www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall the british are coming! the british are coming!

Dear Mr. Clean,

If one goes back in history, one will notice the attention that was paid to the 'annointed' monarch. It was a religious annointing, and therefore holy.

If we take that into consideration, we will realize that the colonies were rallying against that God given authority. That is why our founding fathers emphasized God so much in everything they said and wrote...contrary to what the liberals would want us to believe. We are the only nation that is founded: 'Under God'. Even our money states: 'In God We Trust'.
A little tidbit here: Queen Frederica managed to have her daughter Sophia, (an unattractive girl), marry the most eligible royal bachelor in Europe. She also managed to have the Greek government provide her with an enormous dowry, leading to Queen Frederica's eventual disfavor with the Greeks. Before that she was highly popular.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Dear Lanceg,

The brighter and more competent slaves worked in the homes. That is a well known fact. I don't think it had anything to do with skin color. I think it even exists in white society. The brighter and more competent are the executives, managers, doctors, etc. They too are better fed, have better homes, etc.

I recall reading Torqueville on the balls in New Orleans that were only for black girls. The men though were white, and each girl hoped that they would be taken as a concubine in order to secure their future. (Mind you, New Orleans was Catholic). What amazed him was that so many girls were actually white, but since they had that drop of black blood, they were considered black.

I recall also in my youth, that anyone that had a drop of black blood, would have been considered black in the South...and therby shunned. Of course if one considers that going back 500 years in one's ancestry, their ancestors start going into the millions, and that blacks existed in the Roman Empire, that it's not too inconceivable that everyone of us has black blood flowing in our veins. So much for all that stupidity.

And that wouldn't exclude the Royal family. I recall more recently reading that King George V or VI, don't know which one, (but it was one of them), took for his wife someone with a very secure pedigree from Germany. Her ancestry went back sixteen times to a Portuguese queen that was a Moor convert.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Well, skin color sometimes did play a role in which slaves worked in the house. The lighter-skinned slaves sometimes worked in the houses because they were the result of coerced sexual relationships (or actual rape) between male members of the families that owned the plantations and female slaves, and, therefore, were members of the families of the owners, though not openly acknowledged as such.

Ryan

Dear Zenovia,

I am certain that people who were more talented enjoyed better privilages. I do not feel however, that it was humane for the less fortunate ones, whether it had to do with skills and intelligence, or skin color, to be treated the way they were.

I am lower middle class (hoping to move up with the completion of my masters), and I would never argue I should reap the same benefits of some one more skilled or talented than me. But I am not being treated like chattel, I still have a relatively good life. I do not think we can compare a modern working class or lower middle class person with the slaves.

Blessings,

Lance

Dear Friends,

Well, I thought the Queen was very good to personally visit with the families of the victims of Virginia Tech. She does that with aplomb and style and I think we can all agree about that.

Mr. Clean's comment about Brazil ending slavery - yes they did, but they then put Eastern European immigrants into the slave houses and Ukrainians living in Brazil today, who are served by the Salesian Fathers especially, are descendants of those later white slaves.

The point is simply that the abolition of slavery at the instigation of William Wilberforce and his Christian parliamentarians was based on the Scriptures and Christian principle.

Economic concerns mattered not to Wilberforce and it didn't matter to Simcoe in Upper Canada.

So the whole cotton-pickin' southern US economy has really no bearing on this!

The U.S. civil war was fought over economics - the north wanted protectionist policies so people would buy their diversified products while the south wanted open markets to trade their one product with Europe.

And the war was a done deal when the south refused to vote for the Head of State, Lincoln, but then was told it had to recognize him as Head of State, as well as of Government.

Bad politics and very undemocratic . . .

Had the U.S. still had the Crown, Lincoln would have been prime minister and if there were problems with him, they could have worked it out internally without getting the country involved in a war that killed more U.S. soldiers than ALL the wars of the 20th century put together . . .

As for the notion of God-given rights etc., that is nice, but I find the idea of an anointed Sovereign (ANY anointed Sovereign - create one, if you like) to whom I owe personal allegiance to be far more attractive politically, socially, culturally and spiritually.

American foreign policy could have long benefited from a more realistic understanding of the world's political cultures and their need for kings of all stripes.

Better the Shah of Iran than what, through the fault of the U.S. alone, came to replace him and is still there.

Our Byzantine traditions are very much based on old royal traditions.

For example, in an Old Rite explanation of the Moleben service, I once read that the Moleben/Supplication service can be sung/said by anyone and at any time, unlike other services that have their times.

And this is because the subject always has the right to directly speak to the King (of Heaven) about his or her needs and at any time.

It is always bad when republican presidents anywhere have an inflated view of themselves - as many do.

King Juan Carlos was an absolute monarch who freely gave up his powers to become a constitutional monarch - quite an example he set.

And he sees himself as a kind of "father" to Latin America and the Spanish-speaking people of the world as evidenced by his royal motto "Plus Ultra" or "More Beyond" meaning Latin America.

If the Hispanic World is a Commonwealth, and I think the argument can be made that it is, then it can have no better Head than King Juan Carlos.

So better a monarch who "repubs" than a republican who "monarchs."

Alex

Oh, well, I'm not a monarchist by any stretch (I favor those God-given rights), but I am very glad the Queen came to visit Jamestown on the anniversary. She is a very classy lady. She also has great hats. We Virginians, even us relatively younger ones, still appreciate a woman who wears a great hat.

And even though what our college historian back in England called "that unfortunate event 200-some odd years ago" occurred and we Americans "went our merry way as we're wont to do," we still feel a connection with Britain. It's there. It'll always be there.

The exhibits at Jamestown were really pedal-to-the-metal to get ready for the 400th and it is a cool place to visit. I caught the new museum when it opened end of last year. Very interesting. The old church with the even older church's foundations visible beneath it is also fascinating. Lots of people worked very hard to get it ready. And it just wouldn't be right without QE2 dropping by and checking it out and giving all those hardworking archeologists, historians, and docents a thrill. So if anyone goes to Williamsburg (which by the way, now has a brand new spa featuring "colonial cures"), pop on over and check out Jamestown.

Oh, and I agree - very kind of the Queen to visit with the Hokies.

Being a Christian monarchist myself, I obviously sympathize with that point of view. Unfortunately the current crop of usurpers in London don't fit the bill - I support the Imperial House of Hapsburg, who are quietly proud to be unrelated to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Battenburgs.

That said, there is a delicate balance beteween the proper role of the Christian sovereign and the proper role of the elected representatives of the people. It's not unlike the question of the relationship between the Pope and the rest of the episcopate. If everyone dances in step, it works fine. If not . . . well, the twentieth century furnishes several good examples, or at least useful examples.

Emperor Franz Joseph was fond of saying that the most important part of the Emperor's work was the protection of the people from the politicans. Not false.

Will the Empire be restored? Heavens, I don't know. Stranger things have happened. Would that be a good thing? I can't claim to know for sure, but of one aspect I am quite certain: Eastern Europe would be far better off today had the Hapsburgs remained in power after World War I.

As to the British - yes, their heritage will remain in Ireland for the foreseeable future, unfortunately. Those of us who do not consider collective amnesia to be a virtue and who think that a knowledge of our own history is worth having would love to be rid of it, but that is easier said than done.

In Ireland, as in many countries, the question arises as to whom one would have for Sovereign were a monarchy to be restored. The best answer I've heard so far is that only God can send a King; the best we can do is pray for that holy gift, and meanwhile try to prepare the way.

Meanwhile, take heart: the beatification of Emperor Charles means that we have an Emperor, to whom we always have access, who certainly hears our prayers, and of whom no one can ever deprive us. This time Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George, and Georges Clemencau and the rest of the Freemasons are powerless to get of him. Blessed Charles of Austria, intercede for us!

Fr. Serge

With great grandparents on either side of my family respectivley named, Haynes and Bruce, obviously I would prefer the Stuarts to the Battenburgs. While I think it nice that her Germanic Majesty visited Jamestown, I have little use for monarchy, especially since so few seem to be worthy of their offices. However, I do think highly of Blessed Charles.

Sorry, Alex, I have to disagree.

While the US has been in a lot of wars over its existence, Great Britain stuck its nose in every continent of the world. The Civil War began because the South wanted out of the US. They refused to recognize Lincoln's election and feared for the elimination of slavery. It was a terrible war, but one that was inevitable from the day the United States declared its Independence. None of us Americans claim our nation is perfect. Far from it. This is how we understand our government - our rights come from God, not from government, any elected leader or body, and certainly not from a monarch. The Government must accept these rights in order for our consent to be governed and for the government to exist.

Whie Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth cannot be held guilty for the likes of Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth I, it cannot be argued that anti-Catholicism began with Henry and was perpetuated by Great Britain for centuries - that, along with slavery were two legacies left to us by the British. Great Britain waged war against France and took Catholic Quebec, as well as the Forks - the Ohio Country - Pittsburgh.

