Interesting information about the British monarchy

[Craig B]

Cromwell could have put his own line on the throne

In effect he did just that.

Under the Protectorate's constitution, Oliver Cromwell was required to nominate a successor, and from 1657 he involved (his son Richard Cromwell^WP) much more heavily in the politics of the regime. He was present at the second installation of his father as Lord Protector in June, having played no part in the first installation. In July he was appointed chancellor of Oxford University, and in December was made a member of the Council of State.​

 

[3point14]

At the end of the day, the king is just the one who ends up with the crown, the castles, and the ability to make the assembled nobility do as they're told.

This is practically the definition of kingship. Who ones father is doesn't really matter a toss if one can achieve the above. It's how the first one would have done it.

 

[Craig B]

At the end of the day, the king is just the one who ends up with the crown, the castles, and the ability to make the assembled nobility do as they're told.

That's a "just" is it? This is Eric Bloodaxe. He just possesses the crown and the castles, and he can just make the assembled nobility do as they're told. But here's his jester BimBom the Clown. HE can balance a pencil on his nose. Wow!

 

[3point14]

That's a "just" is it? This is Eric Bloodaxe. He just possesses the crown and the castles, and he can just make the assembled nobility do as they're told. But here's his jester BimBom the Clown. HE can balance a pencil on his nose. Wow!

Yup, as in:

He wasn't the son of a king or the grandson of an empress, he was just the bloke with the biggest castle, the fastest horse and when he spoke, everyone did as he said.

 

[ddt]

That's a "just" is it? This is Eric Bloodaxe. He just possesses the crown and the castles, and he can just make the assembled nobility do as they're told. But here's his jester BimBom the Clown. HE can balance a pencil on his nose. Wow!

You may be reading to much in a casual "just", but I agree with 3point14. And so did Pope Zachary when Pepin the Short asked him who should be king: the one with the royal lineage or the one with the actual power.

 

[Craig B]

Yup, as in:

He wasn't the son of a king or the grandson of an empress, he was just the bloke with the biggest castle, the fastest horse and when he spoke, everyone did as he said.

There may be something in that. The owner of the most imposing castle in France, who was not of particularly exalted birth, back in the 13th century famously boasted

Roi ne suis , ni prince , ni duc , ni comte aussi . Je suis le sire de Coucy.​

I'm not a king or a prince or a duke or a count. I'm the Lord of (the castle of) Coucy. So people did as he said.

But he married his kin into the royal families of both England and Scotland, so he could see the point of heredity as well as of very thick walls.

 

[Navigator]

All this of course a product of systems of disparity. Ruling class and slaves. All going nowhere in particular.

 

[Border Reiver]

All this of course a product of systems of disparity. Ruling class and slaves. All going nowhere in particular.

What are you talking about? The monarchy is clearly a system divinely inspired by Gaia Herself.

And she blessed those with the ability to organize violence with the right to rule over those folk who couldn't.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Legitimate is whoever holds power.

Only if it's legitimately given power. A tyrant cannot overthrow a democratic government, for example, and claim legitimacy via fait acompli
.

 

[Darat]

Only if it's legitimately given power. A tyrant cannot overthrow a democratic government, for example, and claim legitimacy via fait acompli
.

Why not?

 

[Craig B]

Why not?

Because

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ( ... ) when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government​

 

[Navigator]

What are you talking about? The monarchy is clearly a system divinely inspired by Gaia Herself.

And she blessed those with the ability to organize violence with the right to rule over those folk who couldn't.

Ah well. you are giving a very uniformed opinion re that Border Reiver

I am not surprised in that mind you.

 

[Border Reiver]

To be frank, that little tongue in cheek statement of mine has more circumstantial evidence to back it up then any notion that we are supposed to live in a non-hierarchy.

 

[rjh01]

Only if it's legitimately given power. A tyrant cannot overthrow a democratic government, for example, and claim legitimacy via fait acompli
.

I am sure there have been many military coups around the world and the new leaders have been recognised as the leaders of that country.

 

[arthwollipot]

Only if it's legitimately given power. A tyrant cannot overthrow a democratic government, for example, and claim legitimacy via fait acompli
.

Happens all the time. In fact, it has happened literally hundreds of times in this planet's history.

Unless you have a specific definition of "government" that allows you to discount every government before 1776 and quite a few after.

 

[Navigator]

To be frank, that little tongue in cheek statement of mine has more circumstantial evidence to back it up ...

I won;t take your word for it, but don't bother giving any example. No point in derailing this thread. There is another one more appropriate for that.

...then any notion that we are supposed to live in a non-hierarchy.

Hierarchy is fine and natural enough in the context of moving from systems of disparity into a system of parity. It is all about how positions of control and influence are manifested into this world.

But your remark about Gaia is simply ignorant.

But like I say..there is an appropriate thread already existing for this discussion, should you want to make your argument there.

 

[Craig B]

Happens all the time. In fact, it has happened literally hundreds of times in this planet's history.

Unless you have a specific definition of "government" that allows you to discount every government before 1776 and quite a few after.

Here it is

a tyrant cannot overthrow a democratic government​

It is the usurpation of democracy that makes the government of the tyrant illegitimate.

 

[Border Reiver]

Here it is

a tyrant cannot overthrow a democratic government​

It is the usurpation of democracy that makes the government of the tyrant illegitimate.

As a philosophical point, I can agree with this.

As a practical matter, it happens all the time. Quite often gradually, and with the consent of the governed - the consolidation of power by the Nazi and Fascist parties, the loss of democratic rights in Russia, etc.

 

[Craig B]

I am sure there have been many military coups around the world and the new leaders have been recognised as the leaders of that country.

That is regrettably only too true; but we would not recognise these military regimes as legitimate. If forces enjoying the support of the majority of the people were able to recover power from the military leaders, so as to hold an election, that would be a "return to legitimacy", I think.

 

[ddt]

Because

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ( ... ) when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government​

Copycats.

As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives.