[jt8d]

"If only we had a benevolent Catholic monarch, like George III, why, none of this would be happening, and, according to jt8d, we'd still be happily bowing to Tony Blair and Elizabeth."

Maybe, Sinkspur, you are being sarcastic; because, if otherwise, then you are demonstrating incredible stupidity.

Was King George III a Catholic King? Was Elizabeth a Catholic Queen? Is Tony Blair Catholic? No, no, and again, no. KGIII and QE were PROTESTANT monarchs. King George III was anything but "benevolent," and precisely because he was NOT IN SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Really, Sinkspur, I expected better from you! A Catholic monarchy is subject to the vicar of Christ, who is subject to God. Therefore, under a truly Catholic King, the people prosper, and they are not victimized by the ravings of a jealous heretic--and his gang of thugs. Tony Blair is not a monarch, neither does he hold any power but for that to which the Parliament gives its assent.

"A real piece of work, this guy!"

Sinkspur, you mix apples and oranges, and then pretend to have come up with lemonade! That IS a "real piece of work" there, "guy."

[sinkspur]

King George III was anything but "benevolent," and precisely because he was NOT IN SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

So, the colonists' rebellion was thoroughly justified? It seems to me, your second treatise railed against the colonists and their "Revolution" against the monarchy.

If not you, then I've read that from your fellow throne-sniffers, who think any rebellion against a king violates some kind of dictum from Jesus.