www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Call to lift Catholic monarchy ban

I deserved that with my clumsy spelling ...but still it remains...perhaps Belgium and Spain also need to remove the biased law against non-Catholis as well?

Anton

Would the Greek government allow a non-Orthodox to be head of state?

I'm not sure whether the laws of Greece require the head of state (the President) to be Orthodox - but if one considers Freemasons as non-Orthodox . . .
The difference between a Catholic monarchy and the English shadow monarchy on this point can be stated simply: in the case of a functioning Catholic monarchy, the King must be a Catholic. If one wants to call this "positive discrimination" in favor of Catholicism, that would not be an unreasonable use of words. In present-day England, the head of state can belong to any religion, or to no religion at all, with just one exception: he or she may NOT be a Catholic. This, in the same use of words, is negative discrimination - why is it all right for the head of state to be a Moonie, a Bahai, a Muslim, an atheist or whatever else, but impossible for the head of state to be a Catholic? Still more to the point, why should such an absurd situation apply in Australia or Canada?
Incognitus

Well I don't think it matters if a Bulgarian Head of State is Orthodox or not. After all, Tsar Ferdinand was a Catholic and that didn't bring the world crashing down...My bone with Spain and Belgium is that everyone is required to be a Catholic -- not just the monarch, but the consort, the children, their consorts et all. I do understand the unfair biased nature of the ban in the UK and it would eventually be removed and when it does, anyone of any religion or none could probably ascend to the throne (if they deal with all that Head of the Church business)...but I bet you that in Spain we should not be expecting any kind of changes soon. At least in the UK, people are talking about it...

Anton

Dear Iconophile and Father Al,

The nice thing about monarchs is that they are so nationally "mixed" that they really cannot be said to belong to this or that country.

The Queen of Britain and Canada is herself related to 37 Royal Houses and is a descendant of St Volodymyr the Great (The Ukrainian community in Britain received permission to call her "Descendant of St Volodymyr" for their Loyal Toasts and I toast her this way whenever I'm an MC).

Was Charlemagne, for instance, German or French? He never indicated his nationality but signed himself "by the Grace of God, Emperor." And he was Sovereign over many different cultures and peoples - all united in one faith and one official language of communication (Latin, of course).

Fr. Al, there is a descendant of Hetman Skoropadsky's family that has presented his credentials to the Kyivan government for recognition as Ukraine's sovereign.

Ukraine does have an official "Hetman" and this is a titular title only.

I've spoken with Ukrainian military officers, including four generals in the recent past - all of them are in favour of a Hetman or even of a King for Ukraine.

For them, "democratic politicians" leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth, they say. They are the worst of criminals!

And every country in Europe has a monarchist movement, including Ireland and Scotland.

Alex

Dear byzanTN,

I'm sure you meant to say "pax" rather than "pox."

Why do you say this? Do you know of what you speak?

25 percent of the world's governments are monarchies and they are among the most stable states yet. Republic democracy is often a cover for dictatorships of the worst kind.

And as at least one historian has tried to show, if the US continued to maintain its ties with the Crown from which it descended, it would never have had the Civil War nor would it be vulnerable in other respects.

As Catholics, we belong to one of the oldest absolute monarchies in history.

Alex

Dear Father Deacon John,

Yes, one problem that Latin America had was the resurgence of the contemporary phenomenon of nationalism and socialism.

Countries with a monarchical tradition today tend to want their kings to be of the same nationality as they, something that also never existed in history. And if this can't be obtained, they reject the idea of a king altogether.

And is Latin America better off without ties to the Spanish Crown? I would say not. There is no peace or economic harmony there, only dictatorship, revolutionary terror and extreme poverty.

Monarchies do tend to provide stability that is very much needed in today's economic situation. And it is a sine qua non for international economic exchange with the larger economic players such as the US and others.

And King Juan Carolos has set a great example of democratic responsibility and respect for human rights that few republican democratic leaders could ever hope to.

I think that monarchy is also imbedded in both Catholic and Orthodox philosophy and tradition. Republican government has tended to be very anti-Christian. Witness the continuing anti-Catholicism of the governments of Mexico where the Church, despite its overwhelming numbers among the population, continues to suffer severe limitations in what it can or cannot do.

Monarchy isn't for everyone. But constitutionnal monarchy within a framework of parliamentary democracy would be much better for most of the world's countries who suffer under dictatorship that masks itself as republican democracy.

Alex

The French Canadians peoples are not at all suportive of the British monarchy because they view it as a vestige of Anglo colonialism, however they seem to be in no rush at all to discard the monarchy for one major reason: it helps to distinguish the Dominion of Canada from it's Republican neighboor to the South.


