Would you have supported ol’ Charlie in 1642?
>>524651481Always had a soft spot for this nigga.
>>524651481This nigga is a Dutch Master no cap
>>524651481It depends. Was he a pro-jewish monarch? If so, then no. If he was actually based and about upholding the Kingdom for the subjects, then absolutely. I’m not too sure what his position on the jew was though.
>>524651481I would support him
>>524653097Me too, Shlomo.>>524653264The guy that overthrew him let them back in, make of that what you will.
>>524655398Sounds about right. I’d have been team King Charles. He probably even took Christianity seriously
>>524651481I would have supported anyone against the Puritan crypto-kikes
>>524656114> Puritan crypto-kikesyes, those people are responsible for ruining the world along with the kikes
>>524655347*checks flag* Based Mick.>>524656014>He probably even took Christianity seriouslyHe did, it's just that he had a somewhat... inflated idea of his role in it.His father, James, had been raised in the Scottish Kirk. A childhood spent getting his ass beaten & being told he was just another dude, king or no. Once he inherits the crown of England as well as Scotland he becomes head of the C. of E. (Elizabeth had carefully maintained the "Royal Supremacy" that her father Henry VIII had established over the Church) he can kinda call the shots with what the clergy say & that sort of thing.Charles was a little too into that & did things like trying to enforce a Book of Common Prayer (which the Scots hated. The Anglican Church, just as a thing, had always been a compromise that never really satisfied hard-line Prot's or Catholic hold-outs. Scotland had plenty of both) which was one of the principle causes of the war(s) that would bring him down.
>>524657155*checks own ID* Fuck, I literally Am Soi Sue. That's gay.
>>524657155The Scottish monarchs were used to having almost absolute authority and Parliament being their political playpen where the MPs just did whatever the king wanted. When the Stuarts ascended to the English throne they brought this line of thinking with them and it led to some happenings.
>>524656225are you trying to be sarcastic and funny and clever or are you just woefully historically illiterate? >in elementary school they told me the puritans just wanted religious freedom and big meanie england was just bein mean to ’em :(
>>524657155>>524657688That's just true and honest Monarchy.A King isn't supposed to be merely just another nobleman or rich guy, and the word "Monarch" isn't an empty name.
Hobbes has it correct in his prescription:>Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei" (Job 41:24), meaning "There is no power on earth which can be compared to himThis quote is the ideal of Monarchy.
>>524651481Yes. They were protkeks but at least they weren't puritan scum.
>>524651481I would have, he's my 11th great grandfather.
>>524653097But Cromwell was your goodest goy
I'd agree it was Christian, perhaps too Christian.I marvel how everyone fought and was loyal for Christ the King, but in that process totally forgets their own King at home. Where even the King himself is indifferent to his own kingdom.
Hobbes' Behemoth recounts the history and causes of the English Civil Wars. He starts BEHEMOTH (the anti-Leviathan) in recounting the factions involved. Hobbes' pessimism is my pessimism.The seducers were of diverse sorts...1st faction: The Presbyterians>One sort were ministers; ministers, as they called themselves, of Christ; and sometimes, in their sermons to the people, God's ambassadors; pretending to have a right from God to govern every one his parish, and their assembly the whole nation.2nd faction: The Papists / Catholics>Secondly, there were a very great number, though not comparable to the other, which notwithstanding that the Pope's power in England, both temporal and ecclesiastical, had been by Act of Parliament abolished, did still retain a belief that we ought to be governed by the Pope, whom they pretended to be the vicar of Christ, and, in the right of Christ, to be the governor of all Christian people. And these were known by the name of Papists; as the ministers I mentioned before, were commonly called Presbyterians.3rd faction: Fifth monarchy men & other low church protestants>Thirdly, there were not a few, who in the beginning of the troubles were not only discovered, but shortly after declared themselves for a liberty in religion, and those of different opinions one from another. Some of them because they would have all congregations free and independent upon one another, were called Independents. Others that held baptism to infants, and such understood not into what they are baptized, to be ineffectual, were called therefore Anabaptists. Others that held that Christ's kingdom was at this time to begin upon the earth, were called Fifth-monarchy-men; besides diverse other sects, as Quakers, Adamites, etc, whose names and peculiar doctrines I do not well remember. And these were the enemies which arose against his Majesty from the private interpretation of the Scripture, exposed to every man's scanning in his mother-tongue.
