Wednesday, April 05, 2006



Stuck in the eighteenth century

The Holden Republic points to a new kiwi blog, Queen and Country, set up to defend the institution of the monarchy. Their chief defence? Divine right:

God appointed the Windsor family to rule over his children on earth. Monarchy is therefore a natural & ordered way of government & undeniably the way in which a country should order itself. It has honour and grace borne from the Lord, God.

And monarchists wonder why people laugh at them...

16 comments:

I'd like to think it was. Go read what this guy's written on the Kiwirepublic group at Yahoo!.

Posted by Lewis Holden : 4/05/2006 12:51:00 PM

Hasn't kingship always been based on divine inference? Nothing new really. I prefer a Grand Duchy, so much camper. Republics always seem to lack a sense of humour, poise and grace.

Posted by Hans Versluys : 4/05/2006 03:07:00 PM

God has traditionally been the answer to the two obvious questions raised by monarchy ("why you?" and "what gives you the right?"), but it was ridiculous then and even more ridiculous now. Particularly in light of the current Windsor incumbent, whose "divine appointment" boils down to "her uncle resigned for love", and "Parliament appointed her great-to-the-nth grandfather because he was a Protestant".

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 4/05/2006 05:43:00 PM

Hey, give the guy a break. If he's who he claims to be - a nnewbie farmer embracing the power to publish, I think that's a great thing. It goes without saying that I think his opinions are rot, but he's quite entertaining ...

Cheers,
RB

Posted by Russell Brown : 4/05/2006 06:08:00 PM

Russell - yeah, it'll be fun. I like debating the topic after all.

Posted by Lewis Holden : 4/05/2006 07:54:00 PM

Ahh lewis you pawn of satan you...
heh

Posted by Genius : 4/05/2006 08:38:00 PM

Woo-hoo! I'm officially "dedicated to destroying the social fabric of New Zealand". I'm tempted to make it my official byline.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 4/05/2006 08:46:00 PM

I've linked to his blog. The more who read it, the more support a republic will get :-)

Posted by David Farrar : 4/05/2006 10:13:00 PM

These people are stuck in a history that they don't understand.

In English law (god :-) knows what the story is in NZ law) the Parliament has had the right to choose the next monarch when a vacancy (technically a demise of the throne) exists.

For example: when Edward VIII decided to abdicate, he did so by signing a document which asked Parliament to pass a law saying that there was a demise.

No English monarch has claimed define right since James II was deposed during the 17th century.

Windsors descend from the Stuarts by a collateral branch through Hanover, whcih was enthrones by parliament on the death of Queen Anne.

God? No, People!

Posted by Anonymous : 4/06/2006 09:33:00 AM

Hmm, the Poms stoped debating divine right what, 250yrs ago? Perhaps it was the17th Century intellectually lazy equivalent of claiming/blaming political correctness? :)

Perhaps there will be real debate, with quotes from Hobbes & Locke fighting Filmer all over again. What enlightenment?

Posted by Anonymous : 4/06/2006 11:06:00 AM

Bullies is a bit harsh. Putting your opinion on these things is inviting comment, positive or negative. I used to be a monarchist because I agreed with Hobbes & Locke that sovereignty rests with the people and the people (esp in the UK and NZ) aren't, by and large, in favour of change, not because of some claim to divinity (careful, Charles 1 lost his head over it). I changed my mind over monarchy for a bunch of reasons that would take too long (and be too dull) to go into but mostly because sovereignty ultimately rests with the individual and change starts with individuals. Like you I don't believe in replacing monarchy with the sort of power grubbing low lifes who currently infest politics at every level (you know who you are). President Blair? I think not...

Posted by Anonymous : 4/06/2006 11:36:00 AM

Combine the two - lets have an elective monarchy (as used by some ancient city states and miscellaneous other indo europeans.)

I'm a monarchist because it seems silly to me to invest adoration of the people in elective heads of state who have any sort of real world power. Can we say Personality Cult?. I prefer the current setup because Liz is about as useless a vestigial head of state as one can get, and makes it very obvious that you don't really need one (Oh, yeah, can we say Tribalism, too?).

Although the appeal of a camp Grand Duchy is rather cool. Can we have a Doge, like the venetians?

Posted by Weekend_Viking : 4/06/2006 04:45:00 PM

Read Frazer, The Golden Bough, something about the Murdering Priest defending then guarding the Sacred Tree to become King.

Early Kings may have been chosen (prior to progenitor accession), but they all ended up the same way, in their prime sacrificed for the corn, for the people. The temple Priests kept control.

However, cluing up to this Kings found a stand-in round middle age for the death bit.

It's all to do with the corn...

The last big divine King claimant was Louis 14, the Sun God. Most of the Roman Emporers claimed the old divine status.

It usually proceeds a Fin de Siecle. NZ is in such an archetypal phase.

Mummy has tried many times to make us leave the homeland (firstly in 1922!). Our successive Governments have always been unwilling to do so...remember,

It's all about the corn.

Posted by Unknown : 4/07/2006 09:17:00 AM

Do people really want Chaz and Cam to be Charles III/George VII and
Queen Cammy?

I suspect that we'll leave our constitutional childhood when QE2 does shuffle off this mortal coil.

The longest recorded royal reign was sixty four years (Queen Vic),
and the oldest they've made it to is eighty three (also Queen Vic). Ergo, watch for changeovers in either 2009 or 2016.

Craig Y.

Posted by Anonymous : 4/07/2006 10:06:00 AM

The problem is that we don't have any leaders mature enough to steer a Republic. Really.

Then there is this Treaty thing and the unsolved mystery that is..."Partnership".

Currently this is all swept under the carpet of unspoken..."Separateness". Umder the guise of..."Egalitarianism".

If we wait for the Queen to die to determine our fate, we are not yet ready to determine our will.

Posted by Unknown : 4/07/2006 10:33:00 AM

Residualism and inertia rule, unfortunately. We don't have the same animus against the British crown that Australian republicanism
has always had.

To me, a written constitution is more of a priority than a republic, in any case.

Craig Y.

Posted by Anonymous : 4/12/2006 10:21:00 AM