Interesting information about the British monarchy

ddt said:
Copycats.
Click to expand...
That is now denied, it seems. Wiki.
The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581) have also been offered as models for Jefferson's Declaration, but these models are now accepted by few scholars ... Historian Garry Wills argued that Jefferson was influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly Francis Hutcheson, rather than Locke, an interpretation that has been strongly criticized.​
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pinochet
Franco
Greek Colonels
Argentinian Junta
Various South Korean governments over time
Castro
All Warsaw pact countries until 1989
Vichy France
Egypt
Various Turkish general's coups
China (both nationalist and communist)
etc etc etc.
In each of these cases the governments are/were considered the legitimate government, even if countries were opposed to them.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Only if it's legitimately given power.
Click to expand...

Now that's a circular definition. Changes in regime establish the new rules that make something legitimate. When monarchies become democratic, it's the same thing. If a dictator takes power and changes the law, his rule becomes legitimate.

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
Click to expand...

Ideology must bow to reality.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Pinochet
Franco
Greek Colonels
Argentinian Junta
Various South Korean governments over time
Castro
All Warsaw pact countries until 1989
Vichy France
Egypt
Various Turkish general's coups
China (both nationalist and communist)
etc etc etc.
In each of these cases the governments are/were considered the legitimate government, even if countries were opposed to them.
Click to expand...
They were de facto governments and therefore correctly recognised as in control of these states. But they were not politically legitimate, and a democratic undertaking by their subjects to overthrow them would be worthy of sympathy.
 
Craig B said:
They were de facto governments and therefore correctly recognised as in control of these states. But they were not politically legitimate, and a democratic undertaking by their subjects to overthrow them would be worthy of sympathy.
Click to expand...

Unless they were anti-communist, then any undertaking to overthrow the government was obviously communist inspired.

Sympathy and $1.99 will get you large coffee at Tim Hortons. So will $1.99.
 
Craig B said:
They were de facto governments and therefore correctly recognised as in control of these states. But they were not politically legitimate, and a democratic undertaking by their subjects to overthrow them would be worthy of sympathy.
Click to expand...

Isnt that a bit of a no true scotsman?

In most cases there was a LOT of support for the government until things went south. Or the leader just plain died.
 
However legitimate the historic right to such a claim may be, the Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701 both sort of spoil it, by declaring exactly who is qualified to ascend the throne.
 
Craig B said:
They were de facto governments and therefore correctly recognised as in control of these states. But they were not politically legitimate, and a democratic undertaking by their subjects to overthrow them would be worthy of sympathy.
Click to expand...
Now here you're just defining "legitimate" to mean "democratically elected".
 
KDLarsen said:
However legitimate the historic right to such a claim may be, the Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701 both sort of spoil it, by declaring exactly who is qualified to ascend the throne.
Click to expand...
They removed de facto sovereignty from the monarch while they were doing so. In former times the monarch decided who was to be in parliament. In later times parliament decided who was to sit on the throne.
 
arthwollipot said:
Now here you're just defining "legitimate" to mean "democratically elected".
Click to expand...
That is indeed what I am doing; and I am moreover saying that such is the generally accepted definition too. My point is that there is a difference between de facto control and political legitimacy. Example: the West acknowledged both as fact and as legitimate (but not democratic) the rule by Stalin's government over Belarus. But Soviet rule over the Baltic Republics was acknowledged as a factual reality, but not recognised as legitimate, because that was the result of the Soviet Union dissolving previous representative governments and imposing its own authority in 1940.
The application of the Stimson Doctrine by the Welles Declaration where a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval for the Soviet conquest, the resistance by the Baltic people to the Soviet regime, and the uninterrupted functioning of rudimentary state organs in exile support the legal position that sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union, which implied that occupation sui generis (Annexionsbesetzung or "annexation occupation") lasted until re-independence in 1991. Thus the Baltic states continued to exist as subjects of international law.
...
The legal principle, ex injuria jus non oritur (law cannot arise from unjust acts), differs from the competing principle of ex factis jus oritur (the facts determine the law). On one hand, legal recognition of Baltic incorporation on the part of other sovereign nations outside the Soviet bloc was largely withheld based on the fundamental legal principle of ex injuria jus non oritur, since the annexation of the Baltic states was held to be illegal.​
 
Last edited:
Well of course a dictatorship isn't legitimate if that's the way you're defining it. That's tautological. It's a definition that, if it is "generally accepted", is generally accepted by democratic governments.

Pakistan recognised the Taliban's rule over Afghanistan as legitimate, even though the rest of the world did not. See, that's the problem. Different people have different definitions, and the only thing that gives your definition any more authority than anyone else's is that it's you and the people who agree with you who are saying it.