4th faction: The Intellectuals / School-men / Educated Elite & Parliamentarians>Fourthly, there were an exceeding great number of men of the better sort, that had been so educated, as that in their youth having read the books written by famous men of the ancient Grecian and Roman commonwealths concerning their polity and great actions; in which books the popular government was extolled by that glorious name of Liberty, and monarchy disgraced by the name of Tyranny; they became thereby in love with their forms of government. And out of these men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons, or if they were not the greatest part, yet by advantage of their eloquence, were always able to sway the rest.5th faction: Londoners & Other Urbanites>Fifthly, the city of London and other great towns of trade, having in admiration the prosperity of the Low Countries after they had revolted from their monarch, the King of Spain, were inclined to think that the like change of government here, would to them produce the like prosperity.6th faction: The Grifters / Lumpenproles>Sixthly, there were a very great number that had either wasted their fortunes, or thought them too mean for the good parts they thought were in themselves; and more there were, that had able bodies, but saw no means how honestly to get their bread. These longed for a war, and hoped to maintain themselves hereafter by the lucky choosing of a party to side with, and consequently did for the most part serve under them that had the greatest plenty of money.
Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant & didn't care>Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty, as that not one perhaps of ten thousand knew what right any man had to command him, or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth, for which he was to part with his money against his will; but thought of himself to be so much master of whatsoever he possessed, that it could not be taken from him upon any pretence of common safety without his own consent. King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to, with the help of riches; they had no rule of equity, but precdents and custom; and he was thought wisest and fittest to be chosen for a Parliament, that was most averse to the granting of subsidies or other public payments.Thomas Hobbes adequately sums up his own pessimism with a remark<In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government....>In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government, so as they need not have taken arms for it. For I cannot imagine how the King should come by any means to resist them.
>>524651481>divine right of kings? more like divine right this way to the headsman's axe
>>524651481Closet papist got his ahit pushed in
>>524651481As a papist I would’ve stayed neutral
Thomas Hobbes laments the prevalence of mixed monarchy / constitutionalism>Saving only that he [the Earl] was carried away with the stream, in a manner, of the whole nation, to think that England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; not considering that the supreme power must always be absolute, whether it be in the King or in the Parliament.…>You may know by the declarations themselves, which are very long and full of quotations of records and of cases formly reported, that the penners of them were either lawyers by profession, or such gentlemen as had the ambition to be thought so. >Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute monarchy, as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy; all which governments they esteemed tyranny, and were in love with monarchy which they used to praise by the name of mixed monarchy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure anarchy. >And those men, whose pens the King most used in these controversies of law and politics, were such, if I have not been misinformed, as having been members of this Parliament, had declaimed against ship-money and other extra-parliamentary taxes, as much as any; but who when they saw the Parliament grow higher in their demands than they thought they would have done, went over to the King's party.…>Only that fault, which was generally in the whole nation, which was, that they thought the government of England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; and that if the King should clearly subdue this Parliament, that his power would be what he pleased, and theirs as little as he pleased: which they counted tyranny. >This opinion, though it did not lessen their endeavour to gain the victory for the King in a battle, when a battle could not be avoided, yet it weakened their endeavour to procure him an absolute victory in the war.
