Salic Law, Primogeniture and Equal Primogeniture

[Taren]

Personally, I am a monarchist only if it is a constitutional monarchy. Having said that, I will also state that my opinion is that equal primogeniture is the most fair system. (...) Let me remind you that several monarchies that did not allow women to inherit the throne were deeply unstable and that several of them are not monarchies anylonger.

Constitutional monarchy is essentially anti-christian, since it removes the power from the hands of the Defender of the Faith - the monarch -  and places it in the hands of an elite group of people who claim to speak for the masses (in a so-called democracy), masses whose ideas are formed exclusively through the press owned by these elites. This elite group of people have largely been the bourgeoisie, of which a good number have not been of Christian faith. The evolution of these countries since the moment of switching from absolute to constitutional monarchy speaks for the anti-christian agenda of these elites: the progressive increasing laxity of the morals standards (rampant pornography, gay marriage laws, bolder and bolder pedophiliacs) imposed in the people's psyche by the elite's press, resulting in:
- gradual to almost complete abandonement of the worshiping of Christ (abysmal church attending rates of less than 5%), traded for
- an the idolatry of pleasures (hedonism) and of self (glorification of intellect and science), which led to
- dropping birth rates and increasing abortion rates, further leading to
- depopulation and, therefore,
- a forced necessary increase in immigration from non-Christian countries (Asian, African) in order to have enough of a labor force to keep the factories running.

The end result of your beloved constitutional monarchy and democracy is nihilistic: a complete destruction of Christianity in all these countries, morally and biologically.

Secondly, the monarchies with salic law succession you claim were unstable were, indeed, so only because of anti-christian revolutionaries, the forefathers of the Bolshevism and Communism, who constatly tried (and ocassionally succeeded) to assasinate the tsars, who fomented the revolutions in France, Germany, and Austria, which toppled their monarchies. As I said on another thread, all Christians are forbidden by their faith from being revolutionary. It was never the good Christians who revolted against their monarchs, but rather the lapsed Christians (e.g. unrepenting homosexuals condemned by the Church turned atheists) and, especially, the anti-Christians (people of other faiths who hate Christianity, satanists such as Karl Marx, etc.).

God bless!
Borbon Fan

I understand the gist of your message and agree with you on some level -that the world is possibly becoming less moral. But the heads of state of any country have nothing to do with church attendance. The only way they could affect it is if they forced people to go to church, but what would the point of that be? It's been my experience that if someone tries to force faith on you it just further drives you away.

Also, if you live in a place with a democracy and you vote for someone that you agree with politically, I'd say that they were speaking for you. So when the masses elect someone, I'd say that that someone was speaking for the masses. Ex. If Candidate A from Alabama was running for United States Senate on a Pro-Life platform (which was why he was elected) and then he passes legislation is favor of abortion, chances are he would not be re-elected, because he had gone against those he was speaking for.

Throughout history, through dictatorships, monarchies, anarchy, democracy -everything- there have always and will always be people that do as they please. They will practice witchcraft, worship trees, have abortions, steal, murder, make scientific discoveries, discover new lands, pray in schools, and anything else they want to. It has nothing to do with the leaders of their countries. If someone wants to be a Christian, they will. Again, they cannot be forced. I live in a country that says prayer in school is illegal. Was I ever stopped from praying in school? No. I did it when I wanted to. No one tried to stop me.

[Rebecca]

Personally, I am a monarchist only if it is a constitutional monarchy. Having said that, I will also state that my opinion is that equal primogeniture is the most fair system. (...) Let me remind you that several monarchies that did not allow women to inherit the throne were deeply unstable and that several of them are not monarchies anylonger.

