Spiritual value of monarchy

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Iwannaplato »

Maia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:15 am The fact that, barring usurpation, no one can aspire to be a monarch, other than members of a specific family, is precisely the point. Again, barring violent usurpation, it prevents anyone else aspiring to supreme power themselves, such as grubby, self-serving politicians.
They don't have supreme power, so this is 1) irrelevant 2) nonsensical in context.
Besides, who would actually want the life of a member of the royal family? Yes, they have great wealth, but is this adequate compensation for how they are forced to live? I don't think so.
I think people are silly to want it. I wouldn't want it, but millions upon millions would.

And nothing you said here rebuts the points I made.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:46 pm
Maia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:15 am The fact that, barring usurpation, no one can aspire to be a monarch, other than members of a specific family, is precisely the point. Again, barring violent usurpation, it prevents anyone else aspiring to supreme power themselves, such as grubby, self-serving politicians.
They don't have supreme power, so this is 1) irrelevant 2) nonsensical in context.
Besides, who would actually want the life of a member of the royal family? Yes, they have great wealth, but is this adequate compensation for how they are forced to live? I don't think so.
I think people are silly to want it. I wouldn't want it, but millions upon millions would.

And nothing you said here rebuts the points I made.
They certainly don't have supreme power, thankfully, but their existence prevents others from aspiring to supreme power. In any case, English monarchs have never had supreme power.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Age »

Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:46 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:46 pm
Maia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:15 am The fact that, barring usurpation, no one can aspire to be a monarch, other than members of a specific family, is precisely the point. Again, barring violent usurpation, it prevents anyone else aspiring to supreme power themselves, such as grubby, self-serving politicians.
They don't have supreme power, so this is 1) irrelevant 2) nonsensical in context.
Besides, who would actually want the life of a member of the royal family? Yes, they have great wealth, but is this adequate compensation for how they are forced to live? I don't think so.
I think people are silly to want it. I wouldn't want it, but millions upon millions would.

And nothing you said here rebuts the points I made.
They certainly don't have supreme power, thankfully, but their existence prevents others from aspiring to supreme power.
The power that they have and hold over some people is EXACTLY what causes "others" to aspire to 'their power'.

It is therefore their actual existence, which makes one aspire to 'that or their power'.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:46 am In any case, English monarchs have never had supreme power.
They may have 'supreme power' on earth, but that certainly is NOT 'supreme power', full stop.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:15 am
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:46 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:46 pm They don't have supreme power, so this is 1) irrelevant 2) nonsensical in context.

I think people are silly to want it. I wouldn't want it, but millions upon millions would.

And nothing you said here rebuts the points I made.
They certainly don't have supreme power, thankfully, but their existence prevents others from aspiring to supreme power.
The power that they have and hold over some people is EXACTLY what causes "others" to aspire to 'their power'.

It is therefore their actual existence, which makes one aspire to 'that or their power'.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:46 am In any case, English monarchs have never had supreme power.
They may have 'supreme power' on earth, but that certainly is NOT 'supreme power', full stop.
English monarchs never had supreme power even in England, let alone the whole earth or anywhere else. Anglo-Saxon monarchs had the Witan, a body that had the power to remove them from office. Norman monarchs had the Curia Regis, which had to agree to their laws, and all monarchs since then have had Parliament, which has the right to make laws.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Age »

Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:11 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:15 am
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:46 am

They certainly don't have supreme power, thankfully, but their existence prevents others from aspiring to supreme power.
The power that they have and hold over some people is EXACTLY what causes "others" to aspire to 'their power'.

It is therefore their actual existence, which makes one aspire to 'that or their power'.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:46 am In any case, English monarchs have never had supreme power.
They may have 'supreme power' on earth, but that certainly is NOT 'supreme power', full stop.
English monarchs never had supreme power even in England, let alone the whole earth or anywhere else. Anglo-Saxon monarchs had the Witan, a body that had the power to remove them from office. Norman monarchs had the Curia Regis, which had to agree to their laws, and all monarchs since then have had Parliament, which has the right to make laws.
And, as I clearly said and stated monarchs MAY HAVE 'supreme power', which also means that they MAY NOT HAVE 'supreme power'. Anyhow, no matter 'who' or 'what' has 'supreme power', at any particular place at any particular period, on earth, that is CERTAINLY NOT 'supreme power'.

But, because people give someone or something the highest rank or authority, thus the highest, or the supreme, power, on earth, then "others" WILL aspire to 'that', type of, 'power'.