>And for this cause, notwithstanding that they saw that the Parliament was firmly resolved to take all kingly power whatsoever out of his hands, yet their counsel to the King was upon all occasions, to offer propositions to them of treaty and accommodation, and to make and publish declarations; which any man might easily have foreseen would be fruitless; and not only so, but also of great disadvantage to those actions by which the King was to recover his crown and preserve his life.…>Sometimes also in the merely civil government there be more than one soul… For although few perceive that such government is not government, but division of the Commonwealth into three factions, and call it mixed monarchy; yet the truth is that it is not one independent Commonwealth, but three independent factions; nor one representative person, but three. In the Kingdom of God there may be three persons independent, without breach of unity in God that reigneth; but where men reign, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so. >To what disease in the natural body of man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Commonwealth, I know not. But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side, with a head, arms, breast, and stomach of his own: if he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact.…>And if there were a commonwealth, wherein the rights of sovereignty were divided, we must confess with Bodin, Lib. II. chap. I. De Republica, that they are not rightly to be called commonwealths, but the corruption of commonwealths.>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.
Thomas Hobbes Behemoth account:>A: None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a bill in agitation to assert the power of levying and pressing soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the power of the militia, which is in effect the whole sovereign power. For he that hath the power of levying and commanding the soldiers, has all other rights of sovereignty which he shall please to claim. The King, hearing of it, called the Houses of Parliament together again, on December the 14th, and then pressed again the business of Ireland: (as there was need; for all this while the Irish were murdering the English in Ireland, and strengthening themselves against the forces they expected to come out of England): and withal, told them he took notice of the bill in agitation for pressing of soldiers, and that he was contented it should pass with a salvo jure both for him and them, because the present time was unseasonable to dispute it in.<B: What was there unreasonable in this?
>>524651481We did. Another terrible choice in a long list of cursed choices.
>A: This was cruel proceeding. Do not the Kings of England use to sit in the Lords’ House when they please? And was not this bill in debate then in the House of Lords? It is a strange thing that a man should be lawfully in the company of men, where he must needs hear and see what they say and do, and yet must not take notice of it so much as to the same company; for though the King was not present at the debate itself, yet it was lawful for any of the Lords to make him acquainted with it. Any one of the House of Commons, though not present at a proposition or debate in the House, nevertheless hearing of it from some of his fellow-members, may certainly not only take notice of it, but also speak to it in the House of Commons: but to make the King give up his friends and counsellors to them, to be put to death, banishment, or imprisonment, for their good-will to him, was such a tyranny over the king, no king ever exercised over any subject but in cases of treason or murder, and seldom then.>A: Nothing: what is unreasonable is one question, what they quarrelled at is another. They quarrelled at this: that his Majesty took notice of the bill, while it was in debate in the House of Lords, before it was presented to him in the course of Parliament; and also that he showed himself displeased with those that propounded the said bill; both which they declared to be against the privileges of Parliament, and petitioned the King to give them reparation against those by whose evil counsel he was induced to it, that they might receive condign punishment.
>A: I pray you do not ask me any reason of such things as I understand no better than you. I tell you only an act passed to that purpose, and was signed by the King in the middle of February, a little before the Archbishop was sent to the Tower. Besides this bill, the two Houses of Parliament agreed upon another, wherein it was enacted, that the present Parliament should continue till both the Houses did consent to the dissolution of it; which bill also the King signed the same day he signed the warrant for the execution of the Earl of Strafford.<B: What a great progress made the Parliament *towards their own ends, or at least towards the ends of the most seditious Members of both Houses in so little time! They say down in November, and now it was May; in this space of time, which is but half a year, they won from the King the adherence which was due to him from his people; they drove his faithfullest servants from him; beheaded the Earl of Strafford; imprisoned the Archbishop of Canterbury; obtained a triennial Parliament after their own dissolution, and a continuance of their own sitting as long as they listed: which last amounted to a total extinction of the King's right, in case that such a grant were valid; which I think it is not, unless the Sovereignty itself be in plain terms renounced, which it was not.…<B: But what money, by way of subsidy or otherwise, did they grant the King, in recompense of all these his large concessions?>A: None at all; but often promised they would make him the most glorious King that ever was in England; which were words that passed well enough for well meaning with the common people.
<B: But the Parliament was contented now? For I cannot imagine what they should desire more from the King, than he had now granted them.>A: Yes; they desired the whole and absolute sovereignty, and to change the monarchical government into an oligarchy; that is to say, to make the Parliament, consisting of a few Lords and about four hundred Commoners, absolute in the sovereignty, for the present, and shortly after to lay the House of Lords aside. For this was the design of the Presbyterian ministers, who taking themselves to be, by divine right, the only lawful governors of the Church, endeavoured to bring the same form of Government into the civil state. And as the spiritual laws were to be made by their synods, so the civil laws should be made by the House of Commons; who, as they thought, would no less be ruled by them afterwards, than they formerly had been: wherein they were deceived, and found themselves outgone by their own disciples, though not in malice, yet in wit.<B: What followed after this?>A: In August following, the King supposing he had now sufficiently obliged the Parliament to proceed no further against him, took a journey into Scotland, to satisfy his subjects there, as he had done here; intending, perhaps, so to gain their good wills, that in case the Parliament here should levy arms against him, they should not be aided by the Scots: wherein he also was deceived. For though they seemed satisfied with what he did, whereof one thing was his giving way to the abolition of episcopacy; yet afterwards they made a league with the Parliament, and for money, when the King began to have the better of the Parliament, invaded England in the Parliament’s quarrel. But this was a year or two after.>A: Besides, they obtained of the King the putting down the Star-chamber and High-Commission Courts.
Republics were in fashion in the early 1600s. The Dutch had chased out their king and became immensely wealthy and powerful. These things were not necessarily connected, but many people of the time believed they were.
<B: Methinks this last was a very great fault. For what good could there be in putting the King upon an odd course of getting money, when the Parliament was willing to supply him, as far as to the security of the kingdom, or to the honour of the King, should be necessary?>A: But I told you before, they would give him none, but with a condition he should cut off the heads of whom they pleased, how faithfully soever they had served him. And if he would have sacrificed all his friends to their ambition, yet they would have found other excuses for denying him subsidies; for they were resolved to take from him the sovereign power to themselves; which they could never do without taking great care that he should have no money at all. In the next place, they put into the remonstrance, as faults of them whose counsel the King followed, all those things which since the beginning of the King’s reign were by them misliked, whether faults or not, and whereof they were not able to judge for want of knowledge of the causes and motives that induced the King to do them, and were known only to the King himself and such of his privy-council as he revealed them to.
<B: But what were those particular pretended faults?>A: 1. The dissolution of his first Parliament at Oxford. 2. The dissolution of his second Parliament, being in the second year of his reign. 3. The dissolution of his Parliament in the fourth year of his reign. 4. The fruitless expedition against Calais. 5. The peace made with Spain, whereby the Palatine’s cause was deserted, and left to chargeable and hopeless treaties. 6. The sending of commissions to raise money by way of loan. 7. Raising of ship-money. 8. Enlargement of forests, contrary to Magna Charta. 9. The design of engrossing all the gunpowder into one hand, and keeping it in the Tower of London. 10. A design to bring in the use of brass money. 11. The fines, imprisonments, stigmatizings, mutilations, whippings, pillories, gags, confinements, and banishments, by sentence in the Court of Star-chamber. 12. The displacing of judges. 13. Illegal acts of the Council-table. 14. The arbitrary and illegal power of the Earl Marshal’s Court. 15. The abuses in Chancery, Exchequer-chamber, and Court of Wards. 16. The selling of titles of honour, of judges, and serjeants’ places, and other offices. 17. The insolence of bishops and other clerks, in suspensions, excommunications, deprivations, and degradations, of divers painful, and learned, and pious ministers.>18. The excess of severity of the High Commission-Court. 19. The preaching before the King against the property of the subject, and for the prerogative of the King above the law. And divers other petty quarrels they had to the government, which though they were laid upon this faction, yet they knew they would fall upon the King himself in the judgment of the people, to whom, by printing, it was communicated.
>Again, after the dissolution of the Parliament May the 5th, 1640, they find other faults; as the dissolution itself; the imprisoning some members of both Houses; a forced loan of money attempted in London; the continuance of the Convocation, when the Parliament was ended; and the favour shewed to Papists by Secretary Windebank and others.<B: All this will go current with common people for misgovernment, and for faults of the King, though some of them were misfortunes; and both the misfortunes and the misgovernment, if any were, were the faults of the Parliament; who, by denying to give him money, did both frustrate his attempts abroad, and put him upon those extraordinary ways, which they call illegal, of raising money at home.
>A: You see what a heap of evils they have raised to make a show of ill-government to the people, which they second with an enumeration of the many services they have done the King in overcoming a great many of them, though not all, and in divers other things; and say, that though they had contracted a debt to the Scots of 220,000l. and granted six subsidies, and a bill of poll-money worth six subsidies more, yet that God had so blessed the endeavours of this Parliament, that the kingdom was a gainer by it: and then follows the catalogue of those good things they had done for the King and kingdom. For the kingdom they had done, they said, these things: they had abolished ship-money; they had taken away coat and conduct money, and other military charges, which, they said, amounted to little less than the ship-money; that they suppressed all monopolies, which they reckoned above a million yearly saved by the subject; that they had quelled living grievances, meaning evil counsellors and actors, by the death of my Lord of Strafford, by the flight of the Chancellor Finch, and of Secretary Windebank, by the imprisonment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of Judge Bartlet, and the impeachment of other bishops and judges; that they had passed a bill for a triennial Parliament, and another for the continuance of the present Parliament, till they should think fit to dissolve themselves.<B: That is to say, for ever, if they be suffered. But the sum of all these things, which they had done for the kingdom, is: that they had left it without government, without strength, without money, without law, and without good counsel.
>A: They reckoned, also, putting down of the High-Commission, and the abating of the power of the Council-table, and of the bishops and their courts; the taking away of unnecessary ceremonies in religion; removing of ministers from their livings, that were not of their faction, and putting in *their places* such as were.<B: All this was but their own, and not the kingdom's business.>A: The good they had done the King, was first (they said) the giving of 25,000/. a month for the relief of the northern counties.<B: What need of relief had the northern, more than the rest of the counties of England?>A: Yes, in the northern counties were quartered the Scotch army which the Parliament called in to oppose the King, and consequently their quarter was to be discharged.<B: True; but by the Parliament that called them in.>A: But they say no; and that this money was given to the King, because he was bound to protect his subjects.<B: He is no further bound to that, than they give him money wherewithal to do it. This is very great imprudence; to raise an army against the King, and with that army to oppress their fellow-subjects, and then require that the King should relieve them, that is to say, be at the charge of paying the army that was raised to fight against him.>A: Nay, further; they put to the King's account the 300,000/. given to the Scots, without which they would not have invaded England; besides many other things, that I now remember not.<B: I did not think there had been so great impudence and villainy in mankind.
From Charles I's speech on scaffold>I shall begin first with my innocence. In troth I think it not very needful for me to insist long upon this, for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament. And I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me, it is the Militia they began upon, they confest that the Militia was mine, but they thought it fit for to have it from me. And, to be short, if any body will look to the dates of Commissions, of their commissions and mine, and likewise to the Declarations, will see clearly that they began these unhappy troubles, not I.
More from Hobbes' Behemoth>A: None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a bill in agitation to assert the power of levying and pressing soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the power of the militia, which is in effect the whole sovereign power. For he that hath the power of levying and commanding the soldiers, has all other rights of sovereignty which he shall please to claim.>A: It is also worth observing, that this petition began with these words, Most gracious Sovereign: so stupid they were as not to know, that he that is master of the militia, is master of the kingdom, and consequently is in possession of a most absolute sovereignty.>A: I know not what need they had. But on both sides they thought it needful to hinder one another, as much as they could, from levying of soldiers; and, therefore, the King did set forth declarations in print, to make the people know that they ought not to obey the officers of the new militia set up by ordinance of Parliament, and also to let them see the legality of his own commissions of array. And the Parliament on their part did the like, to justify to the people the said ordinance, and to make the commission of array appear unlawful.>A: King William the Conqueror had gotten into his hands by victory all the land in England, of which he disposed some part as forests and chases for his recreation, and some part to lords and gentlemen that had assisted him or were to assist him in the wars. Upon which he laid a charge of service in his wars, some with more men, and some with less, according to the lands he had given them: whereby, when the King sent men unto them with commission to make use of their service, they were obliged to appear with arms, and to accompany the King to the wars for a certain time at their own charges: and such were the commissions by which this King did then make his levies.
>A: After the sending of these propositions to the King, and his Majesty’s refusal to grant them, they began, on both sides, to prepare for war. The King raised a guard for his person in Yorkshire, and the Parliament, thereupon having voted that the King intended to make war upon his Parliament, gave order for the mustering and exercising the people in arms, and published propositions to invite and encourage them to bring in either ready money or plate, or to promise under their hands to furnish and maintain certain numbers of horse, horsemen, and arms, for the defence of the King and Parliament, (meaning by King, as they had formerly declared, not his person, but his laws); promising to repay their money with interest of 8l. in the 100l. and the value of their plate with twelve-pence the ounce for the fashion. On the other side, the King came to Nottingham, and there did set up his standard royal, and sent out commissions of array to call those to him, which by the ancient laws of England were bound to serve him in the wars. Upon this occasion there passed divers declarations between the King and Parliament concerning the legality of this array, which are too long to tell you at this time.>B: Nor do I desire to hear any mooting about this question. For I think that general law of salus populi, and the right of defending himself against those that had taken from him the sovereign power, are sufficient to make legal whatsoever he should do in order to the recovery of his kingdom, or to the punishing of the rebels.
The English Civil War captures in spirit everything wrong with Matthew 10:34-36:>Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.Here you have a scenario where all Christian men are against each other, and desu all are loyal to Christ the King -- but not King Charles I the King (not even Charles I himself is loyal unto his own kingdom by this point, but all the others unto Christ's Kingdom) -- and in the end they're all enemies unto their own household or kingdom / nation.
>>524651481Should of got rid of the monarchy and parliament, and kept the lord protector, kept in check by a peoples army. >>524656114charles the 2nd or james the shit could have kicked them back out but didn't
>>524661886kicked out the jews that is
>>524651481He looks like my old jewish collage bro so yeah. He taught me how to play as Akira in vf2
>>524661886>and kept the lord protector, kept in check by a peoples army.That's autistic.I like how you insist upon a dictatorship but still keep the whole mixed constitutionalist charade by "keeping in check with the army".King James VI & I is hated, but that King had the right ideas concerning Monarchy: King should be absolute, and the Kingdom should be a family centering on the King like they do in North Korea.
I'm altogether sympathetic to Hobbes' account: The problem partially lies with Western people in general, cursed to be autistically meandering between democracy and aristocracy... keeping strong to all these Aristotelian pretenses towards Monarchy along the way and never embracing royalism or unitary corporatism with a clean conscience unless it's Christianity or a populist figure... and the fact that the royalism of Charles I is totally ruined and severed by the 2nd royalism of Christianity... not that Western royalty themselves aren't always ideal but there is such an ideal held in contempt that if only both parties could embrace it...
>>524662173kept in check in case he doesn't put the people first, like King Charles the 3rd, another King Charles who's a complete traitor who should get the axe treatment
>>524663965That's all you people ever care about: vox populi.The voice of the people needs a cult of personality, because the mind of the multitude is capricious and not naturally a kindred people themselves...