Constitutional monarchy is essentially anti-christian, since it removes the power from the hands of the Defender of the Faith - the monarch -  and places it in the hands of an elite group of people who claim to speak for the masses (in a so-called democracy), masses whose ideas are formed exclusively through the press owned by these elites. This elite group of people have largely been the bourgeoisie, of which a good number have not been of Christian faith. The evolution of these countries since the moment of switching from absolute to constitutional monarchy speaks for the anti-christian agenda of these elites: the progressive increasing laxity of the morals standards (rampant pornography, gay marriage laws, bolder and bolder pedophiliacs) imposed in the people's psyche by the elite's press, resulting in:
- gradual to almost complete abandonement of the worshiping of Christ (abysmal church attending rates of less than 5%), traded for
- an the idolatry of pleasures (hedonism) and of self (glorification of intellect and science), which led to
- dropping birth rates and increasing abortion rates, further leading to
- depopulation and, therefore,
- a forced necessary increase in immigration from non-Christian countries (Asian, African) in order to have enough of a labor force to keep the factories running.

The end result of your beloved constitutional monarchy and democracy is nihilistic: a complete destruction of Christianity in all these countries, morally and biologically.

And you seriously believe that all of this is going to take place in Sweden because the heir to the throne is female?

[Robert_Hall]

BTW, what is so wrong with CP Viktoria's boyfriend? Her mother, indeed  the Queen of Norway and all the crown princesses of Europe are commoners. Why can't she have a commoner spouse as well ? The idea odf "equal"  marriages and the so-called Salic Laws is no anarchronistic as to be prime subject for another playstation game.

[BorbonFan]

And you seriously believe that all of this is going to take place in Sweden because the heir to the throne is female?

As I wrote, these effects have been (not "are going to") taking place in Sweden and other constitutional monarchies, because the mass opinions are now formed by the free press of the "democratic" anti-Christian elites who have been ruling it, since the King was stripped of His absolute powers. The fact that Princess V. is now heiress is also another effect, not a cause, of this power shift from absolute to constitutional.

[Rebecca]

Oh, how little you know about Sweden, Borbonfan. 

End of discussion on my part.

[BorbonFan]

I understand the gist of your message and agree with you on some level -that the world is possibly becoming less moral. But the heads of state of any country have nothing to do with church attendance. The only way they could affect it is if they forced people to go to church, but what would the point of that be? It's been my experience that if someone tries to force faith on you it just further drives you away.

The rulers of the nations, whether absolute monarchs or "democratic" governments, have a lot to do with public morality. This is shaped by mass communication: under absolute monarchy, mass communication was done in churches and Church-sanctioned schools. These preserved the Faith and morality of a people, thus ensuring the salvation of their souls. Under constitutional monarchy, mass communication became mainly through the printed press, previously censored because the King knew that the same anti-Christian revolutionaries who aggitated for "democracy" were also pushing for their press to become free in order to slander the Church and the Faith. And now its is, with the consequences on public morality and even the biological survival of a nation outlined in my main message.

What I find extremely hypocritical is that under the so-called "democracy"/constitutional monarchy, the press is, nevertheless, undemocratic! Yes! The press is not owned by the people ("democracy" comes from the Greek "demos" "cratos" - the power of the people), with few exceptions (main national TV and radio stations), but largely by a handful of individuals, whose morals we can infer from the immoral anti-Christian garbage they print daily.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[BorbonFan]

Oh, how little you know about Sweden, Borbonfan. 

End of discussion on my part.

You brought no counterarguments, no counterevidence to my points. You're not doing too good a job defending constitutional monarchy.

[jehan]

I understand the gist of your message and agree with you on some level -that the world is possibly becoming less moral. But the heads of state of any country have nothing to do with church attendance. The only way they could affect it is if they forced people to go to church, but what would the point of that be? It's been my experience that if someone tries to force faith on you it just further drives you away.

The rulers of the nations, whether absolute monarchs or "democratic" governments, have a lot to do with public morality. This is shaped by mass communication: under absolute monarchy, mass communication was the church and church-sanctioned schools. These preserved the faith and morality of a people, thus ensuring the salvation of their souls. Under constitutional monarchy, mass communication became that via the printedd press, previously censored because the King knew that the same anti-Christian revolutionaries who aggitated for "democracy" were pushing also for their press to become free to slander the Church and the Faith. And now its is, with the consequences on public morality outlined in my main message.

