Posted on 05/08/2011 9:36:55 AM PDT by annalex
I recommend, for starters, Morris Bishop. The Middle Ages. ISBN 0-618-05703-X.
I recommend for starters Cuba, right now. That’s how dictatorships, which is all a monarchy is, work in the REAL world.
A dictator, like Napoleon, may claim a monarchic title. That would be a species of self-proclaimed monarchy. That is usually not recongnized by anyone outside of that monarchy, except for some self-serving reason.
Communist leaders never claim a monarchic status. They never assume real owenrship of the nation's resource, for example. They typically say that they are popularly elected and set up sham elections to justify the continuation of their rule. They derive their power, they say, from the people, whereas a monarch ordinarily understands that he is divinely appointed in charge of the country. Power ina monarchy comes form God. Power in any form of democrachy, e.g. of a communist kind, comes demagogically from the people and in fact is raw military power of coercion.
A monarchy is a form of government in which the head of state reigns by some kind of perceived divine sanction. It is usually hereditary and there is usually only one monarch, though there are significant exceptions to these. The monarch often bears the title king or queen. However, emperors/empresses, grand dukes/grand duchesses, and other ranks, are or have been used to designate monarchs. As explained below, the word monarch means 'single ruler', but cultural and historical considerations would appear to exclude presidents and other heads of state. Historically, the notion of monarchy may emerge under different circumstances.
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator. It has three possible meanings: A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily. A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
May I ask you something? I patiently respond to your posts and substantiate my response with facts and logic. Would you please do the same?
Feudalism was a set of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, which, broadly defined, was a system for ordering society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour. Although derived from the Latin word feodum (fief),[1] then in use, the term feudalism and the system it describes were not conceived of as a formal political system by the people living in the Medieval Period. In its classic definition, by François-Louis Ganshof (1944),[2] feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a "feudal society".The lord held a manor court, governed by public law and local custom.
...
Though not free, villeins were by no means in the same position as slaves: they enjoyed legal rights, subject to local custom, and had recourse to the law, subject to court charges which were an additional source of manorial income.
The American colonies had indeed a valid compaint; in fact my guess is that few monarchists today would take a loyalist position. You should not take their demand for redress of grievances as a prove that in the Middle Ages (the epoque I primarily am oriented toward) there was no concept of such. To the contrary, manorial court was the central governing organ in the local government. See Manor Court
Also note, please, that I substantiate my assertions by reference to material that is neutral in character.
They enjoyed NO legal rights that were not “subject” to “local custom” - local custom being whatever your local Knight Baron or King decided it was.
“feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs”
A Baron owed legal and military obligations to his King - the King owed nothing to the serfs under said Baron.
As I said, and apparently have to repeat -
The idea that “real” separation of powers entails that Baron going to the King (or vice versa) and saying “Your son is out raping peasant women - please put a stop to it!” is delusional.
They didn't care - local custom was that the son of the Aristocracy could do whatever he wanted to the peasant women.
And cutting the guts of a peasant open to warm your hands in his entrails during a cold winter hunt was decidedly frowned upon.
Better get started writing up that hand drawn currency - because other than that I really don't see ANYTHING ELSE OF ANY VALUE coming from you deranged deluded anti-American delusion.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
So again I say to you : GO from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms bootlicker.
No dictatorships are when someone has absolute power. just look at the dictionary.
dictatorship:
absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
monarchy:
supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.
Let’s dig a little deeper into the origin of the word monarch:
“rule by one person,” late 14c., from O.Fr. monarchie , from L.L. monarchia , from Gk. monarkhia “absolute rule,” lit. “ruling of one,” from monos “alone” (see mono-) + arkhein “to rule” (see archon). Meaning “a state ruled by monarchical government” is from early 15c.
You see how words like “absolute” keep appearing in both? Do you understand why? Because all a monarchy is is a form of dictatorship, a brand, a flavor.
Oh look you went to the divine power dodge, just like all the dictators of history. A monarch’s power doesn’t come from God, it comes from the vagina he sprang from. That’s why I keep calling it venereal transfer of power, it’s all about who screwed who, just like syphilis.
I’ve used plenty of facts and logic in my posts, you just don’t like them so you pretend they don’t exist. The facts are that monarchies are dictatorships, and dictatorships aren’t freedom. Sorry the facts disagree with your illusion, but it’s not my problem. Time for you to catch up to thousands of years of recorded human history that tell us that every single non-symbolic monarchy was a dictatorship that exercised abusive rule of the people.
local custom being whatever your local Knight Baron or King decided it was
That is not what "local custom" means.
the King owed nothing to the serfs under said Baron.
The King had obligation of military protection to the baron, who in turn owed it to his villeins and serfs.
And so on. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
You see how words like “absolute” keep appearing in both? Do you understand why? Because all a monarchy is is a form of dictatorship, a brand, a flavor.
Sorry, that is sloppy logic. "Four legs" appear in the definitin do a donkey and a leopard. But donkeys are not leopards and leopards are not donkeys. The two estended definition I showed you explain the difference. The one about the Monarchy also explains that monarchy, while by definition autarchic, is not always absolute. In fact, at the time of our focus, the Middle Ages, monarchies were not absolute.
