[SolarCross]

Cromwell was actually an effective monarch. If he hadn’t been a usurper — and his Puritan supporters determined to take all the fun out of life — his son would have had no problem succeeding him and possibly even establishing a true monarchy as happened in France.

Usurper is just an ugly word for conqueror and kings certainly can be made through conquest so I don't think being an usurper necessarily hurt his chances of securing his dynasty. Recall that Henry Tudor was an usurper, as was William I from the Saxon perspective, William of Orange likewise was an usurper. Being a puritan certainly didn't hurt him as at the time England was awash with puritan fanatics, puritans were his power base.

My personal theory as to why the Cromwell line failed so fast (all dynasties fail given a long enough time span) is that the one sign of weakness he showed by failing to call himself king caused his line to lose credibility as a ruling dynasty once all the excitement of war was over and matters came to succession. People know what king means but "Lord Protector" is a bit ambiguous, it almost sounds like another word for Regent. A regent rules as a king on behalf of the true king while he is absent or indisposed. If his people and his army are taking the "Lord Protector" to mean regent then they always wondering who and where the true king is.. and they already know the answer it must be the king Cromwell killed and therefore also his exiled son. It's like Cromwell himself is saying he was wrong to kill Charles I and wrong to keep exiled the son of Charles I. It's a bit subliminal and of course overpowered by Oliver's power as a person, especially his success as a war commander, but when Oliver dies and Richard Cromwell must likewise roll around with the title Lord Protector that subliminal signal that he isn't the real king becomes more actionable in the mind's of people and the army and so it is that they restore Charles II as the true king. Only a king can replace a king.

[snapdragon]

I disagree. I think all the checks and balances limiting parliament are either built directly into the parliamentary system, or they exist in other parts of the government such as the judicial branch.

How? All members of Parliament are politicians.

And the 1963 incident was only about choosing the next PM from a list of candidates. In fact, the throne simply followed Macmillan’s advice. It would be more accurate to say that a faction in the Conservative party was able to bend her ear and use the monarch’s limited power to ensure Macmillan’s choice as his successor.

She was still able to do it.

Being part of someone else’s power play is not evidence of power.

The someone else's power play is the constitution.

You seem to think the monarch shuld have the ability to be a dicatator, which I find alarming.

[Pants-of-dog]

How? All members of Parliament are politicians.

Yes, and this is actually why it theoretically works: because these parliamentarians have differing agendas and often use these checks and balances against each other in their quest for power.

She was still able to do it.

Yes, and what she was able to do was affirm parliament’s power. Her actions in no way challenged the authority of Parliament.

The someone else's power play is the constitution.

You seem to think the monarch should have the ability to be a dictator, which I find alarming.

I agree that the power play by the parliamentarians involved was constitutional and that ths is fine.

It is not that I think monarchs should have the power of dictators. It would be more correct to say that I recognise that monarchs have traditionally held dictatorial powers over their populaces. The rise of parliaments in constitutional monarchies is a direct reaction to that.

[Decky]

My personal theory as to why the Cromwell line failed so fast (all dynasties fail given a long enough time span) is that the one sign of weakness he showed by failing to call himself king caused his line to lose credibility as a ruling dynasty once all the excitement of war was over and matters came to succession. People know what king means but "Lord Protector" is a bit ambiguous, it almost sounds like another word for Regent. A regent rules as a king on behalf of the true king while he is absent or indisposed. If his people and his army are taking the "Lord Protector" to mean regent then they always wondering who and where the true king is.. and they already know the answer it must be the king Cromwell killed and therefore also his exiled son. It's like Cromwell himself is saying he was wrong to kill Charles I and wrong to keep exiled the son of Charles I. It's a bit subliminal and of course overpowered by Oliver's power as a person, especially his success as a war commander, but when Oliver dies and Richard Cromwell must likewise roll around with the title Lord Protector that subliminal signal that he isn't the real king becomes more actionable in the mind's of people and the army and so it is that they restore Charles II as the true king. Only a king can replace a king.

That is foolish.

The reason he refused the crown when it was offered to him is that there would have been actual limits on his power as King of England, the whole war was fought by Parliament to force the King to stick to the traditional limits on his power (they didn't actually want to get rid of him until very late in the war).

As Lord Protector he was more or less and absolute monarch in the French style. If he has been King of England he would have been bound far more. As with all of your posts the truth is the exact opposite of what you said.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That is foolish.

The reason he refused the crown when it was offered to him is that there would have been actual limits on his power as King of England, the whole war was fought by Parliament to force the King to stick to the traditional limits on his power (they didn't actually want to get rid of him until very late in the war).

As Lord Protector he was more or less and absolute monarch in the French style. If he has been King of England he would have been bound far more. As with all of your posts the truth is the exact opposite of what you said.

