Posted on 01/11/2015 4:36:11 PM PST by annalex
Must you be crass to make a point?
The Reformers played up the power of kings as a way of opposing that of the Pope. But none of them ever considered the king to be absolute.
BTW, the notion of absolutism drew heavily on medieval notions of the Emperor/King as a delegate of God. Also on Roman notions of imperial power. Even Byzantine ideas, in which the Emperor was supreme in both church and state.
Both Catholics and Protestants tended to play up royal power and right to rule when the King was of their religion, and develop theories justifying resistance when he was not.
The world, nearly all of it, got along with kings for nearly all of history, until very recent times.
Kings were not unused to opposition. It was expected and normal in nearly all times and places that kings tolerated dissent, unless it directly threatened public order or the monarchy. An intelligent king understood very well that he only existed through the aquiesence of the people and the powerful, and that his position was tied directly to his support for his peoples customs, which included everything we consider “natural rights”. This is why kings were constantly busy adjudicating conflicts of complex local rights. Custom made the king, so the king upheld custom.
Its a decent argument that the kings began to fall when “ scientific”, centralized bureaucratic government came in, with people like Louis XIV’s Colbert. The bureacracy eventually grew, displaced local rights, marginalized the aristocrats and made them useless extravagances, and the royal bureaucracy became hated, one of the direct causes of the French Revolution (see Hyppolite Taine). Ironically the bureaucracy, hated Royal institution, survived because it was just as useful to the “democratic” politicians.
My view (and it only my opinion which I don’t expect anyone to share) on it is that the French Revolution was the precursor of Marxism, Nazism and the general collapse of European society.
The revolutionaries in France systematically pulled their society out by the roots and attempted to create a utopian replacement. Didn’t work of course though some things (such as the metric system) stuck. The destruction they did also abided. And, sadly, probably inevitably, the French Revolution led to the rapid rise of the prototypical Euro-tyrant — Napoleon.
As capable as Napoleon was, he and the Revolution set a very poor example for future generations of Europeans. On one hand social upheaval became philosophically permissible and on the other so did acceptance of dictators who possessed no claim to legitimacy other than as a preferable alternative to the anarchy the upheaval inevitably inflicted.
The gradual collapse of the old orders did not lead to social improvement. Nations of the continent would have done well to follow the British example of a constitutional monarchy.
I won’t go into the Crimean war in any detail except to point out that it was rooted primarily on the long standing conflict between the Russians and the Moslems. And to note that a quiet period followed until the rise of Prussia with its twin victories over Austria and France — and the creation of the German Empire.
Europe didn’t really need a German Empire, especially coming as late as it did in the industrial revolution. It was bad news all around.
Could a sustained, legitimate and (ideally) Constitutional Monarchy on the British model in France have prevented the creation of a German Empire? We’ll never know. But Napoleon’s nephew and his faux revival of Imperial glory certainly could not.
We all know what followed. The disastrous First World War, the sudden collapse of three Empires, the rise of Nazism and Communism, WWII, the most unfortunate collapse of the British Empire, the Cold War, global chaos and a general decline in social stability and values.
And again it’s just my view. Just ruminating, really.
To be fair, European history from 1815 to 1914 was probably the most peaceful period in its entire history. Most of Europe was ruled by monarchs throughout this period.
The truly drastic collapse of Europe didn't really start till WWI.
It had some influence, but the major precursor of Marxism was the Paris Commune.
“And again it’s just my view. Just ruminating, really.”
And are you digesting in each of your tummies before regurgitating on this thread?
No, I don’t intend on repeating myself.
I think a better way to put it would be that traditional European society, based on aristocracy, was doomed to fall apart. Marx was entirely correct that it was incompatible with industrial society.
With a little less idiocy on the part of the aristos and a little less impatience on the part of the intellectuals, Europe could conceivably have had a "soft landing" rather than a crash.
Inbred Bourbon moron.
Inbred Bourbon moron.
Well, yeah, but then the Commune was a concsious attempt to redo the Revolution of 1789 and get it right.
Napoleon III was deposed as emperor in 1870 following the his personal defeat by the Prussians at Sedan, and the general defeat of France. The Bourbons were offered the throne, but refused what would have been a constitutional monarchy. So but for the hard headedness of the would be Henry V, France would have been a monarchy at the onset of the First World War.
The current heir to the French throne, quoted here, is from the House of Orleans. They last held the throne until deposed by the ‘Occupy Paris’ crowd in 1848.
To find the roots of Marxism in the French Revolution is not a new thing at all. It has been the conventional wisdom in leftist circles since the early 19th century.
Heck, the first Communist theme song was the “Marseillaise” (even the Russian Bolsheviks sang it), the “ Internationale” came later.
In 1871 the French elected a great majority of royalists to the Assembly, but they were split between Legitimists and Orleanists. Unable to agree on a King, they sort of drifted into a republic by default.
Thanks for shedding some light on this prince.
Piss off
Sorry, I meant “piss off wanker”.
Do other European nobles still take religion seriously? It was my understanding that by and large they don't.
Any relation to the notorious Jacobin Duc d'Orleans?
“There’s always a few dumb asses left I guess.”
What’s that saying about people who live in glass houses again?
“Does anyone there actually believe that divine right exists and that God has picked a monarch?”
Does anyone in this thread think the OP has anything to do with Renaissance or Enlightenment era political theories?
“And anyway, I don’t think he’s right.”
Okiedokie.
“He is just mad because his religion was probably lampooned too.”
That’s not what he says.
“Jerks like this “nobleman” (whatever THAT is) would prefer moslems not be laughed at as long as it protected HIS religion too.”
No. He says, “Charlie Hebdo is a vulgar paper, despising all opinions except its own, which, under the guise of freedom of expression, will allow provocative behavior to all. Charlie Hebdo is an aggressive newspaper that produces hatred of religions through its, supposedly, humor. Charlie Hebdo is the very image of the European atheist society which creates enmity and distress instead of respect and brotherhood among peoples and men, regardless of their differences, race, color, religion.”
Quite frankly, conservatives, have complained about the vulgar little rag that Charlie Hebdo is for years. I think the terrorist attack was wrong, of course. I also think that Charlie Hebdo was a vulgar rag - which is undeniable.
“A total low life.”
Okay, so let me see if I understand you. You’re saying that d’Orleans is a “low life” because he refuses to get caught up in a largely left wing “unity” campaign because he thinks it white washes the fact that the focus of that “unity” is a left wing, vulgar, atheistic rag? Really?
“He has more in common with ISIS than he does Americas founders and the enlightenment.”
Actually, no. He is not denying that Charlie Hebdo had the freedom to publish what they published. He is simply saying that there was nothing worthy to the magazine. It was trash. And he’s right. That’s why he wrote: “Words fail to tell the horror of the attack that hit the newspaper. I condemn this barbaric act and present to families and relatives of the deceased my deepest condolences.”
“The next cartoons should be aimed at this clown.”
Why? Because he exercised his right to free speech just like they did? Again, what’s that saying about people who live in glass houses?
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.