A monarch’s power doesn’t come from God
Firs,t all good things come from God. I don't know what your religion is, so I don't want to make theological points to someone possible not prepared to listen to them, but the fact remains that a king is always crowned in a public (whel, if possible, public; Frederick II cerowned himself in the abandoned Jerusalem Cathedral) religious ceremony which seeks divine sanction to his rule. You may or may not believe in the power of prayer, but understand that the concept of obedience to the will of God and to the rules of the religion that imformed the monarchy is essential to it.
I keep calling it venereal transfer of power
That intentionally childish tone makes it difficult to converse. The word you are seeking for is "hereditary".
thousands of years of recorded human history that tell us that every single non-symbolic monarchy was a dictatorship
It was always a form of autarchy. Excepting usurpers like Napoleon, it was never a dictatorship. Words mean things. Learn words, and you will prevail in arguments more often.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I didn’t shorten anything. I gave you the dictionary definitions of the word. A monarchy IS absolute sovereignty, and subsequently is autarchy. There are no differences.
There’s nothing sloppy about it. You’re lying to yourself pretending that monarchies aren’t dictatorships, I’m putting forth the truth. All monarchies are dictatorships, period, end of sentence, saying otherwise is denying historical truth.
Good things might come from God but dictatorships aren’t good things. Just because somebody crowned himself in a cathedral doesn’t mean God approved. And it doesn’t mean that anything Frederick II did was in obedience to the will of God. Here you’re piling assumptions upon faith none of which have any relationship to the historical facts of dictators calling themselves kings blessed by God. Out here in reality we don’t know if God likes a particular leader or if that particular leader is following God’s will. All we know is whether or not they’re a dictator. And if they’re a monarch they’re a dictator, again period end of sentence plain historical fact.
It’s not childish, it’s the truth. Again let’s look at the dictionary, venereal:
arising from, connected with, or transmitted through sexual intercourse, as an infection.
And how does a monarchy continue? That’s right, by the right person having sex and begetting the next generation of dictator. Which means it is venereal transfer of power.
Autarchies are dictatorships. Let’s spread out to the thesaurus this time:
Synonyms: autocracy, despotism, dictatorship, monocracy, totalitarianism, tyrannical rule, tyranny
Not a lot of freedom in that list. You’re right about one thing, words do mean things. And the words you’re using mean dictatorship. I know the words very well, if there’s somebody here that needs to do some learning it’s the guy that thinks monarchies make freedom.
Please substantiate your theory given the difference between the two that I outlined in 263.
The “differences” you outlined in 263 are a fiction, they don’t exist, there’s nothing actually there. Everything you list about monarchy is just window dressing, titles and the assumption of divine sanction. You don’t bother to get into how a monarch rules, monarchs rule via a dictatorship, they are the absolute power. Heck you even accidentally admit it in 263 you just didn’t bother to notice. Here’s a key sentence from monarchy:
the word monarch means ‘single ruler’
And from dictatorship:
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator
Kings are dictators. Period. You even said so, though you’ll never admit it.
As a matter of the historic record - Monarchy starts out as a Military Dictatorship.
It doesn’t become a “Monarchy” until someone inherits dictatorial power from his Military Dictator Father.
“Military Dictatorship: Friend of Liberty”
LOL!!!!
Exactly. I think where he falls apart is he believes “divine blessing” most monarchs like to wrap around themselves, and we all know God would never stick us with an evil form of government, so therefore monarchies must be good. Which makes sense IF the king isn’t lying about being chosen by God, but that’s a big if, meanwhile the king still has absolute control just like every other tinpot dictator.
Absolute monarchs have absolute power, and medieval monarchs have divided power, and so are constitutional monarchs, and neither is dictator for the simple reason that the monarchs acquired power legally.
All monarchs are dictators. Stop lying to yourself. If they rule their rule is absolute and therefore they are dictators. The only reason monarchs got their power “legally” is because the first of the line made the laws, he still seized power the same way every other dictator in history has.
there are facts that you willfully ignore. All kings are dictators, saying anything else is living in a fantasy land. You’re not lying from malice but you are lying, most heinously to yourself. Medieval monarchs only divided their power because the technology of the time wouldn’t allow for direct absolute rule over their territory, but every step of he line had absolute power over those below it. Constitutional monarchs are figureheads and mean nothing. Real monarchs that really rule are dictators. that’s the simple truth. This is over until you can open your eyes.
The laws of succession preceded most monarchs, and a more powerful militarily nobleman still was an usurper if he attempted to seize the throne. In contrast to that, a dictator by definition seizes power in violation of the existing law of succession. So, monarchs are legitimate rulers and dictators are not.
Again, having four legs does not make a donkey a leopard nor vice versa.
Mind you, I do not automatically dislike all dictators. For example, General Kornilov (in 1917) was serving a higher purpose when he struck out against the Provisional Government (but, unfortunately failed); so was general Pinochet in Chile seizing power from Alliende. Right wing dictatorships tend to be at times the best solution for the country. But the attraction of monarchy is precisely in that it is legitimate, predictable and durable power of ownership of the national infrastructure, as opposed to the rented pseudo-ownership that occurs in a republic.
Sorry but you’re just plain wrong. The law of succession can ONLY exist IF you have a monarch. Saying it preceded them is just plain lying. The first of any chain of monarchs was ALWAYS a userper of some sort, that how you get power. That’s why your distinction between monarchs and dictator is quite simply a lie. They are the same thing. Stop lying. It’s pathetic.
Al monarchs are dictators, all people that are pro-monarchy are dictator apologists, all people that think monarchies help freedom are deluded liars. Good bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.