Britain's history of attacking French and Spanish colonies and shipping - as well as its hostility to the Church - gave both nations plenty of incentive to assist the American Republic in its struggle for freedom.

Given the hostility to the Catholic Church that emanated from Great Britain for centuries - the Irish Potato famine, for example - I just am not that fond of the English Crown.

As an aside, the se�ora and I visited Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan last summer. On the grounds there is the home of Noah Webster. Noah Webster predicted that the United States would one day overtake Great Britain as the world's economic and military power. Towards that end, Webster wrote the first American dictionary, and in the process, corrected the spelling of words like center, realize, etc.

There is no greater Orwellian linguistic feat then when people t glory in that they are not "politically correct" It is used as a sort of martyrdom that is NOT deserved I assure you

Alex,

I personally support the Stuart claim I seem to remember that you are a bit of a Jacobite too?? None of these Hanoverians or Windsors for us!!

A toast to King Francis, God bless him!

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father Archimandrite!

Brilliantly summarized and said! Politicians always have need of curtailment which, to me, suggests their evil nature (the notion that they have "tails" ).

25% of the world's governments are monarchies and they all have relatively stable economies and the like.

The symbolic role of the President in many republican countries, including Holy Eire, suggests that that role could be rather easily taken over by a Sovereign descended from an historic, national royal house.

The United States has always had that tension between the President's role as "Head of State" versus "Head of Government."

That, in fact, could set the stage for a curtailment (that word again!) of democratic powers due to the fine line that divides the two roles.

I remember one American politician criticizing Bill Clinton and then saying that he, as President, was not welcome in his state. That could be an act of treason against the Head of State, could it not? One may always feel free to rip apart a Prime Minister as head of the government - that's what they're there for - but the Head of State?

Anyway, the American model is not followed by any other nation.

As president of the Toronto Branch of the Monarchist League of Canada, I once worked with our Austrian Club to organize an "Austrian Night" to celebrate the legacy of the Habsburgs.

The week before the event, I received a call from the Austrian Consulate here with a request that I ensure that: a) the Two-Headed Eagle of the Habsburgs is not displayed during the meeting; b) that the anthem of the Habsburgs is not played or sung at the meeting; and c) that no salute to the Habsburgs or suggestions they return to their thrones be mentioned.

I asked them what business it was of theirs - I was told it was because the Consul General himself wished to attend the meeting.

I then told the various individuals organizing the event about this.

But when the event started, the Habsburg Eagle was immediately flashed on the screen and the anthem was sung - I had no control over any of that and even the Consul General stood for the anthem (his wife was the only one in the standing room only auditorium to remain seated).

At the end, I decided to break the last request by simply saying that we "all hope that the Habsburgs return to their ancestral thrones!"

I also understand that the Celtic Ard Ri did not originally have crowns but their double gold chains around their necks were their royal symbol (?)

Alex

Dear Brian,

Actually, I support the canonization of the three Stuart sovereigns: Mary, Queen of Scots, Bl. King Charles I the Martyr, and his son, King James II!

And anything connected to them as well.

But our Queen is our Queen, she is my Sovereign to whom I have sworn allegiance before God and have had occasion, as a member of our Monarchist League, to defend publicly etc.

The Sovereign is who our Parliament tells me is the Sovereign and if St Peter can tell Christians in the New Testament to "honour the emperor" (namely that dear fellow Nero . . .) then how much more should the subjects of Queen Elizabeth the II honour her?

And how much more should Catholics who are republicans respect that without resorting to insulting epitaphs, as is the regrettable legacy of this thread?

I have never criticized any American President and won't.

FYI.

Cheers,



Alex

Dear Mr. Clean,

Your rights come from God, do they? You say this as a citizen of a country that formally believes in the separation of church and state, where sportsmen can be fined for saying a public prayer, where crosses etc. are a no-no etc.?

Has something changed since last week?

Our rights AND responsibilities are ordained by God and our constitutional monarchy is also a Godly institution that is there to help protect them.

Power should always have the healthy tension of being approved by the people and then approved by the Crown.

When Winston Churchill lost the election (and he really couldn't have won it if his life depended on it), it was the King's advisers who asked the King to declare Churchill his "wartime PM."

And it is darn good that the King used his powers to do that, don't you think?

Again, monarchy isn't everyone's cup of tea (no pun really intended).

The U.S. is stronger economically. But Britain and Canada are stronger politically and culturally for having a monarchy.

After that, we will agree to disagree!

God bless America!

Alex