Which means, 'the existence' of those, or that. which has been given 'supreme power' does NOT 'prevent' "others" from aspiring to supreme power, but ACTUALLY encourages some to want and seek out 'that, perceived, supreme power'.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:29 am
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:11 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:15 am

The power that they have and hold over some people is EXACTLY what causes "others" to aspire to 'their power'.

It is therefore their actual existence, which makes one aspire to 'that or their power'.


They may have 'supreme power' on earth, but that certainly is NOT 'supreme power', full stop.
English monarchs never had supreme power even in England, let alone the whole earth or anywhere else. Anglo-Saxon monarchs had the Witan, a body that had the power to remove them from office. Norman monarchs had the Curia Regis, which had to agree to their laws, and all monarchs since then have had Parliament, which has the right to make laws.
And, as I clearly said and stated monarchs MAY HAVE 'supreme power', which also means that they MAY NOT HAVE 'supreme power'. Anyhow, no matter 'who' or 'what' has 'supreme power', at any particular place at any particular period, on earth, that is CERTAINLY NOT 'supreme power'.

But, because people give someone or something the highest rank or authority, thus the highest, or the supreme, power, on earth, then "others" WILL aspire to 'that', type of, 'power'.

Which means, 'the existence' of those, or that. which has been given 'supreme power' does NOT 'prevent' "others" from aspiring to supreme power, but ACTUALLY encourages some to want and seek out 'that, perceived, supreme power'.
I think history proves the opposite. It's when monarchies are overthrown that you often get dictators arising, with something approaching supreme power. Stalin, Hitler and Franco spring to mind (and going further back, Cromwell). The preceding monarchies in those countries, for all their faults, were not dictatorships in the modern sense. The apparent exception to this, Mussolini, did not hold supreme power in the same way as the others did precisely because he had to share it with an existing monarchy.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Age »

Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:29 am
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:11 am

English monarchs never had supreme power even in England, let alone the whole earth or anywhere else. Anglo-Saxon monarchs had the Witan, a body that had the power to remove them from office. Norman monarchs had the Curia Regis, which had to agree to their laws, and all monarchs since then have had Parliament, which has the right to make laws.
And, as I clearly said and stated monarchs MAY HAVE 'supreme power', which also means that they MAY NOT HAVE 'supreme power'. Anyhow, no matter 'who' or 'what' has 'supreme power', at any particular place at any particular period, on earth, that is CERTAINLY NOT 'supreme power'.

But, because people give someone or something the highest rank or authority, thus the highest, or the supreme, power, on earth, then "others" WILL aspire to 'that', type of, 'power'.

Which means, 'the existence' of those, or that. which has been given 'supreme power' does NOT 'prevent' "others" from aspiring to supreme power, but ACTUALLY encourages some to want and seek out 'that, perceived, supreme power'.
I think history proves the opposite. It's when monarchies are overthrown that you often get dictators arising, with something approaching supreme power. Stalin, Hitler and Franco spring to mind (and going further back, Cromwell).
I have absolutely NO idea what the term and phrase 'supreme power' means or refers to, to you. But, to me, 'supreme power' just means or refers to, having the highest authority of power. Which, OBVIOUSLY, some "monarchs" have had, at times.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am The preceding monarchies in those countries, for all their faults, were not dictatorships in the modern sense.
What has this got to do with ANY thing.

Those with the 'highest power', here on earth, "monarchs" and "dictators" alike, BOTH encourage "others" to aspire to 'the power', which they have, or have had.

'Their existence', to me, CERTAINLY DOES NOT prevent "others" from aspiring to 'their, supreme, power'.

In fact, to me, 'their existence' actually encourage "others" to seek out and want 'that, supreme, power'.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am The apparent exception to this, Mussolini, did not hold supreme power in the same way as the others did precisely because he had to share it with an existing monarchy.
Is your view of things here really narrowed down to just a relatively few years only?
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:12 am
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:29 am

And, as I clearly said and stated monarchs MAY HAVE 'supreme power', which also means that they MAY NOT HAVE 'supreme power'. Anyhow, no matter 'who' or 'what' has 'supreme power', at any particular place at any particular period, on earth, that is CERTAINLY NOT 'supreme power'.

But, because people give someone or something the highest rank or authority, thus the highest, or the supreme, power, on earth, then "others" WILL aspire to 'that', type of, 'power'.

