tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post3400988318707041190..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: America's Path Not TakenMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-82712382919129282902018-09-09T17:35:13.565-05:002018-09-09T17:35:13.565-05:00Hey MM, I’m curious about who would rule the US if...Hey MM, I’m curious about who would rule the US if the worlds Monarchs were restored to power. Would it just default to the English throne since it was English colonies that formed it originally or would we get split up between the former colonial powers?. Or would Americans decendent from European royalty be up for Election to Emperor of America a la H.R.E style?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03413230268883754000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-57949034921345748992018-02-20T12:37:46.523-06:002018-02-20T12:37:46.523-06:00Thank you for this interesting post.♥Thank you for this interesting post.♥Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02523062924162258798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-89635801130212224702018-02-18T01:47:14.712-06:002018-02-18T01:47:14.712-06:00As I wrote in the article, the Continental Congres...As I wrote in the article, the Continental Congress rejected this plan for a parliament equal to that in London. They didn't want it, just like they didn't want representation in the English parliament for the reasons I detailed. Jefferson did support the French Revolution from start to finish, he also was more favorable to Napoleon because he was above all anti-British. If you believe that the Jacobite claimants were the only legitimate monarchs of England, Scotland, Ireland and France, then I fail to see why you would support an independent America that does not have the Duke of Bavaria as its king or even the territorial integrity of the U.S.A. as, if the Bourbons were also illegitimate, then so was the King of Spain who sold Florida to America, so was Napoleon who sold the Mississippi basin to America, etc.<br /><br />You could of course easily find TradCats who oppose the very existence of the USA and take this on with them. I don't. As much as I would've preferred the Crown forces to be victorious, they were not, and when it pleased King George III to recognize the USA, that made the USA a valid country in my view. It seems like you're wasting your time arguing with me.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-22648088980046704262018-02-16T09:25:20.354-06:002018-02-16T09:25:20.354-06:00I am aware of what you wrote in other articles but...I am aware of what you wrote in other articles but in this particular article, you referred to those who wanted independence as “radicals”. <br /><br />What I meant by representation in parliament was the proposal of “a parliament of their own which would be on equal terms with the parliament in London”. The colonists believed that since they did not have that kind of equal representation, parliament had no right to tax them. In 1774, they even petitioned King George III to repeal the acts of parliament and then good relations would be restored. The King did not reply which was the last straw.<br /><br />And yes Charles cheered the Americans which means that the Jacobites in America either did not know that he did, or were traitors to the Jacobite cause. <br /><br />You are repeating the same propaganda about Jefferson that liberal historical revisionists proclaim. Jefferson was not anti Christian. While his own faith is disputed among historians, he supported the rights of various Christian sects to practice their religion without any government interference. Contrary to historical revisionists, he was not like the ACLU. <br /><br />And he did not support the French Revolutionaries during the most radical phase when they executed King Louis XIV and had the reign of terror. <br /><br />And I do believe in rightful traditional authority more than you do. The Bourbouns were not even the rightful monarchs of France in my opinion because I have English ancestry, and the monarchs of England claimed the French throne ever since Edward III. So France as a Republic was not any less legitimate than it was under the Bourbouns. <br /><br />The wars against other monarchies were wars of self defense not offense. If Jefferson was in power earlier and intervened on France’s behalf, the end result would be a treaty where the monarchs recognize the French Republic not the overthrow of the monarchies. Under this alternate history scenerio, Napoleon would still likely come to power, get defeated, and then there would still be the Bourboun restoration of 1814 which I support since the last Jacobite pretender Henry Stuart was dead by then and his successors no longer claimed the throne of Britain or France. <br /><br />So this comment should clarify my views. I am both an American Patriot and a believer in traditional authority. I like both the Republic form of government here in America and the monarchies in Europe.