Curious, but the site it leads to is trying to make a rather tendentious point about Protestants, as it turns out.
When of course, true Protestants are the truest monarchists: the Reformation in one way having been birthed out of the commitment to the King or Queen "as supreme" (1 Peter 2:13), and the Pope as usurper of that God-given role. (Read Tyndale's 'Obedience' for a good example of a Reformation text on that).
Very interesting, very accurate - yet only part of the overall picture and misleading. German political Protestantism, tied to the toppled thrones of 1918, or large chunks thereof, embraced Nazism too readily. On the other hand, members or lapsed members of the RC church were over-represented in the Munich-based party leadership, and with Southern Germans (for want of a better term including Austrians, Bohemian Germans etc.) of the non-Protestant faith having had more than their share among the perpetrators of Nazi crimes and rabid Anti-Semites in relation to the overall population. It seems very, very difficult to deduce much from these figures. After the signing of the concordat of 1934 the picture got far less conclusive than in 1932, anyway.
This blog received its first visit from the Holy See at 4:42 am (North American Eastern Time). It would seem that someone from the Vatican is intrigued by this post, as they stayed for over 11 minutes. Welcome Your Holiness?
JKB, I indeed did snatch this from the great man's magnus opus, what a fascinating book.
Stauffenberg, I guess all Germans lost faith in the end, but in 1932 the Catholics were the only serious opposition to the Nazis.
Sir Walter, the WASP is dead and Britain is a spiritually drained country, a point that was driven home to me last night as I watched on the news all those atheistic buses parading around London. The Anglican Church is poorly led and disestablishment might be just around the corner. But you were making a valid historical point, which is well taken.
the WASP is dead and Britain is a spiritually drained country, a point that was driven home to me last night as I watched on the news all those atheistic buses parading around London.
I do not believe the WASP is dead; simply the numbers fewer. I rather like the buses. Pay less attention to old and increasingly irrelevant myths, and get on with things.
The Anglican Church is poorly led and disestablishment might be just around the corner.
Disestablishment can not come soon enough, and an end to the Lords Spiritual along with it.
Whilst I'm not sure about the benefit of appealing to nostalgia for the arch-criminal Wilhelm II at a time of desperation to support the idea of constitutional monarchy (although with the latest post about the supposed benefits of living in a fairytale feudal despotism I'm worried about the changing definition of what monarchy is supposed to stand for) I find the post interesting as I'm now going through Kershaw's bio of Hitler after having finished Richard Evans's first two volumes of the Third Reich.
Whilst I'm not sure about the benefit of appealing to nostalgia for the arch-criminal Wilhelm II at a time of desperation to support the idea of constitutional monarchy (although with the latest post about the supposed benefits of living in a fairytale feudal despotism I'm worried about the changing definition of what monarchy is supposed to stand for)
Well, "Sir Francis Edward Younghusband," whilst our editor of course must answer for himself, and whilst I will leave a debate on His Imperial Majesty's status as arch-criminal or on the definition of constitutional monarchy for another time and place, I thought I would mention that Wikipedia considers the German Empire (1871-1918) a constitutional monarchy.
That said, I must say this post came as a surprise to me. I am aware of the fascination of the proprietor and editor of this weblog for Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and his (the editor and proprietor) conversion – if I have understood correctly – from a mere Commonwealth Loyalist uninterested in monarchy outside of the Crown Commonwealth to a monarchist also with interest in monarchy in general.
Of course, it is the editor's prerogative to decide on this weblog's profile. I would, however, point out that when I post at this blog on an issue foreign to the Crown Commonwealth, I always do it in a context that provides a link to the Crown Commonwealth. I see no such link here.
It has already been disestablished in all but name. The great arenas of community and shared faith are now the supermarket and the television screen. You can look out of your window this Friday evening to see if this is a good thing.
I would not bank necessarily on the Roman Catholic religion topping up Britain's drained spirit, mind. Setting aside the serious questions as to the Biblical authenticity of numerous of its articles of faith, the hierarchy in England is barmy, the average church looks like a car park, and the typical service is heart-breakingly odd (usually involving papermache and tamborines and songs that would embarrass a 5 year-old).