What I find extremely hypocritical is that under the so-called "democracy"/constitutional monarchy, the press is, nevertheless, undemocratic! Yes! The press is not owned by the people ("democracy" comes from the Greek demos cratos - the power of the people), with few exceptions (main national TV and radio stations), but largely by a handful of individuals, whose morals we can infer from the immoral anti-Christian garbage they print.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

Please cite a time in history where the shiny happy peasantry lived in absolute morality under abolutist monarchy (with male sucession, of course  ), and everyone was carefully guarded from immorality and nobody complained.

Do you think maybe there was a reason why heresies began to emerge, the people became restless for more freedom, and they began to overthrow the systems that were no longer working for them?  Maybe the old system wasn't working?

And there have been heretics among absolutist monarchs too, don't forget.

I'm sure in your perfect world things would work just fine, because the people would be sheep believing whatever they were told because their overlords told them not to think too hard for themselves, but can you please tell me where this has ever existed at any point in history?

[Taren]

I understand the gist of your message and agree with you on some level -that the world is possibly becoming less moral. But the heads of state of any country have nothing to do with church attendance. The only way they could affect it is if they forced people to go to church, but what would the point of that be? It's been my experience that if someone tries to force faith on you it just further drives you away.

The rulers of the nations, whether absolute monarchs or "democratic" governments, have a lot to do with public morality. This is shaped by mass communication: under absolute monarchy, mass communication was the church and church-sanctioned schools. These preserved the faith and morality of a people, thus ensuring the salvation of their souls. Under constitutional monarchy, mass communication became that via the printedd press, previously censored because the King knew that the same anti-Christian revolutionaries who aggitated for "democracy" were pushing also for their press to become free to slander the Church and the Faith. And now its is, with the consequences on public morality outlined in my main message.

What I find extremely hypocritical is that under the so-called "democracy"/constitutional monarchy, the press is, nevertheless, undemocratic! Yes! The press is not owned by the people ("democracy" comes from the Greek demos cratos - the power of the people), with few exceptions (main national TV and radio stations), but largely by a handful of individuals, whose morals we can infer from the immoral anti-Christian garbage they print.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

I respectfully disagree with you.

1. I do not believe that anyone needs a President, King, or Queen to preserve their faith. Faith is personal. My relationship with God is mine and mine alone. If someone asks me about it I'll tell them, but like I said: cramming something down someone's throat usually turns them against you. If it was suddenly illegal to be a Christian and anti Christian propaganda was being blared in my ears at all times, that would not change my beliefs. However, if it was suddenly illegal to not attend church I would feel equally offended, because again, people can not be forced.

2. Just because a society is democratic, that does not make it immoral. Things seem so bad because that's all the news reports. Of course we hear about the immorality, but rarely hear about good being done in the world. There are good people out there. Not every citizen or representative in a democratic society is a heathen. Generalizations are rarely the absolute truth.

3. Furthermore, if you don't like the way things are, "you must be the change you wish to see in the world". If you think that the world should be a Christian society filled with true Christians -loving, non-judgemental people- be the best example you can to those that see you. Espousing negatvity about entire countries, entire societies, will never bring anyone over to your side. If Jesus had sat around complaining about people, I doubt He would have had that many followers. Instead, He showed love.

4. Just for the sake of being on topic, I believe in the right of every country to decide for itself which form of succesion they use. Just like forms government, different ways of succession work for different countries. Salic Law doesn't seem to be working very well in Japan for instance, but if they don't want to change it that's their right. No skin off my back. I agree with whoever said that the monarch should decide who his or her successor will be, based on aptitude. Better the best person for the job than being monarch just because of gender. I apply that to jobs in the real world for us commoners as well.

[BorbonFan]

@ jehan: I never said the people lived in absolute morality under absolute monarchy. What I said was that morality worsened significantly under the constitutional one/democracy.

