With her 18ft Robe of State draped around her and wearing the Diamond Diadem we see on stamps, the Queen sits in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace
One reason I suppose is because monarchy is in the natural order of things. A republic is more or less an interlude between monarchies –or between a monarchy and anarchy. Sometimes I don’t know which. Monarchies after all have an easier time of it. Old Ben Franklin –probably the wisest of our Founding Fathers–was right to answer the lady outside of Liberty Hall in Philadelphia who asked him what kind of government those fifty-five men had given us: “A Republic ma’am, if you can keep it.”
In the meantime, please take the time to re-read the following essay, which I published a little over three years ago. I decided to revive it, seeing how this is a momentous week in the history of Britain’s monarchy. As you may know, on Wednesday, Sept 9th, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II became Great Britain’s longest reigning sovereign, beating her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria’s record.
To be sure, Victoria reigned during the United Kingdom’s apogee (quite possibly the summit of Western Civilization) whereas her great-great-granddaughter hasn’t been so lucky. Still, echoes of grandeur emanate from her persona. And native Englishmen feel a bond to her that is hard to emulate in other countries.
I wish I could enunciate why this is so but sometimes words get in the way. It’s often a feeling. Perhaps instead of a learned exegesis, it would be better to just paint a picture so to speak. Thanks to the miracle of photography, that’s not hard to do.
Be immersed in the colors and pageantry of Christian monarchy and knighthood. Is there an Orthodox take-away from this story? Yes. The tiara that Her Majesty is wearing is not the Crown of Scotland (which can only be removed from Edinburg Castle by the Duke of Hamilton) but the tiara of Princess Vladimir, aunt of the God-pleasing Tsar-martyr Nicholas II.
Enjoy.
Monarch of the Glen: This astonishing photo of the Queen was taken at her beloved Balmoral and marks the 60th anniversary of her Coronation. Robert Hardman tells the behind-the-scenes story
Source: UK Daily Mail | Robert Hardman
The face is the most familiar on the planet, reproduced on more coins, notes and stamps than any human likeness in history. But it is safe to say that we have never seen Her Majesty the Queen pictured quite like this. Not only is she in the full and elaborate regalia of her most exclusive order of chivalry but she is standing in the middle of nowhere.
No trick photography has taken place. There has been no digital enhancement by some special effects boffin. This spectacular image of the Sovereign – published in Weekend for the very first time – really is the Queen, standing next to a remote stream called Gelder Burn on her Balmoral Estate.
She is dressed in the green velvet mantle of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, the Scottish counterpart to England’s Order of the Garter. From her shoulders, held by white satin ties, hangs the Collar of the Order made of golden thistles and rue sprigs, from which, in turn, hangs a tiny St Andrew and his saltire cross.
Her majesty, Scotland’s chief of the chiefs, wears her mantle as sovereign of the most ancient and most noble order of the thistle
First published in 1999 as Keepers Of The Kingdom, this Coronation edition is a new and more extensive assembly of the great, the good, the obscure and the downright eccentric. But all have an official part to play in the panoply of public life.
Some are world famous and wield great power; others retain little more than the right to process in an ancient costume once in a blue moon. They range from the Monarch and the Master of the Rolls to a vicar’s son who is the hereditary Lord High Admiral of the Wash and the Royal Falconer.
The authors have certainly enjoyed astonishing access for a book that makes Who’s Who look like a telephone directory. Among those who have agreed to be photographed – in both the right dress or uniform and in the right location – are the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke of Cambridge, the Prime Minister and the highest echelons of the Establishment right down to the MP, the JP, the Royal Watermen and the Hornblower of Ripon.
No trick photography has taken place. There has been no digital enhancement by some special effects boffin. This spectacular image of the Sovereign – published in Weekend for the very first time – really is the Queen
But it is the Queen who forms the most striking contribution to the book with several portraits of her in different roles. We see her (overleaf) as the quintessential Sovereign, fully robed and wearing the Diamond Diadem (the one she wears on the stamps). The symbols of her authority, the Imperial State Crown and the Sword of State, have been extracted from the Tower specially for this photograph and laid out next to her. The crown has a sapphire in the top cross, which came from Edward the Confessor’s ring, while below it hang Elizabeth I’s pearl earrings.
The Queen looks delighted as she sits there, her 18ft Robe of State draped almost jauntily over the throne – used when she made her oath during the Coronation 60 years ago – as if she has just finished a particularly jolly day’s reigning.
But the authors wanted to highlight some of the Queen’s traditional if less prominent roles, like Queen of Scots (a pre-Union title) and the wonderfully evocative Chief of the Chiefs. The exact origins of the latter are lost in the mists of Scotland’s tribal clan system but it underlines the distinct nature of monarchy north of the border.
The Queen at her desk at Balmoral. In front of her is a touching photograph of her as a young girl with her father, while behind her is a cuddly toy corgi and a Bakelite telephone which has no numbers as it connects directly to the switchboard
‘It’s why I was so keen to see Her Majesty in her Thistle robes and in the Scottish landscape but it was raining stair-rods on the day,’ recalls Alastair Bruce (who serves as Sky’s unflappable commentator on state occasions when he is not historical adviser to Downton Abbey).
‘Then, as the allotted hour approached, the skies cleared and the Queen not only agreed to go outside but also to be photographed at a spot I had picked 25 minutes away. So we drove up to Gelder Burn and passed a family out for a walk who were just astonished to see the Queen passing by in all this regalia. There was no time to set up the shot but it was this magical moment – hardly a breath of wind and no midges.’
[…]
Read the rest of the article on the UK Daily Mail website.
George,
I respect American republicanism in its historical aspect but I was born and have grown up as a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As such I would find it as impossible to renounce my allegiance to her as to renounce my own mother. It is, as you say, not a matter of learned exegesis so much as a matter of feeling that goes beyond words, but true none the less.
Basil, given that I’m American, did I get the spirit right in your opinion? I hope so as I’m not anti-monarchist. I’ve read similar things about the Russian monarchy and how that office infused the land with an even more devoted spirit. That’s one reason why the brutal murder of the Tsar and his family tainted the republican regime that followed. (And I use the word “republican” guardedly.)
The 17th century, after the Times of Trouble, was the golden age as far as the Russian monarchy was concerned. And then came Peter the Great (at upchucking the cart).
Yes, I think the spirit is right, George, and the pic is sublime.
Sadly, the notion of a Christian monarchy is hardly understood anymore in the UK.
Of course, people love the pomp and pageantry, but the awareness of the significance of the monarchy is dimming.
George: Riots and protests have erupted in Istanbul. The Government of Turkey has called the protests illegal. The government has sent in trained riot police with tear gas, water cannons and are now moving in busting heads. This looks like it will last a while. The military is not moving in right now to back the government.
Is the Patriarchate safe? Will the Patriarch speak out on this situation?
The Patriarchate hasn’t been safe for 500 years. Used to be, they’d just hang one when it was thought time for a change.
First, let me say that I’m of the American opinion that the Brits, the Bulgarians, the Scandinavians, the Serbs, the Belgians, the Spaniards, the Russians and everyone else do not need a monarchy. That said, you might not been aware there is no PRINCESS Vladimir, however, one of the sons of Alex II is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duke_Vladimir_Alexandrovich_of_Russia
This particular Vlado has an issue who is top contender for reviving the Russian throne. He was known for not getting along terribly well with Nicholas II. Some of Nicholas II’s policies are not in the God Pleasing category, although martyrdom always is.
I cannot imagine waxing so nostalgic that I would think it appropriate to idol worship a very expensive Queen or celebrate the fact that she wears a Russian crown from time to time. I hope you are not one of those Greeks nostalgically wishing the Saxe Coberg Gothas to show up and rule Greece iin some kind of Venezelist militarist struggle.
Things fade away. and for the fading away of some of them, i am grateful. There is one Brit store I used to visit from time to time in the city of Wye, MD, named for the English city of the same name and famous for its oak tree. It had all sorts of dust catchers to which various stickers of Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana had been affixed along with various edible and drinkable products that the kind of people who wax nostalgic tend to associate with Britain and the Raj, i.e. various kinds of biscuits, various sorts of Indian teas, MSG (an American culinary iinvention) in the flavoring mix named Vegeta, and various almost inedible spreads for white bread toast, including potted liver pates almost French, pimento spreads and Vegemite from Australia. Nothing from Canada, of course. Not only is the shop history, but so’s the Wye Oak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wye_Oak
The costs, BTW, of the British Monarchy, are not covered by income of their own estates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family
Your’s is not an unconsidered opinion. However the costs of the British monarchy are inconsequential when compared to our own imperial presidency. It wasn’t supposed to happen like that.
If I may: republicanism is a difficult form of government. It can only remain legitimate as long as the people (or at least its ruling class) remain virtuous. Otherwise it will succumb to anarchy, then tyranny, then out of the rubble, whatever is left, monarchy. (preferably with a peerage and church to add cultural ballast.)
The real danger of republicanism is that really it lapses into oligarchy. Autocracy can be a beautiful thing when restricted by the power of the Church and when the rulers are both good and competent.
Almost any form of government is fine if power is restricted by the Church and the rulers are good and competent.
We have just the opposite. A corrupt oligarchy fueled by ideological secular politics that is busy creating its own morality in direct opposition to the moral and social teachings of the Church.
Thus we have wars abroad and deep divides at home both of which are fanned by the demagogues who run for public office and adroitly managed for political gain by the Machiavellian bureaucrats who run the show with neither conscience nor accountability.
A real republic requires several things we have not had in a long time: a relatively small, homogeneous, educated, engaged populace guided by a consensus political philosophy that places real limits on the power of government and holds those in government accountable.
Even with the ethereal stipulation that the rulers “be restricted by the Church, and are both good and competent”, it is hard to think of autocracy as a “beautiful thing”.
For the sake of argument, though, I agree that it can be a fine thing when all of those conditions are met; something that might happen every 7 generations or so as we look back to our myriad of vanished autarchies, and our several remaining ones.
On the other hand, a republic can be a beautiful thing where the leaders are pious, moral, learned, good, and competent, too. Indeed, any of us can be beautiful when we have assembled those characteristics.
But then, that’s the hard part, isn’t it?
Consider:
Then consider the additional costs of the monarchy as outlined in the article which I will not ennumerate here. These individuals are expensively guarded by the military and that is just the start
and reread the last line of the article:
Step 4 of subsection 6(1), and subsection 6(4), of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 provide a mechanism to prevent the amount of the Sovereign Grant increasing beyond what is necessary because of the growth in Crown Estate revenue.
Also, to say that the various peoples you cited “do not need a monarchy,” is presumptuous. I used to believe so then I got to reminiscing about the Greece of today versus the Greece of the pre-Junta period. My sister sent me some photographs of Greek like in the 60s and it was so different from today. Unbelievable actually.
I’m not a conspiracist but I can’t help but shake the feeling that the destruction of Christian monarchy was a necessary precondition for the reign of the Antichrist. For all poverty and suffering that Greece endured because of WWII and the immediate aftermath, the Greek people had a dignity about them and ordered their lives in a Christian manner. Today it’s anarchy.
I know this sounds far-fetched to those of us who come from an “Enlightenment” background, but this same paradigm existed in Imperial Russia. The people (the natives anyway) considered the Tsar as their “Little Father” and fought ferociously against the foreign-imposed Bolshevik regime. Were the Russians better off under the Bolshies? Just because Stan the Tran seems to think so doesn’t make it so.
Forgive the ramble.
But the Bolsheviks weren’t the only possibility, by any means.
The Wikipedia article says the opposite: The Crown Estates bring in 200 million pounds, far more than the cost to the public of the monarchy. This doesn’t even account for the revenue brought in through additional tourism.
A careful reading of the Wiki article would not let you come to your conclusion. Consider:
Then consider the additional costs of the monarchy as outlined in the article which I will not enumerate here. These individuals are expensively guarded by the military and that is just the start. A lack of transparency has led to recent changes.
and reread the last line of the article:
Certainly it will let me come to that conclusion! You quoted the part about the crown estates as if that were an expense to the public. Rather, it is a source of revenue that is given by the crown to the state in exchange for the state providing maintenance. Even the highest estimates of the cost of the monarchy are less than the amount that the crown puts into the coffers annually.
The highest estimate of the annual cost (which includes all the military protection, etc) is £184 mil. The Crown Estates bring in £200 mil annually, so there’s at least a net gain of £16 million annually, probably more.
How much does the USA spend to guard the President.?
The Vladimir Tiara belonged to Princess Diana. Don’t know how Queen Elizabeth got it back after Diana’s death.
http://www.internetstones.com/grand-duchess-vladimir-tiara-queen-mary-elizabeth-ii.html
Note that the tiara was bought for the equivalent of about a million pounds sterling today by Qeen Elizabeth’s grandmother from the daughter of its creator
I thought I’d look up the Vladimir tiara so loved by the granddaughter of the Queen who bought it and noticed the following, that the diamond and pearl tiara given by Queen Elizabeth to Diana was another diamond and pearl tiara, the Cambridge Lover’s Knot Tiara, not the Vladimir. And, upon her divorce from Prince Charles, it was returned to the Queen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Personal_Jewel_Collection_of_Elizabeth_II
Still, my point is that a tiara does not endow upon its wearer any religious significance. We put not our trust in princes, in sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.
More power, more corruption (in a lot of different contexts). Perhaps that is why I too love the British monarchy – they have no power beyond the power of persuasion and the power of presence. No more ‘lop off their heads’ … just cut the ribbon in two and pat the babies on the cheek.