Which means, 'the existence' of those, or that. which has been given 'supreme power' does NOT 'prevent' "others" from aspiring to supreme power, but ACTUALLY encourages some to want and seek out 'that, perceived, supreme power'.
I think history proves the opposite. It's when monarchies are overthrown that you often get dictators arising, with something approaching supreme power. Stalin, Hitler and Franco spring to mind (and going further back, Cromwell).
I have absolutely NO idea what the term and phrase 'supreme power' means or refers to, to you. But, to me, 'supreme power' just means or refers to, having the highest authority of power. Which, OBVIOUSLY, some "monarchs" have had, at times.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am The preceding monarchies in those countries, for all their faults, were not dictatorships in the modern sense.
What has this got to do with ANY thing.

Those with the 'highest power', here on earth, "monarchs" and "dictators" alike, BOTH encourage "others" to aspire to 'the power', which they have, or have had.

'Their existence', to me, CERTAINLY DOES NOT prevent "others" from aspiring to 'their, supreme, power'.

In fact, to me, 'their existence' actually encourage "others" to seek out and want 'that, supreme, power'.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am The apparent exception to this, Mussolini, did not hold supreme power in the same way as the others did precisely because he had to share it with an existing monarchy.
Is your view of things here really narrowed down to just a relatively few years only?
You have presented no examples, though, and are just stating your opinion. Let me give you another. The Roman Empire was notorious for its usurpations, but Diocletian realised that by investing the emperorship with an aura of spiritual majesty, he could prevent people from aspiring to it. It worked, too, at least for a time.

I like to think that I'm very well read on the history of all periods, so my view of things is most certainly not narrowed down to just a few years.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Age »

Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:21 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:12 am
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am

I think history proves the opposite. It's when monarchies are overthrown that you often get dictators arising, with something approaching supreme power. Stalin, Hitler and Franco spring to mind (and going further back, Cromwell).
I have absolutely NO idea what the term and phrase 'supreme power' means or refers to, to you. But, to me, 'supreme power' just means or refers to, having the highest authority of power. Which, OBVIOUSLY, some "monarchs" have had, at times.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am The preceding monarchies in those countries, for all their faults, were not dictatorships in the modern sense.
What has this got to do with ANY thing.

Those with the 'highest power', here on earth, "monarchs" and "dictators" alike, BOTH encourage "others" to aspire to 'the power', which they have, or have had.

'Their existence', to me, CERTAINLY DOES NOT prevent "others" from aspiring to 'their, supreme, power'.

In fact, to me, 'their existence' actually encourage "others" to seek out and want 'that, supreme, power'.
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:37 am The apparent exception to this, Mussolini, did not hold supreme power in the same way as the others did precisely because he had to share it with an existing monarchy.
Is your view of things here really narrowed down to just a relatively few years only?
You have presented no examples, though, and are just stating your opinion.
I have presented no examples of 'what', EXACTLY? And, 'what' is the opinion that I am just stating here?
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:21 am Let me give you another. The Roman Empire was notorious for its usurpations, but Diocletian realised that by investing the emperorship with an aura of spiritual majesty, he could prevent people from aspiring to it. It worked, too, at least for a time.

I like to think that I'm very well read on the history of all periods, so my view of things is most certainly not narrowed down to just a few years.
History books, by their very nature, are narrowed down to just a, relatively, few years. So, reading history books only provides a, relatively, very narrowed view of things.

Now, you claim here that "monarchs" existence prevents "others" from aspiring to supreme power. You may, however, mean; prevent others from being able to rise to supreme power, but while you continue to say or claim, "monarchs" existence prevents "others" from 'aspiring' to supreme power, I will continue to say that while ANY one has some sort of, perceived, power, or supreme power, then this WILL 'aspire' "others" to obtaining or gaining the EXACT SAME power, supreme or not.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:38 am
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:21 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:12 am

I have absolutely NO idea what the term and phrase 'supreme power' means or refers to, to you. But, to me, 'supreme power' just means or refers to, having the highest authority of power. Which, OBVIOUSLY, some "monarchs" have had, at times.



What has this got to do with ANY thing.

Those with the 'highest power', here on earth, "monarchs" and "dictators" alike, BOTH encourage "others" to aspire to 'the power', which they have, or have had.

'Their existence', to me, CERTAINLY DOES NOT prevent "others" from aspiring to 'their, supreme, power'.

In fact, to me, 'their existence' actually encourage "others" to seek out and want 'that, supreme, power'.


Is your view of things here really narrowed down to just a relatively few years only?
You have presented no examples, though, and are just stating your opinion.
I have presented no examples of 'what', EXACTLY? And, 'what' is the opinion that I am just stating here?
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:21 am Let me give you another. The Roman Empire was notorious for its usurpations, but Diocletian realised that by investing the emperorship with an aura of spiritual majesty, he could prevent people from aspiring to it. It worked, too, at least for a time.

