Topic: Orthodox and the Monarchy

[ialmisry]

Most Romanians I've spoken to are quite adamant that they do not want the monarchy back - they don't look back on their foreign monarchy with any nostalgia whatsoever, and I can include in this people who still remember when they were on the throne. If you'd been with me when I met them you'd have heard quite disparaging remarks about those royals from many of the Romanians there.

Just like the Greeks then.

Exactly. Ingratitude. The monarchy in both cases directly united their respective countries and kept them on the European stage.

[OrthoNoob]

This kind of ultrareactionaryism amongst Orthodox may discourage normal people from converting to the true faith.

Maybe. But truth is truth. Either monarchy is better or it's not. Truth doesn't depend on conforming our ideas to the godless culture for evangelism's sake, sadly.

[OrthoNoob]

Most Romanians I've spoken to are quite adamant that they do not want the monarchy back - they don't look back on their foreign monarchy with any nostalgia whatsoever, and I can include in this people who still remember when they were on the throne. If you'd been with me when I met them you'd have heard quite disparaging remarks about those royals from many of the Romanians there.

Just like the Greeks then.

Wow. I don't think I've ever been accused of being an extremist before. What's wrong with preferring democracy over monarchy? You think that believing that I should have a say in who my head of state is rather than simply sitting back and letting someone whose ancestors took without asking is extremist? I'd rather think of it as rational and entirely fair minded.

I didn't actually say any of that, so don't worry. This isn't the politics forum, so I don't know how far I can respond to your post to clarify what I meant in detail, but a constitutional monarchy need not be less democratic than any republican system. My point was simply that for those of us who grew up under a constitutional monarchy (Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Dutch, Spanish, British, etc.), support for such a system is entirely normal and not indicative of "ultrareactionaryism" or a fantasy-laden nostalgia for a bygone past. So while being a monarchist might be weird in the US, and off-putting to potential converts there, in countries such as England the situation is quite the opposite.

But the perception is not one regarding a modern constitutional monarchy, but rather an 'idealized' yearning for an absolute, hereditary monarchy where the head of state is both political and ceremonial and religion is subordinate to the monarch as well. That's what the concern is - not about the existing European modern monarchies.

the vast majority of "republics" and "democracies" are monarchies in all but name. And class.  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea comes to mind.

Put down this monarchist as objecting strongly to that comparison. North Korea is not a monarchy; it's a dictatorship. There's a difference. In fact, there really aren't any similarities between the definitions of the two words.

[augustin717]

Most Romanians I've spoken to are quite adamant that they do not want the monarchy back - they don't look back on their foreign monarchy with any nostalgia whatsoever, and I can include in this people who still remember when they were on the throne. If you'd been with me when I met them you'd have heard quite disparaging remarks about those royals from many of the Romanians there.

Just like the Greeks then.

Exactly. Ingratitude. The monarchy in both cases directly united their respective countries and kept them on the European stage.

You crack me up. Did you just say "ingratitude"? Holy moses, can't  reactionaries be a bit less preachy and moralizing? What should my grandparents' generation should be particularly grateful to Michael for? Most of the barely survived on cornbread and mamaliga. Ypu have no idea.

[OrthoNoob]

Holy moses, can't  reactionaries be a bit less preachy and moralizing?

Sure, we could, but where's the fun in that?

[ialmisry]

Most Romanians I've spoken to are quite adamant that they do not want the monarchy back - they don't look back on their foreign monarchy with any nostalgia whatsoever, and I can include in this people who still remember when they were on the throne. If you'd been with me when I met them you'd have heard quite disparaging remarks about those royals from many of the Romanians there.

Just like the Greeks then.

Exactly. Ingratitude. The monarchy in both cases directly united their respective countries and kept them on the European stage.

You crack me up. Did you just say "ingratitude"? Holy moses, can't  reactionaries be a bit less preachy and moralizing?

LOL. YOU! Of all pots...

Btw, did you find that data that proves the superiority of that shinning success of Socialism, the Danube Canal, over that epitome of the failure of capitalism, the Erie Canal?

What should my grandparents' generation should be particularly grateful to Michael for? Most of the barely survived on cornbread and mamaliga. Ypu have no idea.