The reasons for heresies are numerous - it's too vast a topic and does not belong on this thread, Maybe a different one.

As to your objection to  people being "sheep believing whatever they were told", I am sorry, but Christ referred to His faithful as His "sheep" many times and to Himself and His apostles as "shepherds".

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[Taren]

Yeah, but Christ's sheep didn't follow Him because they couldn't think for themselves. Jehan is referring to people that we refer to today as sheep because they cannot think for themselves and need to tell them how to think.

[BorbonFan]

1. I do not believe that anyone needs a President, King, or Queen to preserve their faith. Faith is personal. My relationship with God is mine and mine alone. If someone asks me about it I'll tell them, but like I said: cramming something down someone's throat usually turns them against you. If it was suddenly illegal to be a Christian and anti Christian propaganda was being blared in my ears at all times, that would not change my beliefs. However, if it was suddenly illegal to not attend church I would feel equally offended, because again, people can not be forced.

2. Just because a society is democratic, that does not make it immoral. Things seem so bad because that's all the news reports. Of course we hear about the immorality, but rarely hear about good being done in the world. There are good people out there. Not every citizen or representative in a democratic society is a heathen. Generalizations are rarely the absolute truth.

3. Furthermore, if you don't like the way things are, "you must be the change you wish to see in the world". If you think that the world should be a Christian society filled with true Christians -loving, non-judgemental people- be the best example you can to those that see you. Espousing negatvity about entire countries, entire societies, will never bring anyone over to your side. If Jesus had sat around complaining about people, I doubt He would have had that many followers. Instead, He showed love.

1. You see things from the level of an individual, at a personal level. I see things from above, at the level of a nation. While you may very well be able to keep your faith without outside help, can you vouch the same for less educated or intelligent people, who believe anything the newspaper tells them? Don't forget that the vast majority of a nation is not as well educated as you are (and I say this purely based on your high-level writing). On the contrary: there are many people who barely know how to read and write and dont understand subtleties! Why do you think that Christ referred to His faithful as "sheep" and to Himself and the apostles as "shepherds" so often? The truth is the people need shepherds: if the Church is removed from this leading position, Her enemies are poised to take Her place, as nature loathes vacuum. And Her enemies have already taken it, little by little, with the anti-Christian anti-monarchical revolutions of 1789, 1830, 1848, 1917, and so on.

2. I judge the deteriorating morality in democracies not on press reports as you claim (which, indeed, are biased heavily towards negativistic news), but on hard facts: increasing abortion rates, cases of pedophilia, distribution of pornographic materials etc.

3. I completely agree with you that the only way we can effect a positive change in the world is to start with ourselves: becoming less sinful, becoming better models of good behavior (through more prayer, fasting, and charity work), models of love, meekness, and tenderness to those around us, so that others, too, may be inspired and start thinking of becoming Christian. What I don't agree with is that Christ was all milk and honey: do you forget His railings against the money exchangers in the Temple, against the pharisees and the hypocrites, against the satanists, etc.?

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[Robert_Hall]

Just what "morality" are you imposing upon the whole of the world? Not even the Pope would agree with your "visions & prophecies" Borbon Fan.
 Only one third of the world in  christian, and the other 2 thirds have no interest in changing their beliefs.  And amomgst those christians, not a fraction even  would swallow your nonsense.
 There is no way that justice to all men and women of all races and sexualities  would be progressing, with such bizarre obstacles as yours without sanity and clear education
 Salic law  is NOT god's will. Wherever do you come up with that nonsense? It was a 6th century device to ensure the division of property amomgst a man's heirs.  The idea being that women were weak [WRONG!}  and sons  could preserve the inheritance. Well- it has proved an historical disater  with  the HRE. To cite just one instance.
 And there have many  instances of queens regnant & regent that proved far more capable than male candidates- including the Most Catholic thrones in Spain.
 Having said all that, I am with Rebecca- you have ruined yet another thread with your bizarre judgements and silly prophecies.

