- 13 Feb 2015 13:16
#14524780
If the king is really king, the owner of the state for reason of ownership of the military that has secured it, then there really is no other who should have authority to choose his successor. For various practical reasons and normal human preference the successor that he will choose will be 99 times out of 100 be his own eldest son. It is not long before that becomes the default in case he dies before naming a successor. It is quite the same thing for anyone of property who is not a king; when any householder dies it quite normal for him to prefer to choose his own eldest son to inherit and if he failed to specify that in a will it is quite normal for those tasked with administering the transfer to make the assumption that his eldest son would be his choice in the absence of better information. This is how primogeniture came about.
There are no guarantees that a successor will be competent but the overwhelming majority have been tolerably competent. For the few that are really incompetent, they usually end up dispossessed of their holding soon enough by assassination, military defeat at the hands of rival monarch, usurpation, coup d'etat by his own lords or captains or revolution by mobs lead by fundies. The real test of fitness to rule is whether one can survive one's enemies, not can one temporarily win a popularity contest.
Charles the I was largely brought down by Christian fundies (well you are Orthodox so perhaps you don't consider Calvinists and Puritans to be true Christians) so I think it is little comfort to him that he can post-humously consider himself a martyr. It is an unreality though to call a deposed king a martyr, a deposed king is a failure. The celebration of weakness and failure that is shot through Christian sentiment is hardly helpful for monarchs who as heads of martial security are more than usually beset with lethal enemies as an inevitable feature of the business they are in.
Jesus as King of the Jews is really a mockery of monarchy, he has no army! He walks with the hoi-polloi, rides a donkey to town and lets himself be nailed to a tree. It's a mockery plain and simple.
The solution to 1984 is 1973!
starman2003 wrote:I'd certainly oppose traditional, hereditary monarchy. Even if the father is capable, that's no guarantee the son will be; many like commodus, have been screwballs.
If the king is really king, the owner of the state for reason of ownership of the military that has secured it, then there really is no other who should have authority to choose his successor. For various practical reasons and normal human preference the successor that he will choose will be 99 times out of 100 be his own eldest son. It is not long before that becomes the default in case he dies before naming a successor. It is quite the same thing for anyone of property who is not a king; when any householder dies it quite normal for him to prefer to choose his own eldest son to inherit and if he failed to specify that in a will it is quite normal for those tasked with administering the transfer to make the assumption that his eldest son would be his choice in the absence of better information. This is how primogeniture came about.
There are no guarantees that a successor will be competent but the overwhelming majority have been tolerably competent. For the few that are really incompetent, they usually end up dispossessed of their holding soon enough by assassination, military defeat at the hands of rival monarch, usurpation, coup d'etat by his own lords or captains or revolution by mobs lead by fundies. The real test of fitness to rule is whether one can survive one's enemies, not can one temporarily win a popularity contest.
annatar1914 wrote:You see the Beginning without reference to Soteriology, when it would be best to take a holistic approach and consider Eschatology also.
But aside from that aspect, Martyrdom did not reduce, but rather enhanced, the Royalty of Martyr Kings of the Modern Age like Charles I, Louis XVI, and Nicholas II, for they had the Model of the King to look to. The Jews had every option of following their King, and formally rejected Him. Rome and Jerusalem were given other means of becoming One, and 20 centuries later we find ourselves full circle in more ways than we realize.
I also hasten to add that Christ thru St. Constantine won over the Roman Empire, and which Union of the Two was heralded previously by the fact that the Holy Family, while of the House of David, were loyal Roman Citizens who registered during the Census of Citizens called for by Emperor Augustus (obfuscated, lied about, or ignored by all today).
Not a parody or mockery of Monarchy at all.
Charles the I was largely brought down by Christian fundies (well you are Orthodox so perhaps you don't consider Calvinists and Puritans to be true Christians) so I think it is little comfort to him that he can post-humously consider himself a martyr. It is an unreality though to call a deposed king a martyr, a deposed king is a failure. The celebration of weakness and failure that is shot through Christian sentiment is hardly helpful for monarchs who as heads of martial security are more than usually beset with lethal enemies as an inevitable feature of the business they are in.
Jesus as King of the Jews is really a mockery of monarchy, he has no army! He walks with the hoi-polloi, rides a donkey to town and lets himself be nailed to a tree. It's a mockery plain and simple.
The solution to 1984 is 1973!