitheater on bejeweled white horses, or perhaps better yet in a gilded carriage drawn by a dozen or so of same, with “God Save the Tsar” playing.

And too, imagine how monarchs could add to the economies of their various countries by quite frankly selling titles, with the proceeds, lets say, going to charity. The price list could be widely published so that, for example, “Count of Transylvania” could be priced at millions while a mere knighthood could perhaps go for a few thousand. Even the commoner title “squire” might draw a few hundred.

Besides, it is a conceit of the rich and famous in America anyway to claim descent from some nobleman or other, usually by some circuitous genetic route. Why not just make it easy and let them buy a Baronetcy outright for, oh, let’s say $50,000? An Earldom, one would think ought to draw a half million at least. No, let’s make that an even million. Earls are a big deal.

I have long thought poverty-stricken Romania, for example, could confer titles of royalty on anyone who would spend at least a month at a Black Sea palatial resort, being waited on by a crowd of whatever they call yeomen and wenches in Romania, with the titled person paying their salaries in advance, of course. The servitors would probably bow and tug their forelocks for perhaps a little extra.

Now, the less pecunious could perhaps be sold an honorary military rank, with a lavish European uniform to go with it. They used to do that in various states for a suitable contribution to a successful governor’s campaign. I’ll grant that the scarlet uniform of a 19th Century British colonol of cavalry would make a French cuirassier captain’s uniform look a little over the top, but still, that horsehair plume and chest plate has a certain panache to it if one carried them well and wasn’t too old. What? $1,000, maybe $2,000? Before Missouri prohibited it, an honorary colonelcy in the Missouri State Guard cost about $1,000, so people will pay for such things. The uniform was extra, of course.

Think of how all of that would dress up a party.

And think of the good it could do for the less privileged.
 
I agree. It adds to the decor of a country. I recall reading an account of the funeral of England’s King Edward VII. It included a glittering cortege of kings, emperors, sultans, etc. Even plain old French and American delegates were sort of elegant in their plainness amid all that tinsel.

Think how the opening ceremonies of the Sochi Olympics would have been adorned by, let’s say, the Tsar of All the Russias and the Tsarina prancing into the amphitheater on bejeweled white horses, or perhaps better yet in a gilded carriage drawn by a dozen or so of same, with “God Save the Tsar” playing.

And too, imagine how monarchs could add to the economies of their various countries by quite frankly selling titles, with the proceeds, lets say, going to charity. The price list could be widely published so that, for example, “Count of Transylvania” could be priced at millions while a mere knighthood could perhaps go for a few thousand. Even the commoner title “squire” might draw a few hundred.

Besides, it is a conceit of the rich and famous in America anyway to claim descent from some nobleman or other, usually by some circuitous genetic route. Why not just make it easy and let them buy a Baronetcy outright for, oh, let’s say $50,000? An Earldom, one would think ought to draw a half million at least. No, let’s make that an even million. Earls are a big deal.

I have long thought poverty-stricken Romania, for example, could confer titles of royalty on anyone who would spend at least a month at a Black Sea palatial resort, being waited on by a crowd of whatever they call yeomen and wenches in Romania, with the titled person paying their salaries in advance, of course. The servitors would probably bow and tug their forelocks for perhaps a little extra.

Now, the less pecunious could perhaps be sold an honorary military rank, with a lavish European uniform to go with it. They used to do that in various states for a suitable contribution to a successful governor’s campaign. I’ll grant that the scarlet uniform of a 19th Century British colonol of cavalry would make a French cuirassier captain’s uniform look a little over the top, but still, that horsehair plume and chest plate has a certain panache to it if one carried them well and wasn’t too old. What? $1,000, maybe $2,000? Before Missouri prohibited it, an honorary colonelcy in the Missouri State Guard cost about $1,000, so people will pay for such things. The uniform was extra, of course.

Think of how all of that would dress up a party.

And think of the good it could do for the less privileged.
I was more thinking about how the monarch used ti stop usury in the economy ie interest rates etc king charles had that battle in england…he banned 'enclosures’which stopped people being able to make a living and ability to do business. …lije today the enclosures put control of business in the hands of the few. Charles was beheaded… I think the Monarchy has a great role against tyranny of the banks…as Rothschild said (banking family)I care not who sits on the throne if I have control of a countries finances! …
 
I think the Monarchy has a great role against tyranny of the banks
Which is why the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Thailand and so on have been relatively untouched by the banking crises of the past several years, of course.
 
Which is why the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Thailand and so on have been relatively untouched by the banking crises of the past several years, of course.
Im no expert but a proper catholic monarch does not work with usury…our bank of england called the’the crown’ is privately owned and the ‘city’ is a square mile with offshore status. In my opinion they have a grip on world finances with deliberate recession to extract wealth from individuals,businesses and countries. …I think the Reformation was a lot more to do with bringing in usury and escalating interest rates and therefore feel that Protestant monarchs are victims of that pilicy…its not legal for our monarch to be catholic…its so important that they are not because it effects the control of the ‘city’ and ecobonic policy. I think the protestant church and the city of london is founded on usury…most of the above monarchs not catholic
 
Where did you read of such discussions?
They’re quite popular in some Traditional circles (I mean the “way out” ones, not the ones who just revere the Latin Mass and admire St. Pius V.)

There are also monarchist blogs, which often deal with issues related to the French royal family and the French Revolution.
 
Im no expert but a proper catholic monarch does not work with usury
This is a ‘everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds’/‘having your cake and eating it’ answer - since pointing out the financial mechanics of, say, Bourbon France or Spain would merely bring the response that they weren’t ‘proper catholic monarchs’ in some way.

Perhaps you should investigate the recent history of the Vatican Bank (or, perhaps, the Pope isn’t a ‘proper Catholic monarch’)?
 
They’re quite popular in some Traditional circles (I mean the “way out” ones, not the ones who just revere the Latin Mass and admire St. Pius V.)

There are also monarchist blogs, which often deal with issues related to the French royal family and the French Revolution.
Ah, so discussion has increased from 0.001% of the population to 0.002% of the population. 😉
 
Ah, so discussion has increased from 0.001% of the population to 0.002% of the population. 😉
😃

I think a lot of people are intrigued and interested in monarchy in the abstract (that would include fantasy / RPG buffs, of course), but only a small fraction are “monarchists”.

I’m a “soft monarchist” in that I see the potential advantages of the system under certain specific conditions, but I’m not blind to its potential flaws as well. So maybe we could change the figure to 0.0020001% 😉

(Also, OT, but is that Miffy in your signature and avatar? My wife’s a huge fan of Miffy.) 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top