Clearly there is a paradox regarding the British monarchy within French Canadian society. For example, the former leader of the French separatist party, Jacques Parizeau, was and remains an avid supporter of the monarchy and has on many occassions stated that he would be in favour of retaining the British Parlimentary system and Crown for his new country - Quebec. Many however believe that his true wish is to retain the monarchy so that someday he can crown himself 'King'. For this reason he is often refered to as Le roi Jacques and more often than not he is drawn wearing a crown in newspaper / media caricatures.

Hritzko

PS: If Camilla ever becomes Queen and they put her an Chuck on a postage stamp, then that will be the END of the British economy and postal system as we know it. I just can't believe people will lick the her back to pay their bills.

As I have said before, if you want to spend your tax money supporting royals, go ahead. I don't. However, those royals must never have any actual power, since history has amply shown the corruption that comes with absolute power. So keep them as figureheads if you like, but don't give them any power. Would you call the Saudi royal family a stable monarchy? It seems that no one has any real rights under that kind of system. We have "Republic democracy" in this country because of the abuses of royal power. And the whole idea that royals rule from some divine right is romantic nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised if many Canadians and Australians would like to be rid of the royals, too.

Dear Incognitus,

First of all, I accept your explanation on the other matter.

As for the discrimination against Catholics, our Canadian courts have said that we go with what Britain determines in this respect, owing to long-standing tradition - the same for Australia, New Zealand and the rest.

There is a lot of antipathy against Roman Catholics in Britain still and this not because of discrimination against religion - but against the deplorable tradition of papal secular politics.

Russia also has an aversion to Roman Catholicism as does Greece - and any Orthodox country that has suffered everything from the crusades to domination by Roman Catholic empires. That kind of enduring aversion to Catholicism is related to socio-political processes.

British Protestants likewise have always feared the return of a Catholic monarch in London who would try and "force" conversion to Catholicism. That is unreasonable, but it exists.

Even English Catholics believed that Rome had no understanding of or appreciation for their plight - but only made it worse at the height of their persecution.

But I see a real possibility for the future sovereigns of Britain being Orthodox. I have it on some rather good authority that Prince Charles IS studying Orthodoxy and accompanies his father to Orthodox Sunday Liturgy every week now.

Orthodoxy enjoys wide popularity in England today, as you know. There is tremendous interest in iconography shared by the Prince, great interest in Mt Athos and in the Greek lineage of Prince Philip as well as the Russian Royal New Martyrs.

Novus Ordo Roman Catholicism just doesn't factor into any of that.

Alex

Dear byzanTN,

Oh, then you really DON'T of what you speak!

(Relax, Big Guy, we're just talking here, O.K.?)

There is no longer any notion of a Divine Right to Rule - that died out with the Royal Stuart throne in Britain, you know, the Royal House that Incognitus loves so much.

The notion that tax money goes to support the Royals in Britain - is just nonsense.

The British Royals have their own sources of income of which they give 57 million pounds a year to the British government for purposes related to royal protocol. The US presidency costs US taxpayers tons of money, including the inauguration of a new president that makes monarchies look like poor men's enterprises.

There are some absolute monarchies around - most constitutional monarchists, like me, would disagree with them. The Saudi Royal House would not be around today without the great support of your government so if you have a problem with them, write your Congressman.

Under a constitutional monarchy, the head of state is a sovereign and is distinct from a head of a government.

The two roles are kept separately - the US has the anomaly of uniting both roles and there are all kinds of potential and real problems with that i.e. when can you be against the President without committing an act of treason against the head of state of the USA?

The constitutional monarch is a figurehead to which is owed allegiance as to someone who is not political but is above political partisanship. This is someone who connects a people with their historical past - and all kinds of shared values, including religion too.

Political power is, in effect, taken away from politicians and is deposited into the "Crown" a kind of bank if you will that prevents politicians from "owning" political power.

They may use that power on behalf of the people within a framework of accountability - but if they actually OWNED the power - then they would be dictators.

I was trained in a rather left-wing, anti-monarchial, sociological tradition.

I've come to reject that and see that it was wrong.

And I've come to see that real democracy works best when it is tied to tradition.

Constitutional monarchy is the best form of government humanity has ever developed.

Alex

Dear Hritzko,

"Je me souviens" is the Quebec motto - and yet they forgot how their province's leadership quickly changed allegiance to the British Crown when the French Revolution burst forth with its terror and anti-Catholicism.