You'd be eating your mama liga in Hungarian and like it, had it not been for Michael.  Had it not been for Cuza, the East of your country would have remained an appendage of Russia and the south of your country a satellite of Turkey. A third of your country and all of your Church would be run by and for Phanariot Greeks, like the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.  And were it not for Carol I and Ferdinand I, you would have been left squabbling amongst yourselves (the reason why the Constitution forbade a royal from marrying a Romanian) and ground down in between the European powers.

[ialmisry]

This kind of ultrareactionaryism amongst Orthodox may discourage normal people from converting to the true faith.

Maybe. But truth is truth. Either monarchy is better or it's not. Truth doesn't depend on conforming our ideas to the godless culture for evangelism's sake, sadly.

"My Kingdom is not of this world"  Hence debating the merits of political systems must take a back seat to the Gospel.

[OrthoNoob]

This kind of ultrareactionaryism amongst Orthodox may discourage normal people from converting to the true faith.

Maybe. But truth is truth. Either monarchy is better or it's not. Truth doesn't depend on conforming our ideas to the godless culture for evangelism's sake, sadly.

"My Kingdom is not of this world"  Hence debating the merits of political systems must take a back seat to the Gospel.

This is true. I didn't mean to imply that someone should be unwelcome in the Church because he's not a monarchist (God forbid!). All I meant was that "some people won't like it and may avoid the Church because of it" is no reason for me not to be one.

[augustin717]

Should sOmeone enlighten me as to what doesn't it even mean to be a monarchist in the USA? Other than ridiculous posturing

[podkarpatska]

I don't think the OP was inviting a discussion thread on the relative merits or lack thereof of either a republic or a monarchy. Rather, he seemed to imply that Orthodoxy was linked to a monarchist approach and he inquired as to why that may be so.  

Isa said it best in that the Gospel must take a front seat to the debate over secular, temporal political systems.

I would just remind all that my grandparents, and the grandparents of many - if not most of the earliest Orthodox in the United States - fled from the jackboot and fist of oppressive monarchies - the Hapsburghs, the Romanovs or the Ottomans. While it is true that the White Russian emigres had great influence on parts of the Russian Orthodox church here after the revolution (particularly what is now ROCOR), the truth remains that most of the founders of what is now the OCA were former Greek Catholics fleeing the Hungarians. Anyone professing monarchist leanings at an early 20th century so-called Russian Club, Lemko Hall, Carpathian Club, Ukrainian Hall etc...would have been shown the door after receiving a solid thrashing.

[OrthoNoob]

Should sOmeone enlighten me as to what doesn't it even mean to be a monarchist in the USA? Other than ridiculous posturing

Typically, it means you support the maintenance and restoration of monarchies in other countries, and/or that you would have opposed the Revolution had you been there. Most of us don't have any serious ambition to bring these u.S. back under the Crown.

[GabrieltheCelt]

That is not a normal way to view any human, much less one whose privilege is derived from an accident of birth.

This should be frightening to any sane, thinking person.  By an accident of birth, an accident, blahblah is king and we are subjects to his whims.  Next his son or daughter will reign and on and on.  Absolute power corrupts abosolutely.
 

They don't actually do anything...

Not one damn thing.  They're nothing but parasites who live in castles or mansions.  The rest of us break our backs laboring for our daily bread while they attend balls with other royalty. 

Monarchy is not a superior method of government.  Longing for some frozen state from the past that, in all honesty never really existed is no way to fix the problems of the present and why some Orthodox seem to think that their faith and monarchy goes hand in hand, I'm happy to say, continues to utterly baffle me.

[/quote]
It absolutely baffles me and it seems to be the wet dream of the younger crowd.  It'll never happen for America, but if they push it, we'll introduce them to the Second Amendment just like we did in 1776. 

[Shiny]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

[Tallitot]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I believe it has split with one section in politics.

[biro]

Um, I thought the Bill of Rights didn't exist until 1789.

[Shiny]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I believe it has split with one section in politics.

What thread?

[Tallitot]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I believe it has split with one section in politics.

What thread?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45691.0.html

[ialmisry]

Should sOmeone enlighten me as to what doesn't it even mean to be a monarchist in the USA? Other than ridiculous posturing

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45691.msg773702/topicseen.html#msg773702

[akimori makoto]

Norway is in a rather unique position as, according to Medieval succession laws, the Norwegian king acts merely as a locum tenens for St. Olav, who is still regarded as the eternal regent.

That is awesome.

All hail His Imperial Majesty Justinian, Eternal King of the Hellenes and Emperor of the Romans?

[Orthodox11]

All hail His Imperial Majesty Justinian, Eternal King of the Hellenes and Emperor of the Romans?

Why not? You're welcome to it

[ialmisry]

Norway is in a rather unique position as, according to Medieval succession laws, the Norwegian king acts merely as a locum tenens for St. Olav, who is still regarded as the eternal regent.

That is awesome.

All hail His Imperial Majesty Justinian, Eternal King of the Hellenes and Emperor of the Romans?

btw, the Greeks, like the Norwegians, borrowed their royal family from the ruling House of Denmark.  (though they are in part descended from the old Norwegian Royal House, how Norway got hitched to Denmark).

[akimori makoto]

btw, the Greeks, like the Norwegians, borrowed their royal family from the ruling House of Denmark.  (though they are in part descended from the old Norwegian Royal House, how Norway got hitched to Denmark).

Of course. That is why the Greeks will always remember their king with disdain. He was, after all (in their thinking), a German.

[Cognomen]

Should sOmeone enlighten me as to what doesn't it even mean to be a monarchist in the USA? Other than ridiculous posturing

 

Agreed.  It's almost as ridiculous as being a communist in the USA.

[JamesRottnek]

btw, the Greeks, like the Norwegians, borrowed their royal family from the ruling House of Denmark.  (though they are in part descended from the old Norwegian Royal House, how Norway got hitched to Denmark).

Of course. That is why the Greeks will always remember their king with disdain. He was, after all (in their thinking), a German.

Well there go my plans for moving to Greece and convincing them to make me their King...

[William]

Why didn't the Greeks have a Greek king?

[William]

This kind of ultrareactionaryism amongst Orthodox may discourage normal people from converting to the true faith.

Maybe. But truth is truth. Either monarchy is better or it's not. Truth doesn't depend on conforming our ideas to the godless culture for evangelism's sake, sadly.

Some scripture supporting holy monarchy:

Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. So the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”

And Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Every man go to his city.”

[PeterTheAleut]

This kind of ultrareactionaryism amongst Orthodox may discourage normal people from converting to the true faith.

Maybe. But truth is truth. Either monarchy is better or it's not. Truth doesn't depend on conforming our ideas to the godless culture for evangelism's sake, sadly.

Some scripture supporting holy monarchy:

Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. So the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”

And Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Every man go to his city.”

This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of monarchy. If anything, this is a stern warning against monarchy.

[PeterTheAleut]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I don't see that you've made a formal request, via the "Report to Moderator" function, that this thread be moved to Politics. Why haven't you done so?

[ironchapman]

This is what I said in another thought on essentially the same subject:

It's my position that it doesn't necessarily matter what form of government a given state has. What matters is if the people in charge are obedient to God.

This can happen in an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, a duarchy (like San Marino today, for example), a republic, or any other conceivable form of governance.

I linked to a few interesting pieces of food for thought on the subject here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40788.msg673649.html#msg673649

Furthermore, we ought to consider 1st Samuel chapter 8, where God informs the people that their desire for a king is in fact a rejection of Him. God warns of what a king could do, saying:

5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

 10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

The result was Saul, who committed suicide for all his failures; then David, who, for all his great works and love for God, was an adulterer and a murderer; Solomon, who for all his wisdom still became an idolator; and so many of the corrupt (morally, spiritually, and politically) rulers that followed them. For every Asa or Josiah, there are Ahabs, Manassehs, and Jehorams. The mismanagement of Israel by one bad king after another eventually led to its destruction. even the capable kings like Omri or Azariah get scant mention in the Bible due to spiritual issues, even though by human terms, they were both successful (Omri, for one, was said to have sinned "more than all those before him" in 1 Kings 16:21-28). The number of bad or spiritually lacking kings of Israel and Judah far outnumbers the number of good kings.

The Israelites only wanted a king to begin with so that they could be like the other nations around them. Instead of being God's people, they wanted to imitate the ways of the world, thus God's initial refusal to give them a king. It was only after they continually pressed God for one that he allowed one, but only after making them aware of the evils the king would commit.

I linked to it in that post I mentioned, but I'll post the link again. Orthodox Answers has a great response on the monarchy vs other forms of government question:

Thus, we are called to transcend politics and do what is right in the sight of God. When we place our loyalty to any political entity — whether it be a party, a nation or an ideology — above God, disaster follows. One need only look at the early 20th century in places like Germany, Russia and China to see the outcome of party above God. It cost the world millions of lives.

For an excellent example of a Christian transcending politics, see St. Paul's letter to Philemon. He is obedient to the law of the land — he sends back the run away slave Onesimus to his master Philemon; however, he calls Philemon to welcome back his run away slave, not as a slave, but as a brother. Thus, Paul, while obeying the law moves beyond the law to something greater — a vision of the world where

by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free — and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. (1Cor 12:13)

Indeed, according to tradition, Philemon does welcome back Onesimus as brother. Not only is Onesimus freed, but is eventually ordained as a bishop.

Thus, Orthodox Christianity does not promote any kind of political system over another. Rather, it is beyond politics.

Are monarchies there "by the grace of God"? He certainly suffers them to exist, but the kinds of blessings I believe a nation like the USA has been given, in addition to the fact that the nation as a whole is in general more religious than most other countries that are similarly developed (and in some cases, said countries are monarchies), leads me to conclude that a monarchy is not the only form of governance acceptable to Christians.

Though I am neither a fan of Lew Rockwell or his website, and I don't care for Ron Paul, the first half of the actual letter here has some good insight as well, particular until the paragraph that ends with " I believe that it can and that the presidential election of 2008 is the key to this restoration."

Now, I am but an Inquirer, but this seems to me to be a reasonable understanding.

[William]

This kind of ultrareactionaryism amongst Orthodox may discourage normal people from converting to the true faith.

Maybe. But truth is truth. Either monarchy is better or it's not. Truth doesn't depend on conforming our ideas to the godless culture for evangelism's sake, sadly.

Some scripture supporting holy monarchy:

Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. So the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”

And Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Every man go to his city.”

This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of monarchy. If anything, this is a stern warning against monarchy.

I know.

[LBK]

Norway is in a rather unique position as, according to Medieval succession laws, the Norwegian king acts merely as a locum tenens for St. Olav, who is still regarded as the eternal regent.

That is awesome.

All hail His Imperial Majesty Justinian, Eternal King of the Hellenes and Emperor of the Romans?

btw, the Greeks, like the Norwegians, borrowed their royal family from the ruling House of Denmark.  (though they are in part descended from the old Norwegian Royal House, how Norway got hitched to Denmark).

Umm, not quite. The first post-Ottoman king of Greece was Otto I, a Bavarian prince. Though, given the incestuous nature of the various European royal houses at the time, pinning down an authentic nationality for these people ain't an easy gig. 

[Cognomen]

This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of monarchy. If anything, this is a stern warning against monarchy.

I know.

William, meet Peter.  Peter, William.

[PeterTheAleut]

This kind of ultrareactionaryism amongst Orthodox may discourage normal people from converting to the true faith.

Maybe. But truth is truth. Either monarchy is better or it's not. Truth doesn't depend on conforming our ideas to the godless culture for evangelism's sake, sadly.

Some scripture supporting holy monarchy:

Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. So the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”

And Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Every man go to his city.”

This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of monarchy. If anything, this is a stern warning against monarchy.

I know.

I kinda had a sense you might have been employing some rhetorical irony. I just couldn't tell for certain in this text-only medium.

[Shiny]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I don't see that you've made a formal request, via the "Report to Moderator" function, that this thread be moved to Politics. Why haven't you done so?

Not my job

[PeterTheAleut]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I don't see that you've made a formal request, via the "Report to Moderator" function, that this thread be moved to Politics. Why haven't you done so?

