Spiritual value of monarchy

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:59 pm
Are you saying that the role the monarchy played in WW2, for example, was similar to that of Hitler?
Certainly not. Hitler was an architect of the war. The monarchy was along for the ride.
Don't you think they helped the nation, when its very existence was threatened?
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by phyllo »

Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 5:59 pm
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:59 pm
Are you saying that the role the monarchy played in WW2, for example, was similar to that of Hitler?
Certainly not. Hitler was an architect of the war. The monarchy was along for the ride.
Don't you think they helped the nation, when its very existence was threatened?
Sure, I think it was somewhat helpful. But perhaps the price was too high.

Nations have rallied without the need of monarchs. They rallied around other symbols and concepts. Some of which were more egalitarian than a "holy" monarchy.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by promethean75 »

"How can you justify having immense wealth and power while the majority of people live in awful conditions?"

while he plundered far and wide
All his starving children cried
And though we sung his fame
We all went hungry just the same...
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Iwannaplato »

Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:50 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:41 pm
Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:37 pm

It's not a question of justifying it, but rather, of judging which system works best. That is, which system produces the most stable forms of society over long periods.
I'm not sure we have any way to judge that. We can't run experiments. But this monarchy is nothing like the monarchies that actually were monarchies. So, it is very young. The old monarchs wielded real power. So 'the system' is not something that has been around that long. And the system has not been stable since it included the crumbling of the empire the joining and leaving the EU, a couple of world wars and the, for the most part, removal of political power of the monarches. I am blaming those things on the monarchy, but I don't know what would let us know that this kind of show monarchy is stable or better than not having it.
Monarchs in England were never absolute, and always had a parliament, or some other body, to advise them. The political changes you mention have been happening gradually since the 17th century, before even the rise of the British Empire to world power status.
I never said they were absolute, but there has been a very large change in the last 120 years and really in the period before she came to what was not power. They are no longer political leaders. They serve a symbolic role at incredible expense. Perhaps that's good, but it is not a continuous system. And then, as I said, how can one possibly test what works best. It seemed, from the way you phrased it, that you knew it was the best system. I can't see how you could know that.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Iwannaplato »

phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:16 pm
Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 5:59 pm
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:59 pm Certainly not. Hitler was an architect of the war. The monarchy was along for the ride.
Don't you think they helped the nation, when its very existence was threatened?
Sure, I think it was somewhat helpful. But perhaps the price was too high.

Nations have rallied without the need of monarchs. They rallied around other symbols and concepts. Some of which were more egalitarian than a "holy" monarchy.
Yes. It is as if no other set of symbols, things in common, ideals could bind people, help them deal with crises, unity etc.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Iwannaplato »

Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:14 am Recent events have brought home the fact that monarchy should primarily be judged in spiritual, or religious terms, or at least emotional ones, rather than political, and its political function is secondary to its true purpose, namely, to unite a nation with a shared spiritual identity. The ancients knew this, and originally, as in Egypt, kings were literally gods. Later, in the medieval period, though the kings could no longer be gods, they were nevertheless crowned by god, or god's representative, and assumed a holy aura in that way. Today, this aura survives in the mystique of monarchy. Those who criticise the Queen, for example, for being aloof, really have missed the point, because that's exactly what she is supposed to be.
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.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:16 pm
Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 5:59 pm
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:59 pm Certainly not. Hitler was an architect of the war. The monarchy was along for the ride.
Don't you think they helped the nation, when its very existence was threatened?
Sure, I think it was somewhat helpful. But perhaps the price was too high.

Nations have rallied without the need of monarchs. They rallied around other symbols and concepts. Some of which were more egalitarian than a "holy" monarchy.
Have such symbols lasted for hundreds, even thousands, of years?
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:12 pm
Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:50 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:41 pm I'm not sure we have any way to judge that. We can't run experiments. But this monarchy is nothing like the monarchies that actually were monarchies. So, it is very young. The old monarchs wielded real power. So 'the system' is not something that has been around that long. And the system has not been stable since it included the crumbling of the empire the joining and leaving the EU, a couple of world wars and the, for the most part, removal of political power of the monarches. I am blaming those things on the monarchy, but I don't know what would let us know that this kind of show monarchy is stable or better than not having it.
Monarchs in England were never absolute, and always had a parliament, or some other body, to advise them. The political changes you mention have been happening gradually since the 17th century, before even the rise of the British Empire to world power status.
I never said they were absolute, but there has been a very large change in the last 120 years and really in the period before she came to what was not power. They are no longer political leaders. They serve a symbolic role at incredible expense. Perhaps that's good, but it is not a continuous system. And then, as I said, how can one possibly test what works best. It seemed, from the way you phrased it, that you knew it was the best system. I can't see how you could know that.
The change, as I said, happened long before that, and was gradual, mostly. Specific events include the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, both in the 17th century.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:15 pm
Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:14 am Recent events have brought home the fact that monarchy should primarily be judged in spiritual, or religious terms, or at least emotional ones, rather than political, and its political function is secondary to its true purpose, namely, to unite a nation with a shared spiritual identity. The ancients knew this, and originally, as in Egypt, kings were literally gods. Later, in the medieval period, though the kings could no longer be gods, they were nevertheless crowned by god, or god's representative, and assumed a holy aura in that way. Today, this aura survives in the mystique of monarchy. Those who criticise the Queen, for example, for being aloof, really have missed the point, because that's exactly what she is supposed to be.
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.
As opposed to, say, wealth?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Iwannaplato »

Maia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:16 am As opposed to, say, wealth?
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
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:07 am
Maia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:16 am As opposed to, say, wealth?
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 everyone. 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.
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.

