|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 17, 2017 9:03:49 GMT
A comment on another thread leads me to ask about monarchy. Are you a monarchist? Why? Why not?
Personally, I am a monarchist because I am a romantic. I think that having a monarch corresponds to a permanent desire of the human heart. Look at how fascinated Americans, and other republican countries, are with the British royal family. Having a monarch is a statement that a country is more like a family and less like an aggregate of individuals.
I'm not a believer in an absolute monarch or even a monarch with substantial powers, merely a ceremonial monarch. Giving great powers to someone who is not answerable to the people seems like a bad mistake to me. Whatever the failings of democracy, it's hard to imagine a Stalin or Hitler or Henry VIII in a democracy.
How would we get our monarch? I'm almost indifferent to this question; but once chosen I think it should certainly be a hereditary monarchy.
However, I think the prospects of such a thing happening are so close to zero as makes no difference. Still, it might be worth making a topic of public discussion, as I'm tired of "in a modern secular republic like this" being an argument used by progressives. I never voted for Ireland to be a republic and I'm not in favour of it. I'm not bound by the supposed conditions of republicanism.
Finally, I love C.S. Lewis's perspective:
It would be much more rational to abolish the English monarchy. But how if, by doing so, you leave out the one element in our state which matters most? How if the Monarchy is the channel through which all the vital elements of citizenship – loyalty, the consecration of secular life, the hierarchical principal, splendour, ceremony, continuity – still trickle down to irrigate the dustbowl of modern economic Statecraft?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 17, 2017 10:36:14 GMT
Are you a monarchist? I am Monarchist (This may change).
Why? Monarchies are pro the people and most politicians try to divide people into groupings and create partisan politics.
Tyranny in a Monarchy is more easily modified as people in Democracy have an illusion of control, and so they accept treatment that they would never accept from a monarch.
Monarchs are born to rule. This stresses the important of family, tradition and stability. Democrats happen to rule.
Catholics believe in a hierarchy in the world. Christ is King, The Pope is king, Bishops etc, Priests etc and fathers is king of his household.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on May 17, 2017 14:44:12 GMT
Well, I'm a monarchist too - and I regret that today is so intense I have not a moment to say anything more, except that I am glad to see this thread!
|
|
|
Monarchy
May 20, 2017 11:00:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by cato on May 20, 2017 11:00:20 GMT
At the risk of being totally subjective it depends on the personality of the monarch. Elizabeth ii is the classic constitutional monarch. We know little about her personally but she is a queen to her finger tips. Will the monarchy survive charles iii a very different personality?
The old style irish presidency was perfect for us but the attempts to push out the boundaries by the two mary's has resulted in a highly politicised divisive left wing secularist president who alienates those who do not share his 1968 sociologists ramblings.
Similarly with the papal office. Traddy catholics are great fans of the papacy in general but what happens when some one unsympathetic to the way the office is used traditionally becomes pope?
Patrick Pearse floated the idea of a monarch for the new irish republic in the future in between rosaries in the GPO according to ruth dudley edwards. I think a Bavarian prince was mentioned. Personally I think we should abolish michael dee and make ELizabeth president of Ireland for life. After that give it to Daniel o Donnell or John waters. That should annoy fintan o toole to no end as well. A win win situation all round.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 20, 2017 19:04:53 GMT
John Waters as monarch is a frightening thought, much as I admire the man.
I think the whole point of the monarchy is that it shouldn't depend on the personality of the monarch-- he or she can be a complete ass and still fulfil the office. Personally I don't think our Presidency was ever a good institution. A ceremonial Presidency is kind of a half-way house between monarchy and republicanism. If we need someone to shake hands with dignitaries let us be someone who's there by the accident of birth-- somehow that seems more symbolically rich. An elected or appointed President is just another bigwig amongst bigwigs, whereas a monarch is more representative of the people.
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 20, 2017 19:48:17 GMT
I was thinking of John Waters as president for life. Gerry mugabe Adams seems to have a similar post in Sinn Fein.
I think monarchies need a certain type of personality that doesn't appear to exist any more. A monarch needs to have a spiritual mystical view of themselves, the nation and their office . In the past this was seen as a sacramental covenant .I know the house of Windsor has reinvented itself on a couple of occasions but there are limits to this unless you want to arrive at something utterly meaningless.
De Gaulle the last real french king had this lofty exaulted view of what a head of state was( His enemies often referred to him as Joan of Arc.) They don't make leaders like him anymore. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on May 22, 2017 10:56:15 GMT
Patrick Pearse floated the idea of a monarch for the new irish republic in the future in between rosaries in the GPO according to ruth dudley edwards. I think a Bavarian prince was mentioned. Fascinating. I want to check this out. Any reference would be appreciated. I know Dev also spoke in his early years about being open to the idea of an Irish monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 22, 2017 10:58:16 GMT
I've read this on several occasions, too, but I can't remember exactly where.
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 22, 2017 18:40:59 GMT
I have been hunting down where I originally read the account but can't locate it. I did find a reference to it in another book by Ruth Dudley Edwards which was published last year. Desmond Fitzgerald (father of Garret) fought in the GPO and is the actual original source. The plan according to him ,was to invite Prince Joachim to rule an independent Gaelic speaking state in the event of a rebel victory. The book is called 'The Seven 'p317-318 and has an all too brief reference to the conversation. She doesn't include footnotes.
It could be argued Pearse was simply day dreaming out loud or indulging in idle speculation rather than actually making a real proposal for the constitution of the future Irish state.Still it annoys some people that Pearse could entertain such heretical thoughts.
I 'll continue to try and ferret out the original location of where I read this account.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 22, 2017 19:41:22 GMT
They might as well have invited Bigfoot to become monarch after a rebel victory!
I know he said it, though, because I've read it myself. Of course his mother and sister became die-hard Fianna Fáil partisans.
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 23, 2017 13:36:34 GMT
Desmond Fitzgerald gave the original account in an Irish Times interview on April 7 1966. That's not where I read it originally but it's from the horse's mouth and presumably the source of the other accounts. You can access the Irish Times archive in most public libraries I think for free.
|
|