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-43666461133582918462018-02-15T18:54:45.204-06:002018-02-15T18:54:45.204-06:00To add the discussion here, I have actually seen t...To add the discussion here, I have actually seen the claim made in a book "The Highland Clans" that Elizabeth II is in fact the rightful Queen of Great Britain for the following reason: "<br />... by the fourteenth century it had become common law (in both England and Scotland) that a person who was not born in the liegeance of the Sovereign, nor naturalised, could not have the capacity to succeed as an heir .... In Scotland, this law was modified in favour of the French from the sixteenth century, but was otherwise rigorously applied until the Whig Revolution of 1688, after which it was gradually done away with by the mid-nineteenth century. It was precisely because of this law that Queen Anne found it necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament naturalising all alien-born potential royal heirs under her Act of Settlement of the throne. But, of course, from the Jacobite point of view, no new statute could be passed after 1688 .... The nearest lawful heir of the Cardinal York in 1807 was, in fact, curiously enough, King George III himself, who had been born in England (and therefore in the technical liegance of James VIII)."<br />This means that from George III onwards, the British monarchs have been completely legitimate. <br /><br />And given that my profile picture on here is Joan of Arc's Coat of Arms, I think it is clear what my opinion on the English claim to the French throne is ;)The Pennsylvania Monarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13421991176481907074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-71041626699458935572018-02-15T18:12:25.673-06:002018-02-15T18:12:25.673-06:00I am sorry you are so delusional then. As in this ...I am sorry you are so delusional then. As in this article, I prefer the term "American War for Independence" rather than the "American Revolution" because, as I have said repeatedly on these pages and elsewhere, it wasn't like the French or Russian revolutions, it was not so radical but, obviously, what I actually write doesn't matter to you. Facts don't seem to either.<br /><br />Representation in Parliament? When Franklin was sent to London as envoy of the colonies, he was not absolutely NOT to accept any deal that gave the colonies representation in Parliament. They didn't want it because they knew the British population was so much larger that they would be easily outvoted on every issue and would lose a good talking point.<br /><br />The Jacobite pretender, Charles III, cheered the American rebels but most Jacobites in America, including Flora McDonald, supported the British Crown. And if you're going to run to Jefferson for justification, the most radical, anti-Christian, Jacobin-loving of the Founders, don't pretend to believe in traditional authority because you're never going to fool anyone. If Jefferson had been in power earlier, he would've taken the USA to war against the crowned heads of Europe alongside the French revolutionaries. He made that abundantly clear.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-62574435187205971932018-02-15T17:05:59.283-06:002018-02-15T17:05:59.283-06:00I agree with many of your views on legitimate auth...I agree with many of your views on legitimate authority and historical events such as the English Civil War but I can’t stand that you demonize the great American Revolution as being a radical left wing Revolution like Cromwell’s Revolution, the 1848 revolutions, the Bolshevik Revolution etc and I see you as a traitor to America.<br /><br />The American Revolution was more against the corrupt British Parliament then King George III who was a constitutional monarch. The cause of the tensions was that the colonists were used to living under autonomous self government since the colonies were founded, and then parliament suddenly started intervening in their affairs, taxing them without giving them fair equal representation. If Britain was to have a representative parliamentary system, then the colonists should have had the right to representation in parliament.<br /><br />And the British government was illegitimate anyway because it was the government formed from the “Glorious” Revolution that overthrew King James II from his rightful throne and established the corrupt Bank of England. The Jacobite pretender Charles III was the rightful King, not George III.<br /><br />I only support Queen Elizabeth II of the UK because Franz Duke of Barvaria does not claim the throne. In an ideal scenario, I would like for the UK and France to kidnap him to force him to be the king of both countries(I see him as the rightful king of France due to English claims to the French throne dating back to Edward III).<br /><br />So if you believe in traditional authority, why do you condemn a rebellion of independence against a corrupt illegitimate oligarchical government that had a corrupt central bank. <br /><br />This is what Thomas Jefferson said about a large private central bank.<br /><br />"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-20441385708025347642018-02-14T14:58:03.581-06:002018-02-14T14:58:03.581-06:00You’re a treasure, MM. Cheers for introducing me t...You’re a treasure, MM. Cheers for introducing me to someone else I hadn’t (but should’ve) heard of. There’s quite a few articles and books about or by Joseph Galloway <a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=Joseph%20Galloway&and%5B%5D=mediatype%3A%22texts%22&and%5B%5D=loans__status__status%3A%22NULL%22" rel="nofollow">on the Internet Archive</a>, which I will now immerse myself in.<br /><br />(P.s. I was rude enough not to welcome you back after your unintended hiatus, so please accept my belated welcome back. Ages ago I complimented you on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/MadMonarchist/videos" rel="nofollow">your vids</a> after you expressed reservations about them—I still think they’re good. Interesting subject matter, well presented, and you’ve not a bad voice (not blessed with the Mister Metokur drawl but not cursed with that irritatingly strident Cathy Newman squawk); my only criticism is a better quality mic is needed to remove that buzz.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com