I don't see how this post contradicts @SolarCross. He himself argued in his post that as a usurper he took on a kingly role, even if greater in powers than that of Charles. That is not his point though in discussing the failure of Cromwell. The failure, according to SolarCross, was that he failed to appropriate the status of King in a socio-psychological sense.

He may have had the powers of king, but he failed to see himself or have others see him as anything more than a arbitrary dictator rather than the Father of the English people by both divine and natural right.

This is because he in many ways bound himself to the anti-monarchal aspirations of the congregationalists in parliament that supported him. He took considerable pains to maintain the illusion that his absolutist dictatorship was somehow, in a convoluted way, compatible with the republican and anti-monarchal values of the congregationalist puritans.

It was this miscalculation, according to SolarCross, that allowed his line's failure. If you don't really see yourself, or project yourself, to be the rightful king, regardless of your actual powers, than a monarchal population will never see you than anything more than a usurper to be replaced by the "one rightful sovereign."

[Doug64]

This is because he in many ways bound himself to the anti-monarchal aspirations of the congregationalists in parliament that supported him. He took considerable pains to maintain the illusion that his absolutist dictatorship was somehow, in a convoluted way, compatible with the republican and anti-monarchal values of the congregationalist puritans.

Augustus pulled it off, but he was working with a republican tradition centuries old that he could use as a cloak.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Augustus pulled it off, but he was working with a republican tradition centuries old that he could use as a cloak.

Situation was a bit different too, Rome had not had a monarchy in centuries by the time the Caesars took power, and only after the very unpopular senate had murdered populist reformers like the Gracchi and had made the Romans suffer in an environment of mismanagement, rural depopulation, immigration, income disparity, sexual immorality, and irreligion. After such experiences they (the Roman people) clamored for Julius and later supported Octavian and would never look back with envy upon "republican or democratic values."

If we were to parallel the two scenarios, you could say that Cromwell came about 600 years too early to attempt what he did if we was trying to be an Octavian.

Now had he attempted such in the next fifty years from our present time (assuming he was immortal of course)? The results might have been totally different

[Doug64]

Situation was a bit different too, Rome had not had a monarchy in centuries by the time the Caesars took power, and only after the very unpopular senate had murdered populist reformers like the Gracchi and had made the Romans suffer in an environment of mismanagement, rural depopulation, immigration, income disparity, sexual immorality, and irreligion. After such experiences they (the Roman people) clamored for Julius and later supported Octavian and would never look back with envy upon "republican or democratic values."

Actually, while the Romans may not have had a monarchy they had monarchs — otherwise known as dictators-for-life — only without an inheritance principle. Of course, since Augustus cloaked his monarchical status with a republican figleaf he didn’t have a clear inheritance principle, either. (He wasn’t helped that he lived so long that all his really decent heirs died first, and he was left with Tiberius.)

If we were to parallel the two scenarios, you could say that Cromwell came about 600 years too early to attempt what he did if we was trying to be an Octavian.

That sounds about right, the “current” legitimate pattern he had to follow was a constitutional monarch and he’d beheaded the last man to try to break that mold.

Now had he attempted such in the next fifty years from our present time (assuming he was immortal of course)? The results might have been totally different

Now that you mention it, the UK has been shifting from being a functional republic to a functional democracy for awhile now, and democracies are susceptible to tyrants....

[Victoribus Spolia]

Actually, while the Romans may not have had a monarchy they had monarchs — otherwise known as dictators-for-life — only without an inheritance principle. Of course, since Augustus cloaked his monarchical status with a republican figleaf he didn’t have a clear inheritance principle, either. (He wasn’t helped that he lived so long that all his really decent heirs died first, and he was left with Tiberius.)

The Romans did have a monarchy prior to the Senate's rise to power during the republican revolution in 500s B.C.

That the caesars are like monarchs in some ways, just as cromwell was like a monarch in someways, has been discussed much on this thread already. In the end though, that the monarchy in England today is transitioning to a possible Caesarian takeover in the future, is sort of the whole reason I started this thread. I would read the OP if you haven't already to get my point on this.

Now that you mention it, the UK has been shifting from being a functional republic to a functional democracy for awhile now, and democracies are susceptible to tyrants....

I think a Caesar is coming soon to the West.

[snapdragon]

Yes, and this is actually why it theoretically works: because these parliamentarians have differing agendas and often use these checks and balances against each other in their quest for power.

It certainly usually works, but there's always a chance there would be collusion with the government of the time.

Yes, and what she was able to do was affirm parliament’s power. Her actions in no way challenged the authority of Parliament.[/]

She was able to order the government to act.

Which works very well. I see no reason to change it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Interesting Article.