I like to think that I'm very well read on the history of all periods, so my view of things is most certainly not narrowed down to just a few years.
History books, by their very nature, are narrowed down to just a, relatively, few years. So, reading history books only provides a, relatively, very narrowed view of things.

Now, you claim here that "monarchs" existence prevents "others" from aspiring to supreme power. You may, however, mean; prevent others from being able to rise to supreme power, but while you continue to say or claim, "monarchs" existence prevents "others" from 'aspiring' to supreme power, I will continue to say that while ANY one has some sort of, perceived, power, or supreme power, then this WILL 'aspire' "others" to obtaining or gaining the EXACT SAME power, supreme or not.
If I had only ever read one history book, you may have had a point.

While a monarchy certainly makes it much more difficult for others to rise to power, this very fact is likely to reduce the number who aspire to it, too, since they know it's much more difficult.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Age »

Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:48 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:38 am
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:21 am

You have presented no examples, though, and are just stating your opinion.
I have presented no examples of 'what', EXACTLY? And, 'what' is the opinion that I am just stating here?
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:21 am Let me give you another. The Roman Empire was notorious for its usurpations, but Diocletian realised that by investing the emperorship with an aura of spiritual majesty, he could prevent people from aspiring to it. It worked, too, at least for a time.

I like to think that I'm very well read on the history of all periods, so my view of things is most certainly not narrowed down to just a few years.
History books, by their very nature, are narrowed down to just a, relatively, few years. So, reading history books only provides a, relatively, very narrowed view of things.

Now, you claim here that "monarchs" existence prevents "others" from aspiring to supreme power. You may, however, mean; prevent others from being able to rise to supreme power, but while you continue to say or claim, "monarchs" existence prevents "others" from 'aspiring' to supreme power, I will continue to say that while ANY one has some sort of, perceived, power, or supreme power, then this WILL 'aspire' "others" to obtaining or gaining the EXACT SAME power, supreme or not.
If I had only ever read one history book, you may have had a point.

While a monarchy certainly makes it much more difficult for others to rise to power, this very fact is likely to reduce the number who aspire to it, too, since they know it's much more difficult.
And, when one has power, over "others", then this makes "others" aspire to also having that power.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Iwannaplato »

Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:46 am They certainly don't have supreme power, thankfully, but their existence prevents others from aspiring to supreme power.
How could their existence possibly do that. They were monarchs in Russia before the Russian revolution. There's no reason a coup couldn't take place. Given the lack of power of the current monarchy they could not prevent the incursion of a creeping fascism or other form of governmental shift towards dictatorship. But all that is not responding to my post. You are positing a benefit of the monarchy. But even if you are right, it has nothing to do with the specific criticism I raised which, in fact, was ON TOPIC. The spiritual message of the monarchy's existence.
In any case, English monarchs have never had supreme power.
I haven't asserted that they have had supreme power. What I did say was
Well, let's talk about the spiritual value of a monarchy. One of the spiritual messages is that some people are worth more than others based on genetics.
Which I fleshed out here. I can't see where you responded to this so far.
Wealth and 'we are supposed to consider these special people and the media will follow them all the time and consider all their actions and speech very important and central' do not necessarily follow at all. There are many extremely wealthy people who we hear little to nothing about.

Of course if the extremely wealthy choose to dance in the spotlight, they will get more attention than the average person. But they are not considered per se an important new topic if they fart in public, get a new girlfriend, say something good, do something bad and so on.
We are bombarbed with messsages that what these people do and say is vastly more important than what other people do or think or say, regardless of the skills, knowledge, morall goodness, spiritual attainment etc. of the other people.

Yes, celebrities of other kinds fall into this category. The idiocy over that does not eliminate the idiocy over the making important of the Royal Family. And this making important is not simply media based but also ritual based, government based, and implicitly if not openly, given the rituals, spiritually based.

It is a contant message barrage saying that certain people/souls are more important than others and it is based on genetics, not, say skills. This is not to say QE didn't have dipomatic skills. But she was chosen or really acknowledged because of genetics. There was no job ad for her position. She did not beat out other candidates who got to demonstrate their skills, accomplishments, etc. And neither has Charles.

This is a vast ongoing spiritual message to eve ryone. She can be humble while knowing that this message is bombarding the world and squeezing other things to back pages, lower down in google searches, out of the light.

And anyone denying this spiritual message is not noticing consciously, but is affected unconsciously, by this cascade built on symbols, rituals, attention, and outdated metaphors with implicit classist values related to the chosen.