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.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by phyllo »

Maia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:13 am
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:16 pm
Maia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 5:59 pm

Don't you think they helped the nation, when its very existence was threatened?
Sure, I think it was somewhat helpful. But perhaps the price was too high.

Nations have rallied without the need of monarchs. They rallied around other symbols and concepts. Some of which were more egalitarian than a "holy" monarchy.
Have such symbols lasted for hundreds, even thousands, of years?
Language and land, for example, last a long time.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

phyllo wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:57 pm
Maia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:13 am
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:16 pm Sure, I think it was somewhat helpful. But perhaps the price was too high.

Nations have rallied without the need of monarchs. They rallied around other symbols and concepts. Some of which were more egalitarian than a "holy" monarchy.
Have such symbols lasted for hundreds, even thousands, of years?
Language and land, for example, last a long time.
Give some examples where those have been used.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by phyllo »

Give some examples where those have been used.
Start here:
Romantic nationalism (also national romanticism, organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state claims its political legitimacy as an organic consequence of the unity of those it governs. This includes such factors as language, race, ethnicity, culture, religion, and customs of the nation in its primal sense of those who were born within its culture. It can be applied to ethnic nationalism as well as civic nationalism. Romantic nationalism arose in reaction to dynastic or imperial hegemony, which assessed the legitimacy of the state from the top down, emanating from a monarch or other authority, which justified its existence. Such downward-radiating power might ultimately derive from a god or gods (see the divine right of kings and the Mandate of Heaven).[1][2]

Among the key themes of Romanticism, and its most enduring legacy, the cultural assertions of romantic nationalism have also been central in post-Enlightenment art and political philosophy. From its earliest stirrings, with their focus on the development of national languages and folklore, and the spiritual value of local customs and traditions, to the movements that would redraw the map of Europe and lead to calls for self-determination of nationalities, nationalism was one of the key issues in Romanticism, determining its roles, expressions and meanings. Romantic nationalism, resulting from this interaction between cultural production and political thought, became "the celebration of the nation (defined in its language, history and cultural character) as an inspiring ideal for artistic expression; and the instrumentalization of that expression in political consciousness-raising".[3]

Historically in Europe, the watershed year for romantic nationalism was 1848, when a revolutionary wave spread across the continent; numerous nationalistic revolutions occurred in various fragmented regions (such as Italy) or multinational states (such as the Austrian Empire). While initially the revolutions fell to reactionary forces and the old order was quickly re-established, the many revolutions would mark the first step towards liberalisation and the formation of modern nation states across much of Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Spiritual value of monarchy

Post by Maia »

phyllo wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 7:16 pm
Give some examples where those have been used.
Start here:
Romantic nationalism (also national romanticism, organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state claims its political legitimacy as an organic consequence of the unity of those it governs. This includes such factors as language, race, ethnicity, culture, religion, and customs of the nation in its primal sense of those who were born within its culture. It can be applied to ethnic nationalism as well as civic nationalism. Romantic nationalism arose in reaction to dynastic or imperial hegemony, which assessed the legitimacy of the state from the top down, emanating from a monarch or other authority, which justified its existence. Such downward-radiating power might ultimately derive from a god or gods (see the divine right of kings and the Mandate of Heaven).[1][2]

Among the key themes of Romanticism, and its most enduring legacy, the cultural assertions of romantic nationalism have also been central in post-Enlightenment art and political philosophy. From its earliest stirrings, with their focus on the development of national languages and folklore, and the spiritual value of local customs and traditions, to the movements that would redraw the map of Europe and lead to calls for self-determination of nationalities, nationalism was one of the key issues in Romanticism, determining its roles, expressions and meanings. Romantic nationalism, resulting from this interaction between cultural production and political thought, became "the celebration of the nation (defined in its language, history and cultural character) as an inspiring ideal for artistic expression; and the instrumentalization of that expression in political consciousness-raising".[3]

Historically in Europe, the watershed year for romantic nationalism was 1848, when a revolutionary wave spread across the continent; numerous nationalistic revolutions occurred in various fragmented regions (such as Italy) or multinational states (such as the Austrian Empire). While initially the revolutions fell to reactionary forces and the old order was quickly re-established, the many revolutions would mark the first step towards liberalisation and the formation of modern nation states across much of Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism
If this sort of blood and soil nationalism only took off after 1848, I'm not sure why you're using it as an example to rival the many centuries of monarchy. And since it can lead to things like Nazism, it's hardly a good example of stability, either.
Post Reply