Uggggh . . . if that’s all monarchy has been reduced to – cut the ribbon in two and pat the babies on the cheek . . . well, then one might as well get rid of monarchy. Anyone can do that.
For what it is worth there is something natural/organic in the idea of monarchy. It has it’s earliest roots no doubt in the village chieftain, and somewhat later as a chief of chiefs in an alliance/amalgamation of related villages. And the idea of the chief of a village, or villages or tribes doubtless is rooted even further back in human history…perhaps even prehuman history in what the Latins called the pater familias, the father/head of the family. Monarchy is therefore an extension of the authority of the ancient family father to all the descendants of that family and their subjects so that one particular father/father figure is understood to be THE father of the whole extended family…the nation (from “natus”…those who have been born/descendants). Nowadays we might as well say parent since has not been an exclusively male prerogative for a long time. But that is incidental. The essential point is that in early days a king, a monarch, had the role of being the father/parent to his people and governed within that context. When he rallied the nation for war or had to execute justice against one of his people, the awareness was there, this is my blood, these are my kinsmen, however distant.
The head of the family was also the chief priest of the family. Thus we have the lineages of priest kings of the ancient world from Egypt to China. This was true even in ancient Rome and its civil rites, some of which had to be renegotiated when St. Constantine became the Emperor. With this priestly function came a variety of rites and responsibilities that fused with the executive (and often judicial and legislative) functions of governance. Thus it was that in various cultures such as the Medes and Persians the word of the king was sacred, and hence law…which even he had to abide by since the “law” as the word of the king cannot be broken.
It is this aspect of monarchy that raises the interesting question of who was going to make a Persian king keep his word as law if he didn’t want to. It is in answering that question we discover the difference between a monarch and a despot/dictator. There are checks, though not always strong ones, on the whims of the monarch, at least when they are in formal governance mode. They live at the center of a culture with its rites and responsibilities…its duties. In addition most monarchal civilizations retained some version of the counsel of village elders, the body of heads of families of the people/tribe, the other chiefs over whom the monarch was chief. In Rome this was the senate (old ones). In theory, if not always in practice, to some degree the monarch was accountable to them. He had to court them to an extent, keep the majority, at least the strongest in his camp, else he was a hollow king whom few respected and fewer actively followed. In short , monarchs, in principle, had real constraints on their rule.
An extreme example of this constraint was found among the Aztecs of modern Mexico. They considered their laws and customs to be more binding on their aristocracy than on the little guy, the peasants. What indiscretion would earn peasant a fine or lashes would be a death sentence for one of the aristocracy. The idea was that the aristocracy were granted a life of privilege and freedom from want, and part of the responsibility associated with that privilege was to always set a good example lest the lower classes be made to resent (and rebel against) the upper classes through the injustice of aristocrats getting a pass on keeping law and order for themselves. In similar vein there is an old Persian story of an unjust judge whose deeds became known to the king. He was not happy for his courts were supposed to dispense his justice in his name…and when judges were corrupt, the name and reputation of the king were sullied among the people. That was dangerous. So the king took this unjust judge and had him skinned alive, then he had that skin tanned and used to reupholster the judge’s stool of that district, and since judgeships were hereditary by Persian custom at that time, the king presented the judge’s stool to the man’s eldest son with these words, “Remember where you sit.”
My point is I suppose is that monarchy is not a construct, an intellectual premise of government, in the way that ours and following variations of democratic and republican/soviet governments have been. Monarchies are rooted in the history of a people. They are organic to a people, and serve at their best as reminders however large a nation grows, that they are indeed a nation…one people who share common descent from time out of mind. Monarchies as an institution are thus inextricably united to a people’s sense of national identity. And even with the most unjust of monarchs, the law is never permitted to become legal machinery that operates without the evidence of human input or human constraint (which is only to say it remains a human instrument, not necessarily a justly used instrument). About the last vestige of that we have in the US is our jury system which in principle can keep the law human by nullifying its letter to better uphold it’s spirit.
Monarchies thus stand in distinction to the twin tyrannies of despotism and bureaucratism. One rules solely by the power of his sword, the other by the power of ten thousand paper cuts. For all the troubles that have come to humanity because of monarchal systems, they have still proven more durable and adaptable over the ages than other forms of government. There is something to be said about the virtue of aristocracy, about the virtues of elitism, about the strength of a cultural core centered on a monarchy. All these things can be and have been abused in every way imaginable…but like fatherhood, the existence of bad fathers does not delegitimize the institution with the strength and stability, and general welfare promoted by the efforts of good fathers. I think this is simply because monarchies and their attendance institutions are natural to us and are best for us on the whole. Granted in a fallen world of fallen men, even monarchs need their own institutional and cultural checks and balances, but with those in place a monarchy has much to recommend it.
For America though, it’s too late, pragmatically. We are now a minority majority nation and I doubt the majority of any group at this juncture, even my own (Anglo-Celtic with touches of Swedish, French and German way back there) would be willing to go back under the English Crown (or the Scottish one for that matter). If anything, America (as a governmental system) reminds me of nothing so much as the great beast in the Apocalypse of St. John. It was unlike all the other beasts (monarchies) that came before it. It came up out of the waters (often symbolic in Scripture of the multitudes of nations and peoples), it had two tiny horns like a lamb but spoke with the voice of the dragon…just saying.
As Orthodox I think there is a strain of thought…perhaps a sinew even that has a warm, respectful feeling towards monarchies. As American Orthodox we seize, perhaps romantically upon various Tsar Martyrs, Holy Confessors, and numerous Saints of aristocratic origin and look to them as models and justifications for aristocratic and monarchal institutions. We even look at Queen Elizabeth II and her predecessor a couple of generations prior, Queen Victoria as model monarchs in many respects, calm, dignified, unflappable, regal and Christian…and at least with English monarchy we warm to the Orthodox in their family tree. We are prone to forget some of the bad things that happened even under Tsar Martyrs, and the excesses that can accrue such as gathered round the many Louis of France. So that knowledge should temper…though I don’t think it should undo/diminish those warm feelings.
Finally, I’ll draw this odd ramble to a close by reflecting on a monastic prophecy I came across once several years ago. It had to do with Islamist incursions into Europe, some time after the destruction of Rome. As I recall a good king is supposed to arise and lead the fight against these forces, and will emerge victorious in the end. There are other variations on this that can be found other places from various ancient saintly monastics across the centuries…but what I found of particular interest in this one is that this king is supposed to be the last of the Bourbons and his name will be Phillip. It is interesting because the present last of the Bourbon kings is Juan Carlos of Spain. His wife is Sophia, a Greek royal…cousin, I think to Prince Phillip, the Royal Consort of Queen Elizabeth II….anyway, their son’s name is Philipe’. Just kinda makes you go hmmm.
