Friday, January 14, 2005

The founding of the modern monarchy in England

King James I believed that Kings were "accountable to none but God only", he his subjects had no right to speak about how they wanted to be governed.

James argued that "The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods ... Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king."

As an aside, I don't think that God calls anyone God, that is idolatry. Anyway, at the time, the public did not agree with James and his son Charles was executed on Tuesday January 30th, 1649!

Charles attempted to dismantle the rights of the people and of the parliament, and after a civil war was executed by Richard Brandon, an executioner more used to common criminals. In the place of that we had a 'Lord Protector', Oliver Cromwell.

When he died, Britain was at a bit of a loss of what to do now. So they sent for the dead King's son, Charles II, who was in exile. Charles II then killed all the dissenters and the monarchy was restored.

Things could have been very different, we could have become a democratic republic. Did we made a mistake? Of course, whichever way you decide, in the twenty-first century we do not need to execute people to reform the political system.


Anonymous said...

:3 Very informative. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

this is bizarre. I think this guy is having a pop at Britain to make some dollars. The truth is that Americans want to be like the Brits - they have taken over our role as oppressor of the world, but they are unable to do it with any style!

Anonymous said...

This is bizarre. This guy is having a pop at Britain to make some dollars, but the truth is that americans want to be like Brits - they have taken over our role as oppressors of the world - they just aren't able to do it with any style!

Anonymous said...

i think you actually do not understand a single thing about britsh politics and the monarchy an beleave you need to at least get sum qualifacations in politics or atlease sum reall understanding of the monarchy and its history, do you have no patriatism, i would much rather stand up for the queen an country, then stand up for the EU and i bet thats what you want!!!
theres a reason why we have a monarchy still after charles the 1st, thats because republicanism is ok on a large scale e.g. america but Britain is not large enough to need to be a republic, an i hope they bring bak sum laws of treason cos i will just smile when i see it happen :D

Anonymous said...

@PassionateRoyalist ... well done on mangling Lizzie Windsor's english. Words you 'took a new slant on' included: "britsh" "beleave" "qualifacations" ad "patriatism". If you can't see past the flag waving, and identify instead with the heritage of one family who asserted themselves through violence or threat of violence, you are in no position to lecture anyone about what they stand up for, or against. "I bet that's what you want" is such a weak and dishonest argument, you should be ashamed to use it. Open your eyes first.