“I think it’s fair to say that the American people are quite fond of the royal family,” Mr. Obama said during a White House visit from Prince Charles. “They like them much more than they like their own politicians.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/styl ... icans.html

[Doug64]

Interesting Article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/styl ... icans.html

Yes, it was. And the point about the apolitical nature of the royal family was well taken, it certainly isn't anything new:

The genuine popularity of constitutional monarchs, in parliamentary countries, can be explained by any practical example. Let us suppose that great social reform, The Compulsory Haircutting Act, has just begun to be enforced. The Compulsory Haircutting Act, as every good citizen knows, is a statute which permits any person to grow his hair to any length, in any wild or wonderful shape, so long as he is registered with a hairdresser who charges a shilling. But it imposes a universal close-shave (like that which is found so hygienic during a curative detention at Dartmoor) on all who are registered only with a barber who charges threepence. Thus, while the ornamental classes can continue to ornament the street with Piccadilly weepers or chin-beards if they choose, the working classes demonstrate the care with which the State protects them by going about in a fresher, cooler, and cleaner condition; a condition which has the further advantage of revealing at a glance that outline of the criminal skull, which is so common among them. The Compulsory Haircutting Act is thus in every way a compact and convenient example of all our current laws about education, sport, liquor and liberty in general. Well, the law has passed and the masses, insensible to its scientific value, are still murmuring against it. The ignorant peasant maiden is averse to so extreme a fashion of bobbing her hair; and does not see how she can even be a flapper with nothing to flap. Her father, his mind already poisoned by Bolshevists, begins to wonder who the devil does these things, and why. In proportion as he knows the world of to-day, he guesses that the real origin may be quite obscure, or the real motive quite corrupt. The pressure may have come from anybody who has gained power or money anyhow. It may come from the foreign millionaire who owns all the expensive hairdressing saloons; it may come from some swindler in the cutlery trade who has contracted to sell a million bad razors. Hence the poor man looks about him with suspicion in the street; knowing that the lowest sneak or the loudest snob he sees may be directing the government of his country. Anybody may have to do with politics; and this sort of thing is politics. Suddenly he catches sight of a crowd, stops, and begins wildly to cheer a carriage that is passing. The carriage contains the one person who has certainly not originated any great scientific reform. He is the only person in the commonwealth who is not allowed to cut off other people’s hair, or to take away other people’s liberties. He at least is kept out of politics; and men hold him up as they did an unspotted victim to appease the wrath of the gods. He is their King, and the only man they know is not their ruler. We need not be surprised that he is popular, knowing how they are ruled.

The popularity of a President in America is exactly the opposite. The American Republic is the last mediaeval monarchy. It is intended that the President shall rule, and take all the risks of ruling. If the hair is cut he is the haircutter, the magistrate that bears not the razor in vain. All the popular Presidents, Jackson and Lincoln and Roosevelt, have acted as democratic despots, but emphatically not as constitutional monarchs. In short, the names have become curiously interchanged; and as a historical reality it is the President who ought to be called a King.

But it is not only true that the President could correctly be called a King. It is also true that the King might correctly be called a President. We could hardly find a more exact description of him than to call him a President. What is expected in modern times of a modern constitutional monarch is emphatically that he should preside. We expect him to take the throne exactly as if he were taking the chair. The chairman does not move the motion or resolution, far less vote it; he is not supposed even to favour it. He is expected to please everybody by favouring nobody. The primary essentials of a President or Chairman are that he should be treated with ceremonial respect, that he should be popular in his personality and yet impersonal in his opinions, and that he should actually be a link between all the other persons by being different from all of them. This is exactly what is demanded of the constitutional monarch in modern times. It is exactly the opposite to the American position; in which the President does not preside at all. He moves; and the thing he moves may truly be called a motion; for the national idea is perpetual motion. Technically it is called a message; and might often actually be called a menace. Thus we may truly say that the King presides and the President reigns. Some would prefer to say that the President rules; and some Senators and members of Congress would prefer to say that he rebels. But there is no doubt that he moves; he does not take the chair or even the stool, but rather the stump.

—G. K. Chesteron, What I Saw in America

So was the point about Anglophilia starting shortly after the American Revolution; truthfully, it started earlier and has actually eased over the centuries. Originally, a writer couldn't say he'd really made it until he was published in England, and it took awhile for us to find our own voice instead of just copying English writers.

[Victoribus Spolia]

And the point about the apolitical nature of the royal family was well taken, it certainly isn't anything new:

Of course, the real point in all of this is, that traditionalism and patriarchy should be the apolitical constants for a healthy society, and where they are not, they will return in a vengeance once progressive egalitarianism wreaks its havoc on the people.

