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

[Louis Epstein]

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.