Parizeau and others swear allegiance to the Crown of Canada (not the "British Crown" although it is that too) NOT only because it distinguishes them from the Americans - but primarily because they know, if Quebecers don't, that the Crown protects and has always protected their religious, cultural and legal rights.

Most Crowns were imperial, colonial powers but are that no longer. Pierre Trudeau himself sad the Monarchy has served Canada well.

And yet our government has tried to turn us into a republic ostensibly to make Canada more palatable to Quebec.

And how silly! Quebec's past is French monarchial and is also one of loyalty to the Crown of today.

The Crown does not require one to become part of mainstream English society and protects one's rights. Quebec can be the Nation it is under the Crown and be distinct from English Canada.

The flag of English Canada is seen as foreign in Quebec since French Canadians see in it a republican spirit - to make everyone "Canadian" (read: English Canadian).

At least the old Dominion flag had the fleur-de-lys in it . . .

And I'm glad you brought up the "Dominion of Canada."

We're still officially that. It is taken from the biblical verse of Psalm 70, I believe: "And he shall have dominion from sea unto sea and from the River even unto the ends of the earth.

The Fathers of Confederation called Canada a "Dominion" or a Kingdom. "From sea to sea" signified the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The "River" is the St Lawrence and the "ends of the earth" are the northern islands.

God save the Queen!

Alex

Tsk Tsk do you STILL have to lick stamps - we get our as self-adhesive ones

Anhelyna

And where did they get the money originally? I remember that your queen offered to start paying taxes after her house burned. Doesn't parliament give the royals a budget every year? I think it does, since I regularly read in the U.S. newspapers about the Queen Mother annually overspending hers. Isn't that taxpayer money. Interestingly, I just heard on the news today that Diana relieved Prince Charles of approximately $30 million when they divorced - another longstanding tradition among English royalty Supposedly, his mom gave him a loan which he is paying back. In all honesty, I admired the Queen Mother for her character and service, and I even admire the current Queen for her devotion to duty. But I wonder if her descendants possess any of her good qualities. However, one advantage for which I am grateful is that we can throw our Presidents out of office every 4 years. You are stuck with royals for a lifetime. You should read Fr. Vasilly at theoniondome.com Was it Republic democracy in 19th century Russia. No it was not. Is outrage.

Dear byzanTN,

With the long-suffering permission of the Administrator . . .

No one is decrying the American form of government!

Royals in a constitutional monarchy don't "rule" as presidents do - the "reign" which is a quaint way of saying they are heads of state but don't get involved in the business of government.

Presidents around the world often have many more "palaces" than any royals ever did. Witness the many palaces of Saddam Hussein.

To unseat an unworthy president is a difficult venture at the best of times.

Bill Clinton was impeached but he hung onto power. And he is going to be paraded around at the Democratic Convention starting today, or so I hear.

And I prefer the Royals over Bill Clinton and his ilk any time!

In any event, it is not a good comparison because the head of government in a constitutional monarchy is the Prime Minister and not The Queen.

Where did the Royals get that money, you ask? Not from the taxpayers of today!

Take a good look at the government waste republics have and also at all the money used in protocol events. The Presidential Inauguration ceremonies cost a pretty U.S. penny. But would Americans say that, because of that, there shouldn't be inaugurations?

Look, the business of government has a lot of what can be called "secular religious" aspects that people do and are willing to pay for.

Ceremony, pomp and circumstance. All governments, not just monarchial, have them. They are here to stay and your government and country know how to do a lavish state funeral or inauguration (that cost millions of taxpayer dollars) better than anyone on the face of this earth.

Royals are here to stay? They bring a continuity in a way that presidents as heads of state cannot. As they don't govern, there is no reason to scrutinize their governing abilities.

When a king or a prince messes up, the monarchy as a whole is called into question. When a president messes up, no one suggests that republicanism should be scrapped.

Why the double standard?

Republican revolutions have also tended to be very anti-Christian, beginning with the French Revolution.

And if you take a U.S. dollar, have a look on the symbols that are on the back of it.

They come from a specific religion. The same religion by whose rites the monuments of your capital city were originally consecrated with.

I think you know what religion I'm talking about - not that there's anything wrong with that, the Masons don't bother me!

As the Administrator has said here, it is a myth that there is separation of church and state in the US. Your law only prevents a particular denomination from being the established, state one.

As for the Onion Dome - it isn't infallible.

Russian monarchism is very strong in Russia and the new democratic state freely returned to the Romanov Tsarist symbols of its past, including its flag and the two-headed eagle.

And veneration for the Royal New Martyrs of Russia is strong enough for them to have been glorified. What better negation of the communist revisionism of Russian history than that!

Alex