Re: Nepal, a monarchy finsihed?
- From: Louis Epstein <le@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 19:51:12 -0500
Chris Pitt Lewis <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: In message <1146058156.218006.37840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan
: B?hme <jan.bohme@xxxxx> writes
:>Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
:>> In article <7Hv1W9YkkpTEFwk6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Pitt Lewis says...
:>
:>> >It is hard not to see a parallel with the similarly idiotic James II and
:>> >Charles X. The shame is that in this case there is no chance of an
:>> >alternative monarch, merely of a republic of one sort or another.
:>>
:>> I think in taking the conventional line on James II you do him an injustice;
:>> although both Charles X and James II were deposed because they broke
:>> promises they had made (Charles X to sustain the Charter, James II to
:>> sustain the primacy of the established Church), what they did was a little
:>> different.
:>
:>I took for granted that what Chris referred to as "idiotic" was the
:>inflexibility and rigidity w?th which both James VII/II and Charles X
:>behaved consistently. It is true that the principle of tolerance that
:>King James wanted to enforce is regarded as the only one that is
:>morally acceptable today. If we were to judge him solely on this, he
:>was a good man ahead of his time. But it is equally true that if he had
:>been less rigid, more subtle and diplomatic, and more conscient that
:>his general principle of tolerance, to lots of his subjects, appeared
:>just as a fig-leaf for an ambition to recatholicise the country fair
:>and square, he might not only have been a man of lofty and noble
:>ambitions, but a man that actually had managed to fulfil them.
:>
: Yes. As a descendant of several of the Quakers who were beneficiaries of
: James II's religious tolerance I was aware of it and give him full
: credit for it, while also remembering that William and Mary's Parliament
: passed the Toleration Act of 1689, which made toleration of protestant
: dissenters, at least, permanent. But there is no point, as King, in
: being ahead of one's time and morally right in the view of later
: generations if you can't carry at least a reasonable section of public
: opinion with you at the time, and that requires at least the attempt to
: be diplomatic. After all, one might equally argue that Edward VIII was a
: visionary who was 70 or 80 years ahead of his time in his view of what
: might constitute an appropriate royal marriage. He was not; he was just
: a rather unintelligent prince who thought that being King meant that you
: could do whatever you liked.
No amount of politicians escaping punishment for their pretense
that being King DOESN'T mean you can do whatever you like can
ever limit a King's right to do so!
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Nepal, a monarchy finsihed?
- Next by Date: Re: Nepal, a monarchy finsihed?
- Previous by thread: Re: Nepal, a monarchy finsihed?
- Next by thread: Re: Nepal, a monarchy finsihed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
