www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Orthodox Emperor may be a reality soon!

The Bourbon descendant, depending on when the event mentioned took place, would either be the present Count of Paris and Duke of France, Prince Henri, or his father (same name and titles) - "Count of Paris" is the title actually used by the legitimate King of France, who is allowed to live in France and enjoys a degree of recognition from the republic provided that he does not meddle in politics and does not assert his claim to the throne too loudly. As a result, it is forbidden to discuss in his presence any possibilities of a restoration.

Fr Serge

Maybe we could make the US a monarchy. We could bring back the Kamehameha dynasty (after all they are native to the US).

Dear Matt you said:

I say:

I think it was Czar Nicholas' grandfather that was assassinated by dissidents. Actually, I believe, (now I'm not positive), that most of the intelligencia were bolsheviks, and I know that most bolsheviks were Jews. That is why there were pogroms in Russia against the Jews during his fathers reign. That is also why the Nazi party in Germany came into existance. The Germans became fearful of communism...and thus became fearful of the Jews.

We tend to get a one sided picture of what existed in that era in Russia in order not to offend the sensibilities of others. Also the Soviet Union had a great propaganda machine.

Whenever the Czar and his family travelled from one palace to another, he would have an empty train travel first in case the revolutionists attacked it. If there were people sent to Siberia, it was not without reason...and certainly it was not the Czar himself that sent them. But rather those who had the responsability of protecting him.

I believe one out of ten people within Russia were considered nobility, therefore they would have owned the land. The revolution was not so much against the Czar as it was against these land owners. The serfs had been freed but the land had not as yet been distributed. The Czar had started to work on it's distribution when the war broke out and he was not able to continue.

As for the Czarina, she was desparate because of the sufferings of her son the Czarvich Alexis. The only person able to temporarily cure him, was Rasputin. She owed her son's life to him, and considered him blessed. He wasn't of course, but rather he cured through 'magic'. Well she accepted Rasputin's faulty advice when the Czar was at the 'front', and that was one of the downfalls of the Empire. The other of course was the war which he was ill prepared for, and entered only because of 'honor', as the protector of the Orthodox people against the Western powers.

If one were to read the writings of Father Arseny, who will undoubtably become a saint, as well as Saint Luke the surgeon, they will note that both stated that what occurred in Russia was because of the sins of the people. Father Arseny blamed the priests, because the people follow the priests.

Zenovia

Hi,
This stuff is scary;does anyone remember why the US fought against a monarchy? Religious freedom, the opportunity to rise in station,etc. Succession by birth lead to gross interbreeding, apathetic rulers with no calling ,interest, or capacity for leading a country or caring for the people (Nicholas II, Louis XVI and his charming wife Marie Antoinette,George III and sons and Henry VIII), etc. Not all the revolts against monarchies were unjustified.
There is no gurarantee under this system that a monarch is spiritually adequate, and who decides that anyway? A priest? What is the relationship between the clergy and the crown? If the clergy is dependent on the crown then a bunch of sycophants would declare any royal spiritually competent to rule. Again, politics enters the religious realm.Politics and religion should be seperate for very good reasons.

As a Hispanist scholar I have to say that the mere suggestion that Franco's authoritative dictatorship was somehow okay is chilling. Please talk to a Spaniard (who was not in his inner circle) who grew up during that period to see how well he "passed muster". That Franco wasn't like Pol Pot doesn't mean he was benign or good for the Spanish people. There was mind control exerted;the people couldn't even discuss the Civil War (so they couldn't mourn or heal) that lead to his rise. Franco used the Church -a very non-christian one I might add-, and military to control and punish people socially,psychologically and sometimes physically. (A Francoist military man is a most frightening person to meet; and I've met a few)His was a forced leadership and that can't be a good thing no matter how benign it may seem.

My last reason for nixing the idea of monarchies is that past monarchs approved of slavery and forced colonization. Had it been put to a vote of the people perhaps it would not have occured, or even been considered when this country was established. But a sole monarch influenced by his/her finance ministers and the church-obviously truly enlightened spiritual religious- decided it was okay to murder millions of people in order to make them christians and fill his coffers. Also, many of the explorers could not rise in social/economic station but could live like fat cats and earn boocoo money in the new world; a result of monarchism.

Constitutional may be fine , but absolutism; absolutely not.

Perhaps I have not read all the postings as carefully as I should, but I have not noticed anyone seriously promoting an absolute monarchy anywhere. A constitutional monarchy adds to the "checks and balances" that the American Founding Fathers explicitly wanted.

I hold not the slightest brief for Franco - and I have already written on this thread that King Juan Carlos faced down the remaining Falangistas who tried to overthrow democracy in Spain (to repeat what I said: the politicians were long gone, but the King wasn't having any). I will add that Franco repeatedly asked King Juan Carlos's father to accept the throne, and Prince Juan as repeatedly set the condition that democracy must first be restored in Spain. Franco wanted a puppet - and did not get one. Viva el Rey Cattollico!

Fr. Serge

First, we fought against the British Crown so that we wouldn't have had to pay taxes. We fought against the British Crown so that the established plaintation owners could get richer. And the succession in the Eastern Roman Empire was not by birth, neither was it in the Western Roman Empire. The Emperors were elected for life. Only after the fall of Constantinople, it seems, were the major Empires lead by someone whose great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents were the reigning monarchs.

Case in point, there was Constantine, Justinian, Leo the Isaurian, Constantine Paleologus (of current events) etc... there is no direct father to son etc. line with these Emperors. Neither is there with Charlemagne, Otto I, St. Henry, Frederic Barbarossa, or Maximillian I. Only later was the Western Roman Empire ruled by the Hapsburgs.

Second, who ever said that Franco's Authoritarian Dictatorship was good?

I think that there is an implied argument here by those who don't like monarchies. I think that some are afraid that all monarchies turn into dictatorships. I would reply that only those that are instituted by revolution turn to dictatorships. All of the Fascist and Communist dicatorships of the past century were instituted by revolution. The Soviets had overthrown one Emperor only to violently replace him with Lenin and Stalin.

In Germany, Hitler came to power by blaming the rest of the world (especially the Jews) for the revolutionary impotence of the German State and weakness of its economy following the first World War. He then used it to build up the people and the economy with racism and hate. And let's not forget that he was democratically elected by the people.

All forms of government have the possibility of turning evil since humans are responsible for running things. But in a monarchy, if the autocrat is bad and turns into a Tyrant, he can be assassinated. And the State can start over.

But what happens when there is supposed to be a polity and it turns into a democracy (see my previous post on Aristotle) and the people are bad? Do we start mass executions? (Guess who actually gets executed when a democracy goes bad.)

i don't believe historically one can say that there were pogroms because the jews were dissidents but because of hatred and often, religious-based hatred. Why did so many Jews become dissidents? Because of such persecution over the long history. The entire experience of the Pale of Settlement. And yes, Nicholas was guilty of fomenting such hatred especially propagating the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the Tsarist government's intervention in cases such as that of Beilis and other
"Blood Libel" trials.
If one was a persecuted minority in such a society, i can imagine becoming either completely apolitical to get by or becoming a dissident to change the situationn. This was true not only of jews but of other minorities throughout the Russian Empire at the time.

Dear Brian,

Yes, and the Jews in Russia became dissidents only to suffer more under Stalin.

Alice

Dear Brian you said:

I say:

Actually, it went around in a circle. The Jews were persecuted and in consequence became dissidents. When they became dissidents, it increased their persecution and so on and so forth.

It was an era of nationalism. Nations were in constant war trying to establish boundaries in basically the same way that it happened recently in Yugoslavia. If you recall, the Croations and Serbs were living within the same territory and both sides were trying to claim it.

The Jews were always caught in the middle and became suspect by either one side or the other. They did live in Russia though, and weren't really expelled until the government was being threatened by the revolutionists. It happened also in Germany. It was the fear of communism, and the fact that most of the communists were Jews, that caused the Nazi, (Nationalist Socialist Party) to come into existance. Now to attest to the fact that the communist party was predominantly Jews, I read recently that the Nazi's would immediately shoot the Russian commissars because they were Jews.