Dear Seraphim98,
In your comment you wrote:
I also recall reading a similar monastic prophecy. I don’t recall the source. Perhaps you do? I have been searching for it and unable to locate it. Thank you in advance.
What makes me go hmmm is the legend that the last of the Bourbons will come to Dixie, revivify the dormant aristocratic dreamers, and, acclaimed by them, will lead the South to rise again!
Bad things happened under some of the Tsars? Say it ain’t so! I won’t hear of it…..
I was unaware the family line of the Gallant General Robert E. Lee was drawn from the Bourbon font…though doubtless fonting bourbon has visited the bloodlines of innumerable Lee’s in liquid or Barbecue form since then. Didn’t you know true sons of the south put out their knapsacks every Enlistment Eve awaiting a visitation from the General to take their enlistment into the cause and reprovision them for the fight for liberty that is as sure to come as Jubilee Morning. And as a gesture of good will, a plate of oatmeal cookies are always set on the front porch for the General and Traveler to share on their moon lit rounds.
For a sip of bourbon and some oatmeal cookies I’m game. Where do I sign? The cookies do have cinnamon…right? I’m not doing this without cinnamon in my cookies. A fella has his limits ya know.
Since I am related to the Lees and have ancestry from Kentucky (both kinds – the native and the interlopers) I can say, that euro royals don’t get even one sip of our native American bourbon, the best in the world, lessen they be of our native stock. Even then, they only get a tiny half a shot, and even then, not during the fast. Moderation!
Corn is a native American product and despite the French naming a county after their royals, there ain’t no corn in France and we ain’t got no royals in America. We got a lot of folks with fantasies and pretensions, howsomever..
Just so, so?!
I can subscribe to that salutary ritual. Put me down for a bottle!
Aren’t you being facetious? I believe I have a better chance of being related to Robert E. Lee than any link between the Lees and the Bourbons. And no, I’m not being facetious at all.
(And yes, I get the joke . . . )
There’s actually a pretty good link between the Lees and the Bourbons. Robert E. Lee’s wife (and thus all his children) were pretty close descendants of Charles II of England, who was the grandson of Henry IV of France, the first Bourbon king of France.
Henry IV of France
V
Henrietta Marie of France
V
Charles II of England
V
Charlotte FitzRoy (illegitimate daughter of Charles II)
V
Charlotte Lee
V
Charles Calvert
V
Benedict Swingate Calvert
V
Eleanor Calvert
V
George Washington Parke Custis
V
Mary Anna Custis (wife of Robert E. Lee)
V
George W. C. Lee (son of Robert E. Lee)
Any descendant of Marse Robert is a friend of mine!
One can only dream…
To have a Christian Monarch the putative monarch must first be Christian and the people have to be, at least, nominally Christian.
Unfortunately, the whole Constantinian experiment with synergy is no more and unlikely to be resurrected any time soon.
This is the age of the tyranny of the majority’s passions.
This is a tryanny motivated by the prime mover of all passions, the love of money the root of all evil, as St Paul in his suberb wisdom told us. Fractional reserve banking is the prime overlording motivation of the banking elite, who rule us as St. John stated/ The merchants will rule over us in the last days.It is going to fail as all pryamid schemes do. This is why we have the mark of the beast, they want to reboot, the same scheme after it fall.This is very near as only Iran, N.Korea, and Cuba are not under Basel III control.
Michael,
I don’t think to have a Christian monarchy that the people have to be nominally Christian, at least at first. Prince Vladimir converted, then he told his people to convert or become enemies of the state.
Vladimir had a “state”?
Misha, having Christianity imposed on you is kinda missing the point. God in His wisdom and mercy does not compel anyone to follow Him. People compelled to ‘become Christian rarely are.
Let me ask you, what is the essential difference between become Christian or die and deny Christ or die? Isn’t is the same arrogant power of the state attempting to place themselves above God?
And honestly, while Russia certainly produced some very Holy folks, the larger history of the Orthodox Russian state is very, very spotty.
Being raised in a non-monarchical culture, an atomistic individualistic culture, I have a tough time with the state compelling anyone on matters of belief. IMO, it just doesn’t fit with Christianity at all.
Theocracy skews the very nature of what the Christian faith is all about i.e. the personal, intimate interrelationship, in community, between the Holy Trinity, the believer and the rest of the Church (seen and unseen). That in no way vitiates the essential hierarchical nature of the community (the Church) in which our journey toward salvation occurs.
The theory of synergy was never meant to be theocratic in nature, merely a concrete way to express the totality of the Incarnation and its hierarchical nature. Due to the lust of power that so easily overtakes we fallen human beings, IMO, it largely failed. Now it is, at best, an artifact of the past and will remain so as long as the secular anti-culture reigns. It could be argued that the fundamental hypocrisy involved in the idea of synergy contributed to the rise of the secular ideal and its appeal as a form of government.
For it to be resurrected in any form will require a through and real conversion of the hearts of the vast majority of the populace. Then, and only then, will it have any chance of actually working.
The trouble with this assessment Michael (with which I agree in the abstract) is that Christianity doesn’t thrive in the liberal (classical sense), republican (classical sense) paradigm either. I mean, my God! the US is now the powerhouse imposing sodomy on the entire world! Who would have thunk it? Certainly not our Founding Fathers. On the other hand, the French (for whom I bear little love) are rioting in the streets right now against the Socialist governments imposition of “gay marriage.”
What’s the difference? The “deep culture” of the French nation is still very Catholic –organically so. Ours is a Yankee-inspired Puritan Gnosticism which was imposed on the rest of the nation after The War Between the States.
Do I regret that hundreds of thousands of Russians joined the Church once they saw the way the wind was blowing upon Vladimir’s conversion? Or the similar number of Romans who did likewise after Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration? Well, yes in the abstract. But I’m descended from those very Romans who “saw the light” whether in reality or as a result of political calculation. You and I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for the “imposition” of Christianity by Ss Constantine, Boris (Bulgaria), Stephen (Hungary), Olav (Norway), Alfred the Great, Vladimir, etc. Our world –Christendom–is a far better culture than any other even with all its faults.
I agree with Mr. Bowman, and am of the view that “Christian Monarchy” and “The South Shall Rise Again” are very poor planks in the platform for evangelization of the United States.
“Puritan Gnosticism” imposed on the country after the “War Between the States”?
George, this Civil War/Orthodoxy stuff is getting stranger and stranger……
But I am getting a flavor of what you were calling Dixie Orthodoxy awhile back. I had thought it was just an amiable geographic expression!
It is geographical. My critique though of Northeast Puritan Gnosticism is serious in a different way. It was the triumphalism of the Yankee Brahminate which propelled the Progressives to take American Exceptionalism to take an international detour. The result of which was the botched attempt to impose democratic/republican governance on cultures that can’t handle it.
