3.4.08

The prostitute that calls itself 'democracy'!

IrishTory's Blog had this interesting article. Here I thought I was the most vocal monarchist, I was wrong. I like this guy...

I got a comment to the Onion News Network satire bellow, the poster the self named 'Dirty European Socialist' stated Democracy is always better the monarchy.

I would disagree, I am unaware of the British queen's wealth, and see that as irrelevant to the issue of whether someone is a monarchist or not.

The problem with politicians is that they seek office, that those who do so are by nature odd, egotistical and usually desire money as well as power, so once in a position of power seek to enrich themselves at our expense, I believe that Elizabeth II inherited much of her wealth and has invested wisely over the past 50 + years resulting in her very healthy bank account.

The 17 billion quoted is something I am unaware of and am not certain whether this includes such places as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace which belong to the Crown and not personally to Elizabeth Windsor.The strength of monarchy is exactly that it is an accident of birth, more...

Thanks to the Irish Tory...

Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny

4 comments:

dirty european socialist: said...

I dissagree. The fact she gained such a postition as an accident shows how insane it is. Would you appoint your plumber by accident.
Egotism is perfectly decent justification to do a job well.
No would say Pele was terrible because he had the ego or ambition to be a good football player.
And what makes you so sure she does not have an ego. Look at the coutresying and bowing she expects from people. Far more than any presidentor PM.
She is far wealthier than even the most corrupt and greedy MPs in the house of commons.

de Brantigny said...

Ah, class warfare. If there is not class warfare where would the socialist be?

You say it were an accident of birth, I say it is Gods will.

http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2007/11/democracy-is-unsupportable.html

Sieur de Brantigny

dirty european socialist said...

How can you speak for God?
And if that is the case of divine intervention then why did so many kings kill eacthother?

The princes in the tower.
Why did the Duke retire over his divorce?
How can God have chosen the king when the Charles the first of England and Sctoland played religions against eachother. There was no religious consistency there.
Where is there evidence that it was God's will. I might as well argue that presidents have divine intervnetion and the current PM was chosen. I could just as easily argue that Satan chose the queen. Whereis my prooth.

de Brantigny said...

I do not presume to speak for God, and you?

Which Kings? Why is it that the liberal faction uses vague references to make a point. Is it because the liberal view point operates only on emotion and disregards reason?

You wrote:
How can God have chosen the king when the Charles the first of England and Sctoland played religions against eachother. There was no religious consistency there.

Once more you have made a statement without reference. I do not believe you.

Charles I son James II did write this: "Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment, so no misgovernment on the part of a King can release his subjects from their allegiance."

The princes in the tower. (?) I am not sure of the ones you are speaking of but I assume that you mean the ones supposedly murdered by Richard III, Edward V of England and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury. I may argue that richard attmepte to sieze the throne, it was not his by right and his crime ended in his death on Bosworth field.

The Dukes Divorce (?) to my knowledge he was not crowned Edward the King. In any event Henry VIII was King and he divorced, killed anulled or out lived 5 of his 6 wives. So what?

Presidents are not chosen by God. "The king is not a mere man, but he is representative of God on Earth, that life individuals must guard above their own. Kings are responsible to God for using their power to advance the public good. This is absolute authority for kings, since no man is able to to deminish the king's ability to pass judgment on matters of good and evil. The king is accountable only to God for this judgment."* Presidents on the other hand are swayed from right thinking by the every political breeze which vents.
Since they have no responsibility to God hey are more willing to do those things which are offensive. As a socialist you must know that the most represive regimes have been socialist regimes. two of which Stalin and Hitler. from the Union of Soviet Socialist republics, and the other National Socialist German Workers Party. Both of which are leftist.

The Queen, where you are at in London, does reign by divine right even though her ancestors wrongly devested themselves of that right. Now she is reduced to a mere figurehead. Pity.

I find these arguements spurious.

Vive le Roy.
De Brantigny

*Bossuet.
http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2008/04/jacques-bnigne-bossuet.html