If I assassinated Her Majesty QE2, dissolved Parliament, tore up the Magna Carta and declared myself sovereign over the United Kingdom, who would recognise my rule as legitimate? You probably wouldn't, but maybe by the people who benefited by my rule might. And if the people who benefit by my rule outnumber you and your friends, who's to say that my rule is not then legitimate?

Governments have been thus changed since time immemorial. Democracy is only 200 years old. It's a newcomer.
 
catsmate said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because the consent of the people is the only legitimate basis for the authority of a government. That has been established gradually over the centuries, and as noted in an earlier post, primitive expressions of the idea were uttered in mediaeval Scotland and early modern Netherlands. It is bluntly asserted in the principles expounded during the American and French Revolutions, and is now generally accepted.

Other principles have been exploded. The Divine Right of Kings suffered a mortal blow, in the British Isles at least, with the removal of the deluded royal head within which this false idea had prevailed; and "might is right" succeeds only so long as it is not confronted by another force which can make good the claim "mightier is righter".

Now, there are in existence political entities which do not adhere to the representative principle, and I am far from suggesting that such governments should be overthrown, or their territories invaded, by for example the USA acting in the role of "world policeman" of democracy. I'm simply saying that kleptocracies, theocracies or tyrannies are not founded on any form of legitimacy, as political formations.
 
Craig B said:
Because the consent of the people is the only legitimate basis for the authority of a government.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the people can consent, either through action or acquiescence to forms of government that are not democratic don't you?

I again point you to the examples of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc.
 
Border Reiver said:
You do realize that the people can consent, either through action or acquiescence to forms of government that are not democratic don't you?

I again point you to the examples of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc.
Click to expand...
This is worth some serious meditation. If the Fascists and Nazis through force or lies induced the Italian and German electorates to do something they did not wish to do, or were unaware they were doing, then there is no theoretical problem. These acts of deception or violence render the parties that perpetrated them illegitimate as governing bodies. So I don't suppose you mean that: I imagine you mean that the Italians and the Germans knew what they were doing, and a plurality or majority of them did it freely and intentionally.

They gave up the power of voters to elect their countries' leaders, and intentionally placed these countries in the hands of individual dictators. So, if the people are sovereign, and the people did that, then doing that must be legitimate, because the acts of sovereigns are by definition legitimate. I suppose that's what you mean.

This principle is in fact raised in one of the very earliest texts that enter this discussion - the "Declaration of Arbroath", 1320.

The composers of that document proclaim their allegiance to their "Prince, King and Lord"; and they will "adhere to him in all things". But what if he seeks to transfer his sovereignty to the King of England? He is, after all, the legitimate sovereign of Scotland, so can he not do what he pleases with this sovereignty, because it is his possession?

No, says the Declaration: if he manifests any willingness to do that, the signatories of the Declaration will "at once strive to expel him", as their enemy, and as sui nostrique iuris subversorem a subverter of his own rights, and of ours.

Majorities of voters in countries with parliamentary governments are perfectly capable of disgraceful acts, just as individuals are capable of disgraceful acts. We have seen examples of this recently. Some such acts are legitimate and some are not. I can give my money away to an unworthy cause, as long as I know what I'm doing, and the money was not extorted by force or deceit. But I can't sell myself as a slave. I have personal freedom, but I'm not permitted to relinquish it. It is not my possession in the sense that my bank account is my possession. No court would ratify such a contract.

Therefore, although the Germans had a right to elect the Nazis, in any given election, they had no right to transfer to an individual their own right, and the rights of future generations, to choose the government of their country.

Also it is very noticeable that as soon as Hitler had secured power through an election, he abolished elections. The operation therefore looks like a swindle sustained by deceit, which makes it ipso facto illegitimate; but even if the German voters were acting with full knowledge and intent in voting for him, what they did was a violation of their own sovereign power. The German voters were "subverters of their own rights" in that case ... and subverters of the rights of their children.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
Also it is very noticeable that as soon as Hitler had secured power through an election, he abolished elections. The operation therefore looks like a swindle sustained by deceit, which makes it ipso facto illegitimate; but even if the German voters were acting with full knowledge and intent in voting for him, what they did was a violation of their own sovereign power. The German voters were "subverters of their own rights" in that case ... and subverters of the rights of their children.
Click to expand...
Nitpick: there were still elections in Nazi Germany, in November 1933, March 1936 and April 1938. Hitler put great value on keeping up the semblance of legality; likewise, the (powerless) Reichstag renewed the Enabling Act, which lasted for four years, in 1937 and in 1941. Of course, those elections were a sham and the only party allowed was the NSDAP.
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

So he was in fact a knight who said "ni"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom