If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   BBC: Aging monarch announces abdication so next generation can take the helm. Prince Charles: Missed it by this much   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 71
    More: Spiffy, kings, Belgium, national language  
•       •       •

5327 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:20 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-04 03:27:42 PM
I wonder what European royalty, especially British royalty, would be like if the Catholic church never existed?

I'd imagine far less golden stuff and flashy regalia.
 
2013-07-04 03:46:03 PM

dywed88: And there are concerns how the Monarchy will handle the end of Elizabeth II's reign as there have been serious questions around the public support of the potential heirs.


For quite a bit of the public, she is the Monarchy. They've known no one else. It wouldn't surprise me too much if some of her realms became republics after she's gone, though obviously not GB.
 
2013-07-04 03:59:23 PM

netgamer7k: I wonder what European royalty, especially British royalty, would be like if the Catholic church never existed?

I'd imagine far less golden stuff and flashy regalia.


I dunno, it's not like Catholicism or even Christianity made rulers want to accrue ostentatious displays of wealth. Older pagan realms often promoted the ruler as a god themselves, and bedecked themselves in so much gold they make the Pope look poor.

Of course if you want to get right into it then if there was no Catholic church then the entire history of Europe would be completely different from the fall of Rome, and probably before. There might even have been different outcomes to the migrations of the barbarian hordes, as some converted and fought for Rome. The Franks could have gone east, the Angles might have skipped Britain and gone to Spain instead. Well, maybe not, but you see what I'm getting at, such a drastic and huge change would be impossible to really get a good measure of the outcome from.
 
2013-07-04 04:11:02 PM

netgamer7k: I wonder what European royalty, especially British royalty, would be like if the Catholic church never existed?

I'd imagine far less golden stuff and flashy regalia.


Because no African, Asian, or American king ever wore gold.
 
2013-07-04 04:37:09 PM

Slaxl: netgamer7k: I wonder what European royalty, especially British royalty, would be like if the Catholic church never existed?

I'd imagine far less golden stuff and flashy regalia.

I dunno, it's not like Catholicism or even Christianity made rulers want to accrue ostentatious displays of wealth. Older pagan realms often promoted the ruler as a god themselves, and bedecked themselves in so much gold they make the Pope look poor.

Of course if you want to get right into it then if there was no Catholic church then the entire history of Europe would be completely different from the fall of Rome, and probably before. There might even have been different outcomes to the migrations of the barbarian hordes, as some converted and fought for Rome. The Franks could have gone east, the Angles might have skipped Britain and gone to Spain instead. Well, maybe not, but you see what I'm getting at, such a drastic and huge change would be impossible to really get a good measure of the outcome from.


The formation of modern governments might be an issue- we could very well still be living in tribal societies, led by small time chieftains calling themselves kings. The Catholic church is where we get bureaucratic governance from. China invented it long before, but they didn't share, and it had to be independently derived. But the organization of Canon Law allowed for a structured and hierarchical body of law, which made it possible for any given official to administer routinely. Prior to that, ruling officials would issue edicts and laws, but they weren't organized, and as such, were often contradictory, and enforcement depended on how the judicial proceeding (which was just one guy in most cases) was feeling that day. Very arbitrary, very capricious. Afterwards, the laws were unified, and classified as to which was superior in case of a conflict, offenses categorized by seriousness, ect. That system is the basis for the operations of executive government in the Western world.

Now, if the Catholic church, and thus Canon law, did not exist, we could look at the English Common law, which was arising at a similar time. In that system law evolves based on judicial rulings, which are based on precedent, and then become precedent themselves. Resultantly, the law is constantly being reviewed, refined, and adjusted based on whether the results are equitable. If canon law didn't evolve and provide the basis for administrative enforcement, it's possible the common law, and its judicial process, might have expanded into the roles we now think of as legislative and executive. Which could actually be a really interesting system, and I wouldn't be entirely shocked to learn that a system along those lines has evolved somewhere.
 
2013-07-04 04:53:28 PM

cptjeff: Slaxl: netgamer7k: I wonder what European royalty, especially British royalty, would be like if the Catholic church never existed?

I'd imagine far less golden stuff and flashy regalia.

I dunno, it's not like Catholicism or even Christianity made rulers want to accrue ostentatious displays of wealth. Older pagan realms often promoted the ruler as a god themselves, and bedecked themselves in so much gold they make the Pope look poor.

Of course if you want to get right into it then if there was no Catholic church then the entire history of Europe would be completely different from the fall of Rome, and probably before. There might even have been different outcomes to the migrations of the barbarian hordes, as some converted and fought for Rome. The Franks could have gone east, the Angles might have skipped Britain and gone to Spain instead. Well, maybe not, but you see what I'm getting at, such a drastic and huge change would be impossible to really get a good measure of the outcome from.

The formation of modern governments might be an issue- we could very well still be living in tribal societies, led by small time chieftains calling themselves kings. The Catholic church is where we get bureaucratic governance from. China invented it long before, but they didn't share, and it had to be independently derived. But the organization of Canon Law allowed for a structured and hierarchical body of law, which made it possible for any given official to administer routinely. Prior to that, ruling officials would issue edicts and laws, but they weren't organized, and as such, were often contradictory, and enforcement depended on how the judicial proceeding (which was just one guy in most cases) was feeling that day. Very arbitrary, very capricious. Afterwards, the laws were unified, and classified as to which was superior in case of a conflict, offenses categorized by seriousness, ect. That system is the basis for the operations of executive government in the Western world.

Now, if the Catholic church, and thus Canon law, did not exist, we could look at the English Common law, which was arising at a similar time. In that system law evolves based on judicial rulings, which are based on precedent, and then become precedent themselves. Resultantly, the law is constantly being reviewed, refined, and adjusted based on whether the results are equitable. If canon law didn't evolve and provide the basis for administrative enforcement, it's possible the common law, and its judicial process, might have expanded into the roles we now think of as legislative and executive. Which could actually be a really interesting system, and I wouldn't be entirely shocked to learn that a system along those lines has evolved somewhere.


I think you need to read a bit more history. The Catholic Church did not invent those ideas. They were present in numerous societies befor the church was formed, notably Rome from which a lot of the Church emerged. And, by "Catholic Church" I assume you mean Christian Churches, the East was much the same.

Obviously the Catholic Church had an enormous impact on history, not just European, but globally. But the idea that modern beaurocracy and government stems from the Church is simply not true. It is as bad as the people that argue Democracy would not exist without Athens.
 
2013-07-04 05:31:38 PM

dywed88: The Catholic Church did not invent those ideas


Well, they did. They weren't the first to invent them, but they did come up with it more or less independently. The others who came up with them in some form (ie China, which developed a bureaucracy we would recognize back in the Zhou dynasty), didn't really spread them.

As for Roman law, they made a lot of important developments, like broad statutes that addressed a wider array of situations by working at a more abstract level, but the Romans never got past a system of overlapping edicts with competing commentaries to try and reconcile the differences. Canon law came about when the church took a look at their system of laws, both religious and secular, which was organized essentially the same way as Roman law had been, and said, "we need to organize and systematize this crap". Obviously everything comes from somewhere, but Canon law was a pretty big leap forward from what the Romans had. The Romans could project their empire, and nominally their laws (the law as enforced was made by the local governors) through military force and communication. The Church bureaucratized the administration of them, which allowed for much greater control by the centralized government.

And no, I don't mean Christian Churches- the Roman Catholic Church was the one that made the development, not the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church certainly adopted the concept, though I don't recall how long it took them.

Canon law's importance is not in the existence of laws. Canon law's importance is in the systematization of them.
 
2013-07-04 06:14:53 PM

cptjeff: The Orthodox Church certainly adopted the concept, though I don't recall how long it took them.


Late enough that we got the word "byzantine".
 
2013-07-04 08:06:55 PM
In a national televised address, the 79-year-old monarch said he would step down

YAY!  One less parasite in the world!

in favour of his son Crown Prince Philippe, 53, on 21 July, Belgium's national day.
fark.  They're going to keep having parasites.
 
2013-07-04 08:37:59 PM
King of the WHO?!?
 
2013-07-04 08:51:04 PM
Charles has been waiting his turn my entire life. I'm almost 40. In fact, according to Wiki, he became the heir apparent to the British throne 20 years before I was born, so...at 60 years total, the longest-serving heir apparent in British history.

Wow.

Hey, Prince Charles - hurry up and wait faster!
 
2013-07-04 10:01:09 PM
For those who advocate the revokation of the British Monarchy...

Why?

"Because it shouldn't be there" isn't an explanation. WHY Shouldn't it be there. "Anachronism" is also not a valid answer, as you would have to explain why a constitutional-democratic/republican monarchy is an anachronism.

And that's not going into stripping the British royal family of their personal titles and lands. I often hear cries of "They stole it". From whom did they steal the lands? The Duchy of Lancaster (where the Royal Family gets most of it's money these days) was added to the Crown by Henry VII at the end of the Wars of the Roses, and he certainly had a legimiate claim to them. Or are you talking about when the Normans invaded England in 1066, displacing the Saxon nobility, who they themselves displaced the Romano-Brythons out of Britannia into Wales, Cornwall, and Armorica (Brittany)? There's no justification for stripping them of their private properties. The Crown stuff, like the crown jewels and Buckingham Palace, there might be claims to that, but certainly not to Lancaster or other non-titled properties.

Quite frankly? There isn't a good reason to disolve this particular monarchy. France had many good reasons to do so (repeatedly during the revolutionary period that ultimately culiminated in the 3rd Republic), but what cause does England have for removing their monarchy?
 
2013-07-04 10:02:39 PM
I would like to point out that the above post was written by a drunk person.

And even drunk I take shiat seriously.

/Inverterate Democratic-Republican
//Very much defender of the Rule of Law.

We're not fsking barbarians. We have rules beyond "Might makes right" and "Everyone says you must die".
 
2013-07-04 10:05:02 PM

Brokenseas: Private Eye is the funniest political mag out there. Spy magazine stole shamelessly from them back in the day.


Ian Hislop is awesome. I love Have I Got News for You; it's the best political satire show running.  He's also just written a show for Michael Palin set during WWI which should be amazing.
 
2013-07-05 12:46:26 AM

Craptastic: King of the WHO?!?


King of the Britons...we all are! We are all Britons! And he is your King!
 
2013-07-05 01:13:27 AM

sendtodave: AverageAmericanGuy: sendtodave: Why do we still have royalty?

What reason do they even have to exist any more?

Tourism.

OK, that, and selling tabloids.

What governmental reason do they even have to exist any more?


Experience. The Queen actually reads her cabinet boxes, makes helpful hints and comments, and maintains some continuity between different parties, PMs and governments. In Canada, the Queen's representative, the Governor General has solved the odd constitutional crisis over the last hundred years or so, and they play the ceremonial roles which a politician, no matter how popular, would spoil by being an elected politician.

She is also the Head of the Church of England. This is something that no Methodist, Baptist, or Mormon could be, even if elected by a massive majority. And I shouldn't have to mention Roman Catholics--they are right out of the running.

She has been in "office", so to speak since 1953, which is sixty years of experience. During that time she has know every major Cabinet Minister, PM, and hundreds of other Heads of State. She is still related to many of them, or was once their Head of State.

She has a real job besides waving at the proles and she does it relatively well because she is, as you know, a very nice grl, and also a very Good Girl, and devoted to duty and dignity and the Constitution, of which she remains a long-standing institution. She believes in God, and Mommy and Daddy, and the British Constitution and long may she wave!

Even as an atheist and a liberal I have no animus against her personally. Yes, the Monarchy was a pretty nasy piece of work in the past, but try to see the Amercan Constitution from the point of view of a native American, an African slave, or even a Quaker, and you'll probably agree that things do change over the centuries.
 
2013-07-05 02:52:41 AM

brantgoose: In Canada, the Queen's representative, the Governor General has solved the odd constitutional crisis over the last hundred years or so, and they play the ceremonial roles which a politician, no matter how popular, would spoil by being an elected politician.


My memory is fuzzy here, but isn't the Governor General the only reason why Harper's party / Harper himself isn't out on their/his asses right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-09_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute

As a undignified American, I can see the benefit the Queen has to England; Canada and other former colonies, not so much.
 
2013-07-05 03:53:10 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: brantgoose: In Canada, the Queen's representative, the Governor General has solved the odd constitutional crisis over the last hundred years or so, and they play the ceremonial roles which a politician, no matter how popular, would spoil by being an elected politician.

My memory is fuzzy here, but isn't the Governor General the only reason why Harper's party / Harper himself isn't out on their/his asses right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-09_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute

As a undignified American, I can see the benefit the Queen has to England; Canada and other former colonies, not so much.


Considering how unstable the Canadian opposition was in 2008/9, abrogating parliament was probably the right thing to do. All it did was delay a vote of no-confidence, as a budget vote is a vote of confidence/no confidence, and the budget had to be the first thing voted on when Parliament reconvened.
 
2013-07-05 05:25:31 AM

Ilmarinen: Faddy: fark abdication. If you are going to claim to be a divine ruler then you just don't get to say fark this shiat when you get old.

If the farking pope can do it, so can he.


I suppose popes are a type of queen. They both wear dresses anyway.
 
2013-07-05 06:20:49 AM

Summercat: For those who advocate the revokation of the British Monarchy...

Why?

"Because it shouldn't be there" isn't an explanation. WHY Shouldn't it be there. "Anachronism" is also not a valid answer, as you would have to explain why a constitutional-democratic/republican monarchy is an anachronism.

And that's not going into stripping the British royal family of their personal titles and lands. I often hear cries of "They stole it". From whom did they steal the lands? The Duchy of Lancaster (where the Royal Family gets most of it's money these days) was added to the Crown by Henry VII at the end of the Wars of the Roses, and he certainly had a legimiate claim to them. Or are you talking about when the Normans invaded England in 1066, displacing the Saxon nobility, who they themselves displaced the Romano-Brythons out of Britannia into Wales, Cornwall, and Armorica (Brittany)? There's no justification for stripping them of their private properties. The Crown stuff, like the crown jewels and Buckingham Palace, there might be claims to that, but certainly not to Lancaster or other non-titled properties.

Quite frankly? There isn't a good reason to disolve this particular monarchy. France had many good reasons to do so (repeatedly during the revolutionary period that ultimately culiminated in the 3rd Republic), but what cause does England have for removing their monarchy?


Summercat: I would like to point out that the above post was written by a drunk person.

And even drunk I take shiat seriously.

/Inverterate Democratic-Republican
//Very much defender of the Rule of Law.

We're not fsking barbarians. We have rules beyond "Might makes right" and "Everyone says you must die".


Drunkening is good, it was a good post, and I deem it "smart".
 
2013-07-05 11:49:51 AM

GentDirkly: Belgium shouldn't even be a country. The French in France are willing to annex the French part, same with the Dutch; they are willing to annex the Flemish part. Let Brussels become a Federal district and just be done with this useless country.


I'll remind you that such language is supposed to remain confined to serious screenplays.
 
Displayed 21 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report