But George, where did the Puritan Iconoclastic Gnosticism which is little different from modern secular-statist ideology come from but from the decaying, warring, licentiousness of the old “Christian” monarchies and the equally depraved RCC/Anglican hierarchy (Woolsey and Richelieu anyone?). The Turkish Yoke imposed its own brand of such decay and corruption on us from which we still suffer.
I ask again, what is the essential difference between the imposition of Islam and the imposition of Christianity? At least such imposition of Islam is in full accord with the tenets and spirit of the faith. It is in direct opposition to the nature of Christianity. Jesus Christ said: “Know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” He did not say, be ruled by earthly lords and you will come to a virtuous faith that will allow you to be ‘better off’.
It is equally possible to say that were it not for the excesses of the Romanov dynasty in Russia, the Communists would never have taken over. They too came out of the same western cesspool as the iconoclastic gnostic Puritans.
It is certainly a strong part of the Christian witness that martyrdom is a truer path to salvation than the will to power (which is always essentially nihilistic). The idea that virtue can and should be, imposed and spread by the state I find patently offensive. The very process is corrupting. It violates the two commandments of love that Jesus gives us. It turns a life-giving faith into a religion of convenience and pseudo morality.
At best, a properly ordered state can allow virtue to be relatively un-punished even when and maybe especially when it does not come from the dominant religion.
Rendering to Caesar should not mean, does not mean, IMO, the content and nature of one’s faith and inter-relationship with the divine even if we are wrong and Caesar is ‘right’.
I reject the historical determinism which your comment implicitly hangs on.
All that can be said with confidence is that we would be different in culture and perhaps faith. It is equally valid to say that the Christian faith allowed to spread organically and Apostolically might well have been stronger and deeper and less prone to the hypocrisy and abuse which power centered paradigms always entail.
The hierarchy of creation and properly understood in the Church is not one of imposition, it is right ordering so that greater freedom is allowed. I understand that such is the idea behind the concept of a Christian Monarchy. I just don’t think it is possible or anything remotely close to it unless it comes organically from the faith of the peoples and the communities built upon that faith. The same source of good bishops BTW.
Without such a strong, vibrant faith, it is too easy for the monarch to become an idol. Just as has happened with some of our bishops. That is, perhaps, the greatest difficulty of the office of the Papacy as usually thought of in the RCC.
To live properly in a hierarchal culture that is not tyrannical requires a lot of humility, virtue and obedience up and down the line, most of all in its leaders. Coercion does not produce any of that. Humility, virtue and obedience can and often do transform coercion and arise in spite of such coercion, but that is the grace of God since He can make a full multi-course feast out of the foulest offal.
As to your first point, I disagree. Puritanism did not necessarily have to come out of the Anglican movement as envisioned by Henry VIII. It needed the kick-start of Reformist ideology jacked up with Enlightenment sensibilities. There was always a strain of Arianism in the Puritans along with iconoclasm from the start.
An excellent piece, Mr. Bauman. Much to ponder there. I think you are mostly right, myself.
I’ll stay away from Puritan Gnosticism, though. But, what about all those Scots-Irish Presbyterians in the South, and in armies of the Confederacy, George? Were they all Manicheans or something? Did they have lubricious night-time rites for the inner circles of the Elect?
“Puritan Gnosticism”, fie!
Good point. Lots of Presbies in the South to be sure. But the issue at base of The War Between the States was about States’ sovereignty Had the Old Republic endured (best-case) or the South seceded (less than ideal case), the United States could not have embarked on its Wilsonian imperialistic mission to remake the whole world in its image.
Think of it: had either scenario transpired, would the US have gotten into World War I? I can’t see it. Let’s not forget that that war destroyed Christian civilization in Europe.
Tim,
“Enemy of the state” is a term of art. It means that either non-Christians would be disfavored or that he would come after them.
Michael,
Russia is Orthodox to this day (with, of course a short interlude under communism – – still, about 1/3 of the populace retained some type of Orthodoxy even then).
It worked, period. Now, the reason it worked is much more pragmatic than any theories about the evils of imposition. First generation go through the motions, second generation it sinks in more, soon it’s real. Only works in an authoritarian society though, of course.
Misha, it only works in an hierarchical culture in which there is genuine authority to which people are more or less obedient. There is a big difference between an authoritative, respected hierarchy and an authoritarian, tyrannical power-centered one. The second can easily morph out of the first when people’s hearts begin to wax cold. Authoritarianism impedes the process of which you speak.
A similar process occurs in a republic as it degrades into democracy, anarchy and tyranny.
Michael,
We operate on different value systems. I believe the good of society; i.e., that it has a Christian foundation and legal framework, is more important than individual freedom. I believe this because of the results in America and Western Europe of their experiments in individual freedom. I simply reject it as a value. Now, you can Christianize a society over several generations by imposing it initially. We need not argue about that because it has been done. That’s all I’m saying. As to Russia’s spotty history, nothing compares to 50 million abortions in the last 40 years. Or to the Holocaust. Or to Soviet Russia. All of these evil deeds were perpetrated by governments that were not Christian monarchies. Nothing in the history of Tsarist Russia or the Eastern Roman Empire comes remotely close.
Moreover, you simply aren’t going to get people to legislate to control the passions, at least not indefinitely, in a democracy. In a monarchy, it is done by fiat.
I’ve spoken my peace on this issue. Christos Voskrese!
Voistinu Voskrese!
Misha, I agree with much of what you say. IMO, there is no such thing as ‘individual freedom’ real freedom comes only from obedience to God in a worshiping community. And you are correct, getting a mass of people to legislate against their passions and have the will to enforce what is legislated is well nigh impossible. We were never intended to be or function as a democracy. That we have descended to that miasmic form of government (on large scales) was predicted by some at the time it was formed.
The U.S. has become a sub-human pseudo-culture that is more demonic than it is anything else. Our Constitution either held in contempt or thought of mostly in a mush of ideological nostalgia. Much of this can be laid at the foot of the Arian, gnostic, iconoclastic heresy called Protestantism. (That is not to say that all Protestants are heretics–the only Protestant theology officially declared heretical is Calvinism).
That heresy did indeed both come as a reaction to and hasten the demise of an already corrupt monarchical system that was Christian in name only.
The corruption, IMO, came from the lack of an fully organic, deeply held Christian faith in the populace at large which leadership from the top alone which was primarily power centered was not sufficient to create.
“Arian, gnostic, iconoclastic heresy that is Protestantism.”
Well, I’m departing Protestantism (Calvinism even), not defending it. But…..iconoclasm, certainly. Arianism? I can see it as a argumentative epithet, but nobody either is, or can be, an Arian in the modern world. Arianism is one of those heresies that can’t exist anymore. Now, Christ is either human and divine, or he is human only. He can’t be a demiurge, created before the world. Anybody who could believe that would have no problem with orthodox trinitarianism.
It’s like those moderns who call themselves pagan; even they don’t believe in the Olympian pantheon!
As for Gnosticism, this is merely weird. Real, actual, Gnosticism? It died in the third century, with a few late revivals, like the Bogomils and the Albigensians. Applied to Protestants in general, it’s just a polemical barb– it’s rubbish.
Welcome aboard! I meant Arianism in the strict sense, not the neo-Platonic sense. As for the Gnostic elements within Yankee Puritanism, I got that from a very good book written by a Presbyterian minister. It’s called Against the Protestant Gnostics. It’s very academic and exhaustive but it really sheds light on the Puritan impulse to see themselves as a Chosen People. Another good book is by Barbara Tuchman called Sword and Bible (if memory serves) which is a history of Britain and its role in the establishment of the Palestinian Mandate. Long story short: the Puritans while in England had early on started dispensing with Trinitarian theology and affecting Judaic poses in their cultural affiliations. You know the drill: giving their kids obscure OT names like Yochabed, Mechitophel, Abigail, as a way of distinguishing themselves from their Anglican Saxon brethren.
According to David Hackett Fisher in Albion’s Seed, these Dissenters lived primarily in the Southeast of England and the Midlands and became distinctive after a time (kind of like the Mormons are today in the United States). They pretty much all decamped for Plymouth and populated the New England states. At first they were Congregational but in time several became Unitarian.
Contrast this with the Northerners, the Scots-Irish of Ulster, and the Lowland Scots who primarily went to Jamestown and settled the American South. Anyway, getting back to the Yankees, their ideas of chosen-ness was amplified in the Northeast which was also the well-spring of Abolitionism. They had no qualms about punishing the South for the grievous sin of slavery even going so far as to place freed slaves in positions of authority over the native whites. This led to a seething hatred for blacks and the Republican Party among Southerners.
I have just returned from the high-school graduation of one of my granddaughters, Abigail. She should be thankful she wasn’t named Mechitophel. I’m going to point that out to her soon.
On the other hand, my name is Edward, about as Anglo-Saxon as they come, and an Orthodox saint, to boot!
I am undeterred by support for “Christian” monarchies, and by Southron mythology in all of its iterations and elaborations!
I remain convinced of the merit of the Orthodox Church and am certain a (small-r) republican can find a place there.
I believe that I needn’t abandon Washington, Madison, Jefferson, the Constitution, the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address, and so many more things. Perhaps, though, I may need to affect white hose, gold buttons, and a powdered wig! This could be my version of Orthodox political nostalgia…..
Don’t get me wrong. I have some partiality to faraway ecclesiarchs. As for the panoply of monarchs, autocrats, boyars, and plantation slaveholders, though, I say, fie!
It might surprise you to learn I’m no fan boy of the old slaveholding plantations either…though I do admire the architecture of their big houses. As I understand that system is was basically a hot weather variant on manorialism, where the manor was the center of a more or less self sufficient local economy under the direction of the lord of the manor. The economic goal was less to be wealthy as to fully self sufficient and beholden to none. Whatever came more than that was just gravy…with the caveat that chasing money for wealth’s sake was a dishonorable Yankee preoccupy, colloquially known as money-grubbing. The gentleman farmer’s ambitions were steered towards hunting, fishing, crop/land improvements, riding, and to a degree, the arts…Downton Abbey with a sweet as peaches drawl. At least, that was the mythic vision, realized more in aspiration than in fact. It was built on a system of indenture that early on transformed into a system of perpetual bondage. Though one of the little known facts of this time is that the Irish suffered every bit as much as blacks and in some cases much more. There was essentially a white slave trade in Irishmen for well over 100 years. At the start of colonization there were an estimated 1.5 million Irish in Ireland; within a couple of generations after Cromwell it is estimated that 600,000 were killed outright, and another 300,000 were just taken (not even paid for) and sent to work as slaves/indentured servant ( from St. Kitts to New England, and their lot was as bad or worse than blacks until the mid-1800s (and I speak as a descendant of one of those escaped indentured Irishmen). So, in my opinion, while manorial systems are not such bad things in themselves, though they are certainly not egalitarian in any respect, the plantation system of the Old South was built upon too much institutionalized human misery. So as much as I appreciate an Agrarian centered culture, and as much as I appreciate the good associated with plantation life…and there was good, sometimes more than a little, insofar as it depended upon the labor and subjugation of those in perpetual bondage, it had to go. But having gone, I can’t say the sharecropping that followed represented much in the way of improvement…and I am a descendant of sometimes sharecroppers as well. Hard times breed hard ways I suppose.
That said, I don’t see any essential conflict with Orthodoxy and a republican system of government, both are synodal in form. I am more wary of democracies above the township level ( nor am I overly impressed with notions of universal suffrage or of one man one vote). To me where monarchies shine is in the executive function. I like the idea of aristocrats trained from the cradle in the art and responsibility of governance. It is far preferable to me than having a gaggle of ostensible used car salesmen glad-handing the mall shoppers, and county fair goers for their vote. It’s like people campaigning to be bishop…if you are “asking” for the job then you are the among those least desirable to get the job. Those born and raised to govern, step up to the job as a legacy, a responsibility, a duty. That doesn’t mean they can’t do badly, be jerks, or think themselves so entitled as to become petty tyrants, they can…but better to endure a few of those than to be perpetually at the mercy of a congress of self promoting, spineless, flags for every wind.
A frank and lucid view, Seraphim, although I am near 180 degrees from it.
I do believe that the aristocratic pretensions of the Southern “manorial class” were a major part of the problem. If only the evil could have been removed from the system, it would have been great!– seems to be the sentimental refrain one often hears.
In all of our historical imaginations, we would be in the manor, when, in all likelihood we would actually be in the crofter’s huts.
Without arguing about it, I would just say that I find that view of “aristocracy” very unattractive, to put it mildly.
Which is not to say that I don’t believe that educated elites have their place in a republic.
There is no argument that slavery was evil. But was Lincoln’s solution –the ethnic cleansing of blacks–better? We forget that Honest Abe had no use for black people and except for the 100,000 or so black men who served in the Union Army, he was going to deport the rest to the Caribbean or back to Africa. Short of that, he would have imposed a racial caste system (according to his own words in the Lincoln-Douglass debates) that was essentially no different than Jim Crow.
As for aristocracy, I believe that it can –and often does–ennoble an entire society. People traipse all over Europe to see the castles, manors, churches, village squares, abbeys, etc. that were created by those who had a love for beauty. Even in the Greek villages where I saw the most abject poverty, I saw people trying their best to make their houses as pleasing to the eye as possible. This would not have happened had there been no premium on arête (virtue) which was upheld by the aristocracy.
Compare with what we see today in certain benighted parts of the Rural South: trailer parks inhabited by people who have no self-worth. This was not the case in the Antebellum and immediate post-Bellum period. Yes, the majority of Southern whites were poor but they aspired to live as independently as possible. They prided themselves on being self-sufficient and not dependent upon the largesse of others (That’s one reason why hunting is still practiced here.). From their ranks came great statesmen and writers You can see what the destruction of the aristocracy has wrought in the naming of children. It used to be that most all Southerners had noble names culled from Greco-Roman civilization or the Bible (of course). Then in the mid-20th century it became fashionable for grown men to be known by diminutives (Billy, Jimmy, etc.) –not a good thing but not a horrible thing either. Now, nonce names which have no meaning are becoming increasingly the norm.
Things like this would have never happened had standards been upheld. Throughout history it has always been a nobility that has ensured standards.
Lincoln is to blame for, well, everything. This is a view that is not amenable to much productive argument.
Indeed, George, you blame Lincoln for “Wilsonian imperialism” and the destruction of Christian civilization in Europe, in effect, to use some hyperbole.
But we can never know causation at that level. We can all build these dream castles of alternative history, and nobody can falsify them. We can posit anything, and can work backwards as we grind our axes.
I have heard it said that the Filioque is responsible for all the horrors of Western civilization, from the Gothic cathedral, to Dante and Shakespeare, to the Federalist Papers and the Wright brothers. I exaggerate! But I would guess you know what I mean.
None of us know the future. And we know nothing of the past’s future, either.
No, “I don’t blame Lincoln for everything.” I think he was a gifted, resolute war leader who preserved the Union. I’m not passing a moral judgment but merely stating facts when I write those words. It is equally clear though that by destroying the rationale for Secession, the States were being put on the glide-path to provincial status. This directly resulted in three things:
1. Washington, DC became the seat of power,
2. The career of Northern plutocrats became preponderant,
3. America started looking overseas for an empire.
All of the above took place from 1870-1900. After 1900, the Progressives further subsumed the States by passing the 17th Amendment which allowed direct election of Senators and in 1913 created the national income tax and the Federal Reserve. Since then, Constitutionalists have been fighting rear-guard actions winning a few victories here and there. Now we can honestly say that we live in a post-Constitutional oligarchy.
In defense of Southern trailer parks, over the past generation or so, the trailers have gotten much nicer. The telling of class is in the nature of their situation and upkeep. At least some of the trailerdytes (of whom I have been one) do aspire to better things…strangely enough though I aspire to live in a handmade house fashioned out of sticks, straw, and claw (wattle and daub/cob) with dirt floors…and am not very sure of what that says about me.
With respect to Lincoln and progressivism, Lincoln and the Radical Republicans of his era were in fact protoprogressivists. They though what the founding fathers had done made a good start, but they were a modern generation with even better ideas about how to refine the American experiment. So their vision of the constitution is only marginally less provisional than progressives of later eras…that is something great for it’s time, but outmoded and needing replacement…and in the interim easy breezy interpretations where ever possible to be up to date with the thinking of the times.
One result of the war though which was both unforeseen and true for both North and South regardless of which side won was the creation of huge self perpetuating bureaucracies that were originally necessary to support and coordinate the war efforts of either faction. The war ended, but the government machinery put in place to run that war did not, and found new things for themselves to do, and established a Washington culture that would create new offices and new programs to meet any national problem real or perceived from then on…after all the detail of running such a big country was too much to be expected of Congress and their state staves…all Congress had to do was delegate a little bit of oversight and control here, and a little there…until we arrive where we are today where Congress has created such a behemoth of government apparatus that it has left itself just a couple of quick snips shy of complete emasculation…or obsolescence…whichever progressive vision gains traction fastest.
To put the sheer enormity of this behemoth into perspective, I work for the 5th largest corporation in the United States, a business that employs 30,000 people.
By contrast, the IRS alone has approximately 120,000 employees who are tasked with the enforcement of the revenue stream that supports them and the employment of the remaining 2,530,000 federal government personnel.
Consider that these are only federal employees. State and local employees (police, firefighters, educators, courts, corrections, streets, sanitation, etc.) are excluded from these numbers.
Seraphim, I beg your forgiveness.
When I was in post-grad, The accommodations for the most part made me envy those who lived in a trailer parks (and we’re talking 30 years ago). Your point is well-taken. When most people say “trailer park” now I take it to mean a trashy place where people live immoral lives and on the dole. You know, meth lab out back, pit bulls guarding the marijuana patch, a mother with four children and three different fathers, etc.
Not the genteel ambience found in the stories of William Faulkner, Flannery O’Conner, and John Kennedy Toole, etc.
Well, George, we have the reasons.
Now, as always, the question is- “what is to be done”? Not in fantasy or hope, but here and now.
Deploring things is so simple, alas.
It might be worthwhile to point out that the Orthodox, both Russian and Greek, came down firmly on the side of the Union, during the Civil War. Russia was, indeed, the only country to provide military assistance to the Union in the form of naval squadrons that interdicted shipments of arms to the Confederates.The tsar earned the enmity of both the French and the English for this.
Ahh, well, I am an old man and may just as well speak my mind.I recognize the divine right to rule in King David, and ,of course, .Jesus Christ. Perhaps, St Constantine, but the actual authentic Christian divine right ,tarried a little, while and fell.Revelation tells of this as the one yet to come, who tarries a little while and falls. The kings after that had no more right to rule anybody than I do.The, obviously ruled by force, to thier own self glorification at the expense of the lives and treasure of the people they controlled. I am not impressed.
” Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men who cannot save… Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God ” Psalm 145
“Arian, gnostic, iconoclastic heresy that is Protestantism.”
Well, I’m departing Protestantism (Calvinism even), not defending it. But…..iconoclasm, certainly. Arianism? I can see it as a argumentative epithet, but nobody either is, or can be, an Arian in the modern world. Arianism is one of those heresies that can’t exist anymore. Now, Christ is either human and divine, or he is human only. He can’t be a demiurge, created before the world. Anybody who could believe that would have no problem with orthodox trinitarianism.
It’s like those moderns who call themselves pagan; even they don’t believe in the Olympian pantheon!
As for Gnosticism, this is merely weird. Real, actual, Gnosticism? It died in the third century, with a few late revivals, like the Bogomils and the Albigensians. Applied to Protestants in general, it’s just a polemical barb– it’s rubbish
This is true, and the Byzantines had a group called the Paulicians, a Gnostic group. Personality, bad theology doesn’t make a bad society. Utah has the lowest out of wedlock births while Evangelical Arkansas has the highest out of wedlock births among young whites. Most Mormons except those that want several wives live more moralistic than Catholics, Orthodox or Protestants. Also, Utah government is not considered bad and both political left and right would be surprise to find it has a low poverty rate compard to most states and about an average income.