The great, ancient Christian faith has not departed these shores. There are still a faithful number in perhaps all denominations that hold to the pure, comforting truths of the creeds and the scriptures. I would suspect that they will endure, and expand, in the long term, much more surely and steadily than anything else in this land. It may take generations. But the majority of Britons have rested their souls and lives upon the most enormous plateaus of sand. They are ever shifting. There is no pith there. The heathenish, base, ludicrous position of the British mainstream is no serious opponent. It will not challenge the God who made all things to unnmake that.
It would be a vulgar stretch to somehow imply that Hitler or Stalin or any other conquerng tyrant (government by one) were even remotely monarchist. I don't think that peasant Stalin cared too much for the hereditary principle, and Hitler had no bones about toppling Europe's gentile kingdoms. They were both socialists, revolutionaries and classic imperialists of the worst stripe.
Well, gentlemen, if Mr. Byers wants to lump every dictatorship that the Sun shines upon or has shined upon together with the Christian monarchies of old and whatever else he finds fitting, and hit me – or anyone else for that matter – on the head with a dictionary in the process, he is more than welcome to do so by me.
Monarchy in its truest form is a dictatorship, leadership of a nation by one. Yes we all know that that one person has lots of little helpers.
As for the Christian Monarchy routine from Mr J K Baltzersen, religions such as Christianity have a lot to answer for, even though some do great good in its name. And his hands on his hips like a silly proud child in his photo, what is that all about?
Anyway the “gentle” Kingdoms of Europe “Beaverbrook” talks about, would they be the same imperial powers who churned up millions of lives in the Great War?
Monarchy in its truest form is a dictatorship, leadership of a nation by one.
Lump them together, sir! As I've said, you're more than welcome! Hit me, Byers, one more time!
And his hands on his hips like a silly proud child in his photo, what is that all about?
It's about the argumentum ad personam, i.e., turning away from the subject and attacking your opponent's person. It is also known as Arthur Schopenhauer's 38th and last strategem of debate.
Anyway the “gentle” Kingdoms of Europe “Beaverbrook” talks about, would they be the same imperial powers who churned up millions of lives in the Great War?
Ah, the Great War argument! There were forces who pushed for war, and an essential part of getting their way was trickery and lies. The Emperors were not the one's who pushed for war.
True, they were responsible, as they were the leaders. The problem, however, was rather that they didn't or couldn't do enough to prevent the war than their having too much power.
Yet the Great War is supposed to be that arch-argument against monarchy. If monarchies are tolerated at all, the monarchs are to be rejected to irrelevance when it comes to the running of state affairs, what is commonly known as “being above politics.”
As they say, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
J.K. Baltzersen, "a picture paints a thousand words" maybe a photo does also?
Being above party politics and not having any day to day say in the running of a democracy, is the ONLY role for a monarch in a modern nation. I would add that that is the view of all monarchist I have met with in Australia.
J.K. Baltzersen, "a picture paints a thousand words" maybe a photo does also?
Mr. Byers, I'm here to debate monarchy – and to some extent other society issues. You want to debate my profile photo? Well, good for you!
Being above party politics and not having any day to day say in the running of a democracy, is the ONLY role for a monarch in a modern nation.
Which is basically the point I made; that anything else is not tolerated. Except, it's not just about being above party and day-to-day politics, it's about being ejected to irrelevance altogether regarding state affairs.
We can be grateful for “unmodern” nations such as the Principality of Liechtenstein.
The Crown, if it is to have a role, is to provide the nation with a focus point that is not divisive. The Crown as an institution, and that is something other than just the monarch, has reserve powers.
The Crown, if it is to have a role, is to provide the nation with a focus point that is not divisive. The Crown as an institution, and that is something other than just the monarch, has reserve powers.
Sir, I am aware of this concept. Also, I understand the purpose of it. However, I see it as insufficient in protecting us against the erosion of our liberties.
Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteCurious, but the site it leads to is trying to make a rather tendentious point about Protestants, as it turns out.
ReplyDeleteWhen of course, true Protestants are the truest monarchists: the Reformation in one way having been birthed out of the commitment to the King or Queen "as supreme" (1 Peter 2:13), and the Pope as usurper of that God-given role. (Read Tyndale's 'Obedience' for a good example of a Reformation text on that).
Dear Sir:
ReplyDeleteThese look very much like the maps in Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Liberty or Equality.
This topic is especially relevant now with Valkyrie now in motion picture theaters.
Very interesting, very accurate - yet only part of the overall picture and misleading. German political Protestantism, tied to the toppled thrones of 1918, or large chunks thereof, embraced Nazism too readily. On the other hand, members or lapsed members of the RC church were over-represented in the Munich-based party leadership, and with Southern Germans (for want of a better term including Austrians, Bohemian Germans etc.) of the non-Protestant faith having had more than their share among the perpetrators of Nazi crimes and rabid Anti-Semites in relation to the overall population. It seems very, very difficult to deduce much from these figures. After the signing of the concordat of 1934 the picture got far less conclusive than in 1932, anyway.
ReplyDeleteThis blog received its first visit from the Holy See at 4:42 am (North American Eastern Time). It would seem that someone from the Vatican is intrigued by this post, as they stayed for over 11 minutes. Welcome Your Holiness?
ReplyDeleteJKB, I indeed did snatch this from the great man's magnus opus, what a fascinating book.
Stauffenberg, I guess all Germans lost faith in the end, but in 1932 the Catholics were the only serious opposition to the Nazis.
Sir Walter, the WASP is dead and Britain is a spiritually drained country, a point that was driven home to me last night as I watched on the news all those atheistic buses parading around London. The Anglican Church is poorly led and disestablishment might be just around the corner. But you were making a valid historical point, which is well taken.
the WASP is dead and Britain is a spiritually drained country, a point that was driven home to me last night as I watched on the news all those atheistic buses parading around London.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the WASP is dead; simply the numbers fewer. I rather like the buses. Pay less attention to old and increasingly irrelevant myths, and get on with things.
The Anglican Church is poorly led and disestablishment might be just around the corner.
Disestablishment can not come soon enough, and an end to the Lords Spiritual along with it.
I'm struck by the almost perfect correlation. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I'm not sure about the benefit of appealing to nostalgia for the arch-criminal Wilhelm II at a time of desperation to support the idea of constitutional monarchy (although with the latest post about the supposed benefits of living in a fairytale feudal despotism I'm worried about the changing definition of what monarchy is supposed to stand for) I find the post interesting as I'm now going through Kershaw's bio of Hitler after having finished Richard Evans's first two volumes of the Third Reich.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I'm not sure about the benefit of appealing to nostalgia for the arch-criminal Wilhelm II at a time of desperation to support the idea of constitutional monarchy (although with the latest post about the supposed benefits of living in a fairytale feudal despotism I'm worried about the changing definition of what monarchy is supposed to stand for)
ReplyDeleteWell, "Sir Francis Edward Younghusband," whilst our editor of course must answer for himself, and whilst I will leave a debate on His Imperial Majesty's status as arch-criminal or on the definition of constitutional monarchy for another time and place, I thought I would mention that Wikipedia considers the German Empire (1871-1918) a constitutional monarchy.
That said, I must say this post came as a surprise to me. I am aware of the fascination of the proprietor and editor of this weblog for Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and his (the editor and proprietor) conversion – if I have understood correctly – from a mere Commonwealth Loyalist uninterested in monarchy outside of the Crown Commonwealth to a monarchist also with interest in monarchy in general.
Of course, it is the editor's prerogative to decide on this weblog's profile. I would, however, point out that when I post at this blog on an issue foreign to the Crown Commonwealth, I always do it in a context that provides a link to the Crown Commonwealth. I see no such link here.
It has already been disestablished in all but name. The great arenas of community and shared faith are now the supermarket and the television screen. You can look out of your window this Friday evening to see if this is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI would not bank necessarily on the Roman Catholic religion topping up Britain's drained spirit, mind. Setting aside the serious questions as to the Biblical authenticity of numerous of its articles of faith, the hierarchy in England is barmy, the average church looks like a car park, and the typical service is heart-breakingly odd (usually involving papermache and tamborines and songs that would embarrass a 5 year-old).
The great, ancient Christian faith has not departed these shores. There are still a faithful number in perhaps all denominations that hold to the pure, comforting truths of the creeds and the scriptures. I would suspect that they will endure, and expand, in the long term, much more surely and steadily than anything else in this land. It may take generations. But the majority of Britons have rested their souls and lives upon the most enormous plateaus of sand. They are ever shifting. There is no pith there. The heathenish, base, ludicrous position of the British mainstream is no serious opponent. It will not challenge the God who made all things to unnmake that.
I call Godwin'S Law on that argument. You loose.
ReplyDeleteBwahahahahahaha !
The Nazis bombed Buckingham Palace, JKB, there's your link. Next time I'll be more Churchillian.
ReplyDeleteHow are Nazis ‘anti-monarchist”?! The Nazis were the ultimate “monarchist” – leadership by/from one.
ReplyDeleteOf course, "Lord Beaverbrook." I didn't mean to say there was no link, just that it wasn't provided explicitly.
ReplyDeleteGood thing you put monarchist in quotes, Mr. Byers, because that's where the word belongs in your context.
J.K. Baltzersen, you see I have a book called the dictionary.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought that you and others on this site are for Constitutional Monarchy?
It would be a vulgar stretch to somehow imply that Hitler or Stalin or any other conquerng tyrant (government by one) were even remotely monarchist. I don't think that peasant Stalin cared too much for the hereditary principle, and Hitler had no bones about toppling Europe's gentile kingdoms. They were both socialists, revolutionaries and classic imperialists of the worst stripe.
ReplyDeleteWell, gentlemen, if Mr. Byers wants to lump every dictatorship that the Sun shines upon or has shined upon together with the Christian monarchies of old and whatever else he finds fitting, and hit me – or anyone else for that matter – on the head with a dictionary in the process, he is more than welcome to do so by me.
ReplyDeleteMonarchy in its truest form is a dictatorship, leadership of a nation by one. Yes we all know that that one person has lots of little helpers.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Christian Monarchy routine from Mr J K Baltzersen, religions such as Christianity have a lot to answer for, even though some do great good in its name. And his hands on his hips like a silly proud child in his photo, what is that all about?
Anyway the “gentle” Kingdoms of Europe “Beaverbrook” talks about, would they be the same imperial powers who churned up millions of lives in the Great War?
Monarchy in its truest form is a dictatorship, leadership of a nation by one.
ReplyDeleteLump them together, sir! As I've said, you're more than welcome! Hit me, Byers, one more time!
And his hands on his hips like a silly proud child in his photo, what is that all about?
It's about the argumentum ad personam, i.e., turning away from the subject and attacking your opponent's person. It is also known as Arthur Schopenhauer's 38th and last strategem of debate.
Anyway the “gentle” Kingdoms of Europe “Beaverbrook” talks about, would they be the same imperial powers who churned up millions of lives in the Great War?
Ah, the Great War argument! There were forces who pushed for war, and an essential part of getting their way was trickery and lies. The Emperors were not the one's who pushed for war.
True, they were responsible, as they were the leaders. The problem, however, was rather that they didn't or couldn't do enough to prevent the war than their having too much power.
Yet the Great War is supposed to be that arch-argument against monarchy. If monarchies are tolerated at all, the monarchs are to be rejected to irrelevance when it comes to the running of state affairs, what is commonly known as “being above politics.”
As they say, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
J.K. Baltzersen, "a picture paints a thousand words" maybe a photo does also?
ReplyDeleteBeing above party politics and not having any day to day say in the running of a democracy, is the ONLY role for a monarch in a modern nation. I would add that that is the view of all monarchist I have met with in Australia.
18 January 2009 05:53
J.K. Baltzersen, "a picture paints a thousand words" maybe a photo does also?
ReplyDeleteMr. Byers, I'm here to debate monarchy – and to some extent other society issues. You want to debate my profile photo? Well, good for you!
Being above party politics and not having any day to day say in the running of a democracy, is the ONLY role for a monarch in a modern nation.
Which is basically the point I made; that anything else is not tolerated. Except, it's not just about being above party and day-to-day politics, it's about being ejected to irrelevance altogether regarding state affairs.
We can be grateful for “unmodern” nations such as the Principality of Liechtenstein.
The Crown, if it is to have a role, is to provide the nation with a focus point that is not divisive. The Crown as an institution, and that is something other than just the monarch, has reserve powers.
ReplyDeleteThe Crown, if it is to have a role, is to provide the nation with a focus point that is not divisive. The Crown as an institution, and that is something other than just the monarch, has reserve powers.
ReplyDeleteSir, I am aware of this concept. Also, I understand the purpose of it. However, I see it as insufficient in protecting us against the erosion of our liberties.
J.K. Baltzersen, I accept this is how you feel but what would you have in its place?
ReplyDeleteI accept this is how you feel but what would you have in its place?
ReplyDeleteI have no design. How to get out of the mess, however, that we're in nowadays, that, sir, is the trillion dollar question.