[bestkeptsecret]

Personally I think Cromwell was more of a Dictator than anything else, who eroded seperation of powers, and turned out to be a bit of an arse in the end. We saw the error of our ways eventually and went back to Monarchy but enforced the limits we were trying to coerce previous monarchs to agree to. Cromwell is a bit like our homegrown Hitler, but perhaps just too far back in time for us to really see him for what he is.

As far as giving the monarchy real power again, I can't see it ever happening. The problem really comes down to no safety valve. If you have a really bad one in that set up the only way of resolving things is to depose, and that invariably leads to violence. At least if power sits with elected representatives, we can vote them out rather than having to take radical action.

The very idea of anyone floating the idea of bringing back an absolute monarch would suggest we really have gotten to the point where we are a bit to complacent about what it took to get what we have, and how hard it might be to get it back if we give it up.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The problem really comes down to no safety valve. If you have a really bad one in that set up the only way of resolving things is to depose, and that invariably leads to violence. At least if power sits with elected representatives, we can vote them out rather than having to take radical action.

I would say the notion of a hereditary monarchy has inherent self-limiting characteristics that are more concrete than, lets say, the public remaining loyal to a firm interpretation of a constitution (piece of paper). Such a "public belief" is really quite flimsy as a "safety valve" for preventing democracy from evolving into tyranny.

The very idea of anyone floating the idea of bringing back an absolute monarch would suggest we really have gotten to the point where we are a bit to complacent about what it took to get what we have, and how hard it might be to get it back if we give it up.

This assumes that Republicanism is an advancement over monarchy, which would be a point of contention.

[bestkeptsecret]

I would say the notion of a hereditary monarchy has inherent self-limiting characteristics that are more concrete than, lets say, the public remaining loyal to a firm interpretation of a constitution (piece of paper). Such a "public belief" is really quite flimsy as a "safety valve" for preventing democracy from evolving into tyranny.

You were not discussing the merits of a hereditary monarchy. You were putting forward the concept of a monarch restoring absolute rule.

This assumes that Republicanism is an advancement over monarchy, which would be a point of contention.

It isn't because I wasn't suggesting Republicanism was an advancement. That assumes because I don't like the idea of an absolute monarchy, I must therefore believe Republicanism, which I don't.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You were not discussing the merits of a hereditary monarchy. You were putting forward the concept of a monarch restoring absolute rule.

That is not entirely true, that I am advocating a monarch and its inherent authoritarian nature does not preclude its hereditary qualities, which were discussed heavily in this thread as to how such relates to individual rights and liberties.

It isn't because I wasn't suggesting Republicanism was an advancement. That assumes because I don't like the idea of an absolute monarchy, I must therefore believe Republicanism, which I don't.

Well then, by all means, please clarify what you were speaking of when you said this:

we are a bit to complacent about what it took to get what we have, and how hard it might be to get it back if we give it up

To what then are you referring here?

[SolarCross]

You were not discussing the merits of a hereditary monarchy. You were putting forward the concept of a monarch restoring absolute rule.

In Platonic space an absolute monarch and a hereditary monarch might be clear different things but in reality an absolute monarch is one who absolutely has the right to rule over his property part of which necessarily means deciding whom will receive the property, the kingdom, after him. Human nature being what it is 99% of the time any monarch will chose his or her eldest son as his or her first choice with next eldest sons as the back up choices.

Absolute monarchies inevitably become hereditary monarchies.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Absolute monarchies inevitably become hereditary monarchies.

Sure, but I don't think I ever separated the concepts in my arguments. That I know of at least.

In fact, I would actually argue that hereditary patrilineal descent (the pater familias) is the grounds and natural basis of absolute monarchy (following the thought of Sir Robert Filmer in his Patriarcha)

Your point that absolutism precedes hereditary descent, would seem to give credence to the idea that totalitarian dictators are, ipso facto, monarchs if they intend for their children to rule after them.....Something doesn't seem quite right about that though, there does seem to be a difference.

[bestkeptsecret]

That is not entirely true, that I am advocating a monarch and its inherent authoritarian nature does not preclude its hereditary qualities, which were discussed heavily in this thread as to how such relates to individual rights and liberties.

That's not what I'm suggesting either. I agree you hadn't separated out hereditary and monarchy. The issue with an absolute monarch is they rule absolutely. If you get a bad one who rules in a way people don't like, you have to either wait for them to die, or depose them, which generally involves a lot of violence.

The complacency I speak of its forgetting how much of a struggle it was to get rights out of absolute monarchs in the first place. The barons managed to get some for themselves through coercion, but it took a revolution, a bloody civil war, and a dictatorship turned sour to make real progress. It was only then the crown was restored subject to conditions. It was only because the ultimatum was possible and given as part of restoring the monarchy that core rights were won. It took a few decades more until Magna Carta was enshrined in statute in 1297.

Do we really want to risk going backwards and then have to do all that again? seems crazy to me.