[BorbonFan]

Just what "morality" are you imposing upon the whole of the world? Not even the Pope would agree with your "visions & prophecies" Borbon Fan.
 Only one third of the world in  christian, and the other 2 thirds have no interest in changing their beliefs.  And amomgst those christians, not a fraction even  would swallow your nonsense.
 There is no way that justice to all men and women of all races and sexualities  would be progressing, with such bizarre obstacles as yours without sanity and clear education
 Salic law  is NOT god's will. Wherever do you come up with that nonsense? It was a 6th century device to ensure the division of property amomgst a man's heirs.  The idea being that women were weak [WRONG!}  and sons  could preserve the inheritance. Well- it has proved an historical disater  with  the HRE. To cite just one instance.
 And there have many  instances of queens regnant & regent that proved far more capable than male candidates- including the Most Catholic thrones in Spain.
 Having said all that, I am with Rebecca- you have ruined yet another thread with your bizarre judgements and silly prophecies.

It is well known that homosexuals hate conservative Christianity and other similar religions (Orthodox Judaism, Islam) which condemn homosexuality and used to punish it very harshly (e.g. by death). No wonder then that as an avowed homosexual (and this is not an accusation, but a fact you admitted to when you talked about your partner) you are so blinded by hatred towards anybody who holds conservative views like myself, so much as to put words in my mouth and hurl insults at me.

Firstly, I do not seek to impose my views on the entire world. I dare you quote me with something to this effect.

Secondly, salic law is God's (spelled with capital "g", unlike your spelling) will: read again the quotes from the Bible which I posted recently on the board about how women should not rule over men, nor teach in Church.

Thirdly, you have put words not just in my, but also in Rebecca's mouth: she never claimed that I "have ruined yet another thread."

Fourthly, I did not make up these prophecies; they were given by God to His saints. I only dared to interpret them for those amongst us of a weaker faith (clearly not your case, as you have none) to grow stronger in it when they see them fulfilled. Therefore, please, feel free to ignore the prophecies and their bearer - me - altogether. Be the bigger person of the two of us and leave me and my "bizarre judgements and silly prophecies" alone. That is only if your hatred allows you to, of course.

Thank you in advance!
Borbon Fan

[Taren]

Just what "morality" are you imposing upon the whole of the world? Not even the Pope would agree with your "visions & prophecies" Borbon Fan.
 Only one third of the world in  christian, and the other 2 thirds have no interest in changing their beliefs.  And amomgst those christians, not a fraction even  would swallow your nonsense.
 There is no way that justice to all men and women of all races and sexualities  would be progressing, with such bizarre obstacles as yours without sanity and clear education
 Salic law  is NOT god's will. Wherever do you come up with that nonsense? It was a 6th century device to ensure the division of property amomgst a man's heirs.  The idea being that women were weak [WRONG!}  and sons  could preserve the inheritance. Well- it has proved an historical disater  with  the HRE. To cite just one instance.
 And there have many  instances of queens regnant & regent that proved far more capable than male candidates- including the Most Catholic thrones in Spain.
 Having said all that, I am with Rebecca- you have ruined yet another thread with your bizarre judgements and silly prophecies.

It is well known that homosexuals hate conservative Christianity and other similar religions (Orthodox Judaism, Islam) which condemn homosexuality and used to punish it very harshly (e.g. by death). No wonder then that as an avowed homosexual (and this is not an accusation, but a fact you admitted to when you talked about your partner) you are so blinded by hatred towards anybody who holds conservative views like myself, so much as to put words in my mouth and hurl insults at me.

That's a pretty harsh generalization. I have many gay friends and while they don't agree with some of what Christianity teaches, I have NEVER heard any of them say they hated any religion. Furthermore, Robert himself did not say he hated Christians or any other religion. What he said was that he disliked what you personally have to say. I'm with him there. The only one that seemed blinded by hatred here is you. This is so off topic it's not even funny and I apologize.