That the Jews would prefer communism is understandable since communism tries to do away with nationalism, and nationalism has always been detrimental to the Jews. Yet in Germany, what was sad is the fact that the Jews truly loved Germany. The other cause of their persecution by the Nazi's, was the rise of Zionism. Again it was a cause and effect thing.

Zionism came about because of the pogroms, and then Zionism itself caused the Jews in Germany to suffer. The English dropped leaflets from the planes telling the German Jewish soldiers not to fight for Germany because England was their true friend and they were going to give them Palestine. After that the Germans believed they lost the war because they were stabbed in the back by their own German Jews.

Zenovia

Dear Dr. Eric you said:

I say:

Hey! The president can be assassinated too. Forgetting that though, you are right. A democracy is only as good as the people within it. Besides, most people have no idea what they are voting for...at least in this country.

You said:

I say:

I've heard that the British teach that they really won the war. According to them, we were fighting a German king who was on the throne in England. His father, I believe, couldn't speak English, and even Queen Victoria's English accent was an accent derived from the German monarchs. :rolleyes:

Zenovia

Zenovia,

I also was taught that George I and George II were germans, they were from the House of Hannover and the closest Protestants that England could get (there were and are Catholics who had and have better claims to the Throne.) George III (whom the founding fathers fought against) was the first of the line to speak english. In fact, George V changed the name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor during WWI. Queen Elizabeth is a Windsor and Prince Charles is a Windsor-Mountbatten.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page105.asp

On a side note; George Foreman's sons are George I, George II, George III, George IV, and George V! :p It's true!!!

Zenovia, maybe the ONLY thing we could agree on is a love of history- I was a history major in my undergraduate days

Nicholas II was indeed the grandson of Alexander II, who was assassinated - the assassination was both immoral (obviously) and disastrous. The previous day, Alexander II had signed a decree to bring a constitutional monarchy into effect. After the assassination, one of Alexander III's ministers destroyed the decree in the presence of the new Tsar, saying that he would accept any punishment the new Tsar cared to impose, but he would not permit the new Tsar to come to the throne with his hands tied!

The beautiful Church of Our Saviour on the Blood was built in Saint Petersburg, on the spot where Alexander II was mortally shot. It is now in the process of restoration.

There are much less drastic ways of removing a King, should that be necessary (consider the possibility of a King falling victim to Altzheimer's Disease, for example) - he can remain the nominal King but be given a Regent, just as is done when the King is a child. He can abdicate (and be guided in this to abdicate in favor of an heir who might be better). He can embrace a form of monastic life. And so on.

On the ecclesiastical front, though, there is an interesting example: the late Bishop Gannon of Erie. He was getting on in years, and was not about to resign, so Rome provided him with a Coadjutor with the right of succession. Bishop Gannon proceeded to bury FOUR Coadjutors, one after the other, before finally dying himself in his late nineties! Many Catholic institutions in Erie are named the Bishop Gannon This or That, because it was assumed that Bishop Gannon would be dead by the time the institution was completed - and there he was, at the opening of the new institution! I hasten to add that he was not a bad bishop, and that it became a standing joke (unappreciated, of course, by anyone who was threatened with the appointment of Coadjutor to Bishop Gannon!).

Fr. Serge

The great Dr Daniel Mannix Archbishop of Melbourne was given a coadutor with the right of succession that the archbishop had not wanted. The wise old man died in his 100th year.

Like most of European royals they are so intermarried that it is almost safe to say they are almost all Germans. The Romanovs like their relatives the Ruriks died out in the main line along time ago. Princess Anne the Princess Royal has used the linked names Windsor-Mountbatten. The name remains in the main line as Windsor. Hence the number of Germanic royals in attendance at the recent burial of the late Emperess in Russia. It was nice to see the Australian Crown Princess of Denmark there.