Re: Are you ready to vote Howard out this Saturday?

[David]

On Nov 27, 10:08 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
> In alt.talk.royalty David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:
> : On Nov 23, 6:50 pm, Donald4564 <dbi...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> :
> :> You might like to also check on some facts. England experimented with
> :> a republican government from 1649-1660 and wholeheartedly restored the
> :> monarchy in 1660.
> :
> : I think "half-heartedly" is more like it, and that the subsequent
> : history of the monarchy bears that out. Moreover, the "republican
> : government" of 1649-1660 was a military dictatorship headed up by a
> : generalissimo, and not a republic even in the sense in which
> : contemporary republics (like the United Provinces of the Netherlands)
> : understood the term.
> :
> : The more-or-less democratically elected parliament of 1642 had been
> : much reduced, by expulsions and defections, by 1648, to the point
> : where it was dominated by a majority of a minority. Even this
> : minority parliament was insufficiently radical for the unelected Army;
> : and when it looked as if the parliament might reinstate the King, on
> : terms that would give parliamentary leaders free control of policy and
> : choice of cabinet ministers (much like the current situation in the
> : UK), the Army chiefs, led by Cromwell, kicked out all but the most
> : radical Parliamentarians and cut the King's head off in what was, by
> : any legal criteria but the law of might makes right, an illegal
> : proceeding. A new wave of civil war followed, which was competently
> : and brutally enough suppressed by Cromwell; and following the
> : reestablishment of peace, he suppressed the last remnants of the
> : parliament of '42. Handpicked assemblies, without any democratic
> : element to their selection, offered Cromwell powers equal to or
> : greater than a King's -- and he accepted everything but the name.
> :
> : When Cromwell died five years later, and his weaker son was ousted by
> : a military coup, many people reasoned thus: "One way or another, we
> : seem destined to end up under monarchical rule. If this is so, why
> : not choose the heir by blood? At least under the old constitutional
> : regime we knew what our rights, and the King's obligations, were.
> : Under these new dispensations and Instruments of Government, we have
> : no established rights and can be deprived of our freedoms at any time
> : by this rapacious soldiery."
> :
> : With that in mind, the monarchy was (after many political twists and
> : turns, and largely due to Charles II's amenability to compomise)
> : restored as a limited, constitutional monarchy, hemmed in though not
> : (as yet) strictly controlled by Parliament. But the acceptance of
> : Charles II's rule was not "whole-hearted" -- rather, it soon developed
> : an opposition faction and the development of the first true party
> : politics in the history of England. The Revolution of '88, and the
> : Hanoverian Succession of '14, showed that the attachment of the
> : Restoration elite was not to the persons of the Stuart monarchs, but
> : to a monarchical system within which an oligarchic form of government,
> : making use of, but not controlled by monarchic authority, could be
> : established. Democratic elements did not appear in the system until
> : the 19th century, and then were only established gradually; in
> : between, the British state was governed by aristocratic factions who
> : used the facade of elections, manipulated by themselves, to legitimize
> : their claims to authority, rather than deriving their authority from
> : the results of free elections.
>
> Authority can only derive from the Divine Right of a Monarchy;
> a government can only derive its EFFECTIVENESS from the consent
> of the governed.A government's responsibility is to act for the
> BENEFIT of,not ON BEHALF of,those it governs...as a subordinate
> of their desires it can not perform its duty of subordinating
> their desires to their needs.
>
> Republicanism is fundamentally illogical and should not exist.
>
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

I'm highly impressed by your ALL CAPITALS, Louis, indeed, they shine
so blindingly bright that I cannot see anything else. I may need some
help in interpreting the meaning of EFFECTIVENESS BENEFIT ON BEHALF,
though; it's slightly cryptic, though intriguing.

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.talk.royalty David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:

:>
:
: I'm highly impressed by your ALL CAPITALS, Louis, indeed, they shine

: so blindingly bright that I cannot see anything else. I may need some
: help in interpreting the meaning of EFFECTIVENESS BENEFIT ON BEHALF,
: though; it's slightly cryptic, though intriguing.

Apply yourself assiduously to the study of my writings,
and comprehension may one day dawn upon you.

:> -=-=-

[jel...@bigpond.com]

> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

'Authority can only derive from the Divine Right of a Monarchy"

And I thought it was only the young blokes in white shirts and black
ties who knock on my door that I had to worry about.