Louis XIV's disdain for & roast of so-called "constitutional monarchy":...>For there is no doubt that this subjection that makes it necessary for a sovereign to take orders from his people is the worst calamity that can befall a man of our rank.-Louis XIV Quote #1>It is perverting the order of things to attribute decisions to the subjects and deference to the sovereign, and if I have described to you elsewhere the miserable condition of princes who commit their people and their dignity to the conduct of a prime minister, I have good cause to portray to you here the misery of those who are abandoned to the indiscretion of a popular assembly.-Louis XIV Quote #2>I fail to see, therefore, my son, for what reason the kings of France, hereditary kings who can boast that there isn't either a better house, nor greater power, nor more absolute authority than theirs anywhere else in the world today, should rank below these elective princes.-Louis XIV Quote #3>It is the essential fault of this monarchy [England] that the Prince may not levy any extraordinary taxes without the Parliament nor keep the Parliament in session without gradually losing his authority, which is sometimes left shattered, as the example of the previous King [Charles I] had sufficiently demonstrated.-Louis XIV Quote #4>As to the persons who were to support me in my work, I resolved above all not to have a prime minister, and if you and all your successors take my advice, my son, the name will forever be abolished in France, there being nothing more shameful than to see on the one hand all the functions and on the other the mere title of a king.-Louis XIV Quote #5
Jean Bodin on Aristotle & Monarchy>[Aristotle], who defines a King to be him, who chosen by the people, reigns according to the desire of them his subjects: from whose will (as he in another place says) if he never so little depart, he becomes a TYRANT. Which his description is not only without reason, but also dangerous: for that sovereign power which he said to be most proper unto a King, must so needs fail, if the King could nothing command against the liking and good will of his subjects; but must to the contrary be constrained to receive laws of them – in brief it should be lawful for the people to do all things; and the most just and best Kings should be so accounted for TYRANTS: neither were a King to be reputed of anything else, than of a mean magistrate, unto whom power were to be given, and again taken away at the people's pleasure. >Which are all things impossible, and no less absurd also, than is that which the same Aristotle says, That they are barbarous people, where their kings come by succession. When as yet his own King and Scholar Alexander the Great, was one of them which descended in right line from the blood of Hercules, and by right succession came to the kingdom of Macedon. The Lacedemonians should also be barbarous, who from the same stock of the Heraclides, had had their Kings about a thousand years. The people of Asia also, the Persians, and Egyptians, should all be barbarous: in whom not only rested, but from whom all humanity, courtesy, learning, knowledge, and the whole source and fountain of good laws and Commonwealths have sprung: and so at last none but Aristotle with some handful of Greeks should be free from barbarism.
>Whereas indeed nothing can be devised more dangerous unto the State of a Commonwealth, than to commit the election of Kings unto the suffrages of the people; as shall in due place be hereafter declared. Although Aristotle be in that also deceived, where he says, That there be three sorts of Kings; & yet having in his discourse reckoned up four, in casting up the account he finds out a fifth.Aristotle & Tyranny, even the slightest bit contrary to the will of the people>What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people – is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king.
In spite of that, Hobbes is probably right that the rulers best always make sure that their personhood and cult of personality would always synonymous with the name of the people:Otherwise they come with their mixed constitutionalist pretenses and deny any preeminence.
Cromwell didn't actually legally re-admit them. He wanted to because he thought they had to be converted for apocalyptic prophecy, but he abandoned his position after a pamphlet war was waged over the issue which was decisively won by Puritan Prynn who argued that they must never be let into England.After Charles II was reinstated, he brought jews back with him from his exile. As proof that Cromwell did not readmit them, we have records from parliament, various nobles and the merchants guild of London demanding English law be upheld and the jews be removed.Charles refused. England should have become republican. We have another king Charles today; let's have another Cromwell too.
>>524651481I'd have beheaded him and put his head on a pike
>>524660228They were directly connected
>>524658265>>524658456>>524658689>>524658937>>524665159>>524664881>>524664810>>524664444>29 postsanother jewish slide thread