Welcome aboard! I meant Arianism in the strict sense, not the neo-Platonic sense. As for the Gnostic elements within Yankee Puritanism, I got that from a very good book written by a Presbyterian minister. It’s called Against the Protestant Gnostics. It’s very academic and exhaustive but it really sheds light on the Puritan impulse to see themselves as a Chosen People. Another good book is by Barbara Tuchman called Sword and Bible (if memory serves) which is a history of Britain and its role in the establishment of the Palestinian Mandate. Long story short: the Puritans while in England had early on started dispensing with Trinitarian theology and affecting Judaic poses in their cultural affiliations. You know the drill: giving their kids obscure OT names like Yochabed, Mechitophel, Abigail, as a way of distinguishing themselves from their Anglican Saxon brethren.
I read that book too by Tuchman. However, its modern liberal Protestantism along with the secular left that kick out morality and some Catholics and Orthodox sided with modern Liberal Protestants on morally not theology I think Steve Sailer stated that California the North and South were influence by the Northeast, and the Midwest and South. Kern County which George would like had a lot of Oklahoma people settled it. Kern is a Farm/oil County in California. San Diego until the early 1990’s was pretty conservative because of the aerospace industry and people that came to San Diego from the Midwest and South, more evangelical Christianity. The Bay area had nominal Roman Catholics like the Kennedy types back east and Puritan influence that developed into more non-belief there. The only time Southern Religion was popular in the Bay Area was during the 1960’s and 1970’s Jesus Movement.
As for white poverty, most poverty in the South is minority now. New York City has a higher white poverty than Anahiem in the West or Houston in the South. The sterotype states are Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia for white poverty. Alabama, had one county at 22 percent white poverty and another at ony 5 percent. In fact, Georiga which is attracting a lot of blacks from the North is going up because of the black population. You have black professionals like the reality show Housewives of Atlanta but a lot of poorer blacks that can’t afford rent in the north have returned as well and have less skills than the professionals.
The Protestant Episcopal Dean of the National Cathedral marches
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/capital-pride-parade-marches-in-the-district/2013/06/08/66202676-d091-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_gallery.html#photo=9
He just resigned from the cathedral. The link you gave does not show him participating in the gay pride march.
A late-comer to this thread, I was surprised to see so much comment generated by an article on the Queen.
I was still in grammar school when she was crowned, so she dominates my image of the Britannic throne.
If I am fortunate, she may be the only British monarch I will ever know.
That would be a blessing. Queen Elizabeth’s offspring appear to be a miserable bunch of losers. I can’t think of even one qualified to wear a crown.
I was surprised, too, until I read one of my own comments and realized the post, and the thread, are from several months back!
Watch the amazing video; In North America and Europe there has been a lot of talk about 3D printed buildings, but in Asia it’s really happening right now and leaving everyone else in their dust. Lots more photos at 3DPrint.com and on Andrey Rudenko’s website.
Coming up next: 2,000 affordable houses that Yakich claims will cost 60% less to build.
These are costs that could go a long way in providing affordable low income housing to the masses. With the ability to print these homes so quickly, at such low costs, there is no doubt that Yakich’s 3D printed homes will become very popular, very quickly, in the Philippines and potentially other developing countries.
The Philippines is another country like Mexico with poverty issues that also comes a lot to the US, referring to your gang of 8 reference. Affordable decent housing may be a big helped in reducing folks from both Mexico and the Philippines for wanting to immigrant permanently. What come happen is people still come and spent 5 years working in the US, then leave and have money for their 3-d printed houses back home.. Both countries or maybe a private firm could improved the sanitation condition in both countries, pretty much the end of illegal immigration in the next 10 years, George or heavily legal immigration like the Philippines. When I talked about a high tech solution most conservatives ignore it.
Christian monarch? Parliament granted the British monarch the title of “Defender of the Faith” after the Church of England broke away from Rome so that Henry VIII could have his divorce. Prince Charles, the next in line to bear that title, does his predecessor proud by being a philanderer who brought an adulteress into the royal family.
A bad tree does not bear good fruit.
We see this too in the continuing apostasy of the Church of England on homosexuality and female ordination.
Be careful not to permit your monarchical political views affect whom you consider to be close to the Orthodox in faith.
‘Mark E. Fisus’ (what a hoot!) raises a point I’ve often wondered about myself.
Calvin, Hus, Zwingli and even Luther inveighed against administrative abuses, liturgical mistakes, and theological errors when they broke with vaticanism. They and their theories were truly refomational, reFORMing, and reshaping their view of Christianity — not that what they did was right or good, or even an improvement.
It was for Henry viii’s theological refutation of Lutheranism that the roman pope bestowed on him (as a superior upon an inferior) the title Fidei Defensor (‘Defender of the Faith’ ), whose abbreviation F.D. still appears on british coinage and elsewhere as an attribute of monarchs reigning after him in England ever since — not like they earned or deserved it.
The english king Henry viii had no such reshaping of Christianity in mind when he defied Rome. He merely rebelled, and for no theological reason. He wanted only to have his own way in the matter of his marriage(s), ostensibly for the sake of generating a male heir to his throne. As history attests, he failed in that endeavor in spite of SIX marriages. The Lord will judge.
My irish ancestors were fond of this quatrain:
Beware o’ the alien preacher
and of ‘is church without faith.
For the foundation stones of ‘is temple
are the ballocks o’ Henry the eighth.
Well, let the Anglicans think about that for a while.
St. Patrick couldn’t have said it better himself.
Henry VIII did “generate a male heir” to the throne: Edward VI, who, alas, died at 15. He reigned but did not rule, as a regency was in place because of his minority. Nonetheless, he was King of England.
Harry’s misfortune was that Queen Catherine was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and the aunt of Charles V. Had she been a little farther down on the totem pole of contemporary royals, the Pope would doubtless have sanctioned a quiet annulment because of the marriage to Arthur. As it was, she was at the very top of the Catholic European hierarchy…..
No, there really was an Edward VI, son of Henry VIII, though some may “dislike” it!
You could look it up!
I would very much like to see a Monarchy that was of the authentic Divine Right of Kings. But, this tarried a little while, and fell. What was left was pirates posing as kings, as the vile history of their wars proves. These alway promote a warrior culture, which managed not to exist in authentic Christianity for the 4 centuries, but conquered by the Holy Spirit. Adding also, the top ranked freemason is always an English aristocrat, as the Duke of Kent is now.. Serving yourself, and Jesus Christ is a way of always having it both ways. Their claim to be part of the Marivingian bloodline, being descended from the union of Jesus Christ and St. Mary Magdalene is pure lies. Sentiment aside, these would behead St John the Baptist as quickly as they could, if he did not obey them. Divine Justice Rules, now and in all Eternity. The Royal Law Stands Invincible, and these kings disregard it with impunity. but not forever. Precisely ,it is not a Christian Dynasty. All Dickens would say was curiouser and cuirouser.,curious !
The topic On Which Hill Then, Should We Die On? is not open for comments. Is it for Premium Level paying subscribers only?
That wondered me, too, but I was especially amazed by the ‘on’ at both the beginning and the end of this essay’s title.
It would be good if we could avoid being redundant in our writing.