When this pattern happens with a race, we call it racism. When the genetic pool is so tiny (royalty) it is precisely the same pattern, but now the special group is family based, rather than race based. And given the ritual/symbolic aspects supported by the government/media, this spiritual message is a kind of highly specific racism. Not all of white people are special, better, spiritually more necessary, but just this tiny subgroup of white people
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:49 pm
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:48 am
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:38 am

I have presented no examples of 'what', EXACTLY? And, 'what' is the opinion that I am just stating here?


History books, by their very nature, are narrowed down to just a, relatively, few years. So, reading history books only provides a, relatively, very narrowed view of things.

Now, you claim here that "monarchs" existence prevents "others" from aspiring to supreme power. You may, however, mean; prevent others from being able to rise to supreme power, but while you continue to say or claim, "monarchs" existence prevents "others" from 'aspiring' to supreme power, I will continue to say that while ANY one has some sort of, perceived, power, or supreme power, then this WILL 'aspire' "others" to obtaining or gaining the EXACT SAME power, supreme or not.
If I had only ever read one history book, you may have had a point.

While a monarchy certainly makes it much more difficult for others to rise to power, this very fact is likely to reduce the number who aspire to it, too, since they know it's much more difficult.
And, when one has power, over "others", then this makes "others" aspire to also having that power.
And when that individual is a monarch with centuries of tradition, it is far less likely that others will assume power.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:10 pm
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:46 am They certainly don't have supreme power, thankfully, but their existence prevents others from aspiring to supreme power.
How could their existence possibly do that. They were monarchs in Russia before the Russian revolution.
In any case, English monarchs have never had supreme power.
I haven't asserted that they have had supreme power. What I did say was
Well, let's talk about the spiritual value of a monarchy. One of the spiritual messages is that some people are worth more than others based on genetics.
Which I fleshed out here. I can't see where you responded to this so far.
Wealth and 'we are supposed to consider these special people and the media will follow them all the time and consider all their actions and speech very important and central' do not necessarily follow at all. There are many extremely wealthy people who we hear little to nothing about.

Of course if the extremely wealthy choose to dance in the spotlight, they will get more attention than the average person. But they are not considered per se an important new topic if they fart in public, get a new girlfriend, say something good, do something bad and so on.
We are bombarbed with messsages that what these people do and say is vastly more important than what other people do or think or say, regardless of the skills, knowledge, morall goodness, spiritual attainment etc. of the other people.

Yes, celebrities of other kinds fall into this category. The idiocy over that does not eliminate the idiocy over the making important of the Royal Family. And this making important is not simply media based but also ritual based, government based, and implicitly if not openly, given the rituals, spiritually based.

It is a contant message barrage saying that certain people/souls are more important than others and it is based on genetics, not, say skills. This is not to say QE didn't have dipomatic skills. But she was chosen or really acknowledged because of genetics. There was no job ad for her position. She did not beat out other candidates who got to demonstrate their skills, accomplishments, etc. And neither has Charles.

This is a vast ongoing spiritual message to eve ryone. She can be humble while knowing that this message is bombarding the world and squeezing other things to back pages, lower down in google searches, out of the light.

And anyone denying this spiritual message is not noticing consciously, but is affected unconsciously, by this cascade built on symbols, rituals, attention, and outdated metaphors with implicit classist values related to the chosen.

When this pattern happens with a race, we call it racism. When the genetic pool is so tiny (royalty) it is precisely the same pattern, but now the special group is family based, rather than race based. And given the ritual/symbolic aspects supported by the government/media, this spiritual message is a kind of highly specific racism. Not all of white people are special, better, spiritually more necessary, but just this tiny subgroup of white people
The fact that monarchs are different and set apart, by genetics if you like, is exactly why they have the untouchable aura around them.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Age »

Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:13 pm
Age wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:49 pm
Maia wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:48 am

If I had only ever read one history book, you may have had a point.

While a monarchy certainly makes it much more difficult for others to rise to power, this very fact is likely to reduce the number who aspire to it, too, since they know it's much more difficult.
And, when one has power, over "others", then this makes "others" aspire to also having that power.
And when that individual is a monarch with centuries of tradition, it is far less likely that others will assume power.
OF COURSE. BUT, previously, you wrote 'aspiring to', and NOT 'assume'. Which is the ONLY thing that I have been challenging you over.

See, to me, when one has or holds 'power', then this actually encourages "others" to 'aspire to' that same kind of power, and does NOT 'prevent' "others" to 'aspire to' that kind of power, at all.
Post Reply