Not my job

The moderators would rather you report the thread privately than ask publicly why the thread hasn't been moved yet, since public question of our inaction is much the same thing as public question of our action.

[LBK]

Why didn't the Greeks have a Greek king?

Practicality. Realpolitik. The s**tfight that would have erupted with pretenders scrambling for the throne would have dwarfed any dissent over the idea of a foreigner as king. The Great Powers got it right, and saved everybody a lot of trouble, and possibly civil war.

[Shiny]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I don't see that you've made a formal request, via the "Report to Moderator" function, that this thread be moved to Politics. Why haven't you done so?

Not my job

The moderators would rather you report the thread privately than complain publicly that the thread hasn't been moved yet.

It wasn't a complaint. It was a question.

[Tallitot]

Quote from: Achronos on Yesterday at 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Tallitot on Yesterday at 08:55:44 PM
Quote from: Achronos on Yesterday at 08:51:09 PM
edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I believe it has split with one section in politics.

What thread?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45691.0.html




the first day this thread was up I pointed this out to the mod's via the "report to mod" function as per forum policy, and it was split into a politics thread.

[PeterTheAleut]

edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I don't see that you've made a formal request, via the "Report to Moderator" function, that this thread be moved to Politics. Why haven't you done so?

Not my job

The moderators would rather you report the thread privately than complain publicly that the thread hasn't been moved yet.

It wasn't a complaint. It was a question.

Note the changes I made in my post.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45671.msg773788.html#msg773788

[Shiny]

No it isn't. I was asking why it wasn't moved, not an attack on the inaction. If there is a valid reason on it not being moved, so be it.

Like William said in the other thread, its like having a conversation in 8 different threads.

[PeterTheAleut]

Quote from: Achronos on Yesterday at 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Tallitot on Yesterday at 08:55:44 PM
Quote from: Achronos on Yesterday at 08:51:09 PM
edit: Political in nature. Why hasn't this moved to politics yet?

I believe it has split with one section in politics.

What thread?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45691.0.html




the first day this thread was up I pointed this out to the mod's via the "report to mod" function as per forum policy, and it was split into a politics thread.

Yes, Tallitot followed correct procedure here.

[Ansgar]

btw, the Greeks, like the Norwegians, borrowed their royal family from the ruling House of Denmark.  (though they are in part descended from the old Norwegian Royal House, how Norway got hitched to Denmark).

Of course. That is why the Greeks will always remember their king with disdain. He was, after all (in their thinking), a German.

The best thing the germans ever gave us.


We really hated him in the start though.

[ialmisry]

Why didn't the Greeks have a Greek king?

Practicality. Realpolitik. The s**tfight that would have erupted with pretenders scrambling for the throne would have dwarfed any dissent over the idea of a foreigner as king. The Great Powers got it right, and saved everybody a lot of trouble, and possibly civil war.

Yeah. Romania started with a local, and switched to a foreignor.  In fact, the monarchy's constitution forbade the royal family from marrying locals, which caused a few constitutional crises.

[ialmisry]

Norway is in a rather unique position as, according to Medieval succession laws, the Norwegian king acts merely as a locum tenens for St. Olav, who is still regarded as the eternal regent.

That is awesome.

All hail His Imperial Majesty Justinian, Eternal King of the Hellenes and Emperor of the Romans?

btw, the Greeks, like the Norwegians, borrowed their royal family from the ruling House of Denmark.  (though they are in part descended from the old Norwegian Royal House, how Norway got hitched to Denmark).

Umm, not quite. The first post-Ottoman king of Greece was Otto I, a Bavarian prince. Though, given the incestuous nature of the various European royal houses at the time, pinning down an authentic nationality for these people ain't an easy gig. 

Ottho didn't last, although he continued to support Greece after he got the boot.  Btw, the Nazis in Denmark, like Kaiser Wilhelm with is cousin Ferdinand, found out that monarchs had authentic nationality.

[augustin717]

Should sOmeone enlighten me as to what doesn't it even mean to be a monarchist in the USA? Other than ridiculous posturing

 

Agreed.  It's almost as ridiculous as being a communist in the USA.

Where is becoming orthodox in the USA on the ridiculousness scale, huh?