Members of royal families are:

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

So if you believe that royals were appointed by some kind of god, then fine, go ahead and believe that. But if they weren't appointed by a god, then they're just ordinary mortals, and nothing that they've done to get or keep power is morally defensible.

The question could equally well be asked, though, who made 'we the people' the boss of everyone? It seems to me that the USA is based on some assumptions about God's views about human government too. For example--the opinion expressed in the Declaration of Independence that humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

The USA seems to rely in its founding documents on a certain faith in what God's point of view might be just as much as kings and queens do with the 'divine right of kings'. I'm not aware of any actual evidence of God's real views either way.

One can certainly offer an informed human opinion as to which system of government--a nearly absolute monarchy or a federal republic (not necessarily a completely pure democracy)--is a better way for humans to govern themselves.

Both systems, though, seem to rely on an appeal to God's presumed views--and that's where both are on somewhat shaky ground.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Even though the country of my birth says I should,

I DO NOT PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND!!!

Fuck the British Monarchy ... they can bite my [you know what].

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I DO NOT PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND!!!

I have no idea why you'd have to, We don't even do that in the Mother country .... Unless you are in the military.

They are just symbolic... nothing more. I just can't see why folks get so upset.

The wording of the OPs poll is so shite it's not even worth voting on. There is no middle ground, just vitriol

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

I DO NOT PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND!!!

I have no idea why you'd have to, We don't even do that in the Mother country .... Unless you are in the military.

They are just symbolic... nothing more. I just can't see why folks get so upset.

The wording of the OPs poll is so shite it's not even worth voting on. There is no middle ground, just vitriol

Couldn't have put it better myself mate.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Some good points, but the violence and treachery I was referring to was the kind that was perpetrated by the royalty upon the peasants in order to get and keep power.

What I keep asking here, and what no one has even tried to answer, is not how good the leadership is or how smooth the successions are, but rather the most fundamental question that can be asked of any government: "Who made you the boss of everybody?".

In America, the answer is that really big "We the People" at the beginning of the Constitution. In other times and places the royalty has claimed that some divine being has appointed them to be the leaders, after which they promptly killed anyone who said otherwise.

So if you believe that Royals were appointed by some kind of god, then fine, go ahead and believe that. But if they weren't appointed by a god, then they're just ordinary mortals, and nothing that they've done to get or keep power is morally defensible.

What are you talking about? I guess you never heard of the Magna Carta. The Royal Family are great for tourism and foreign visits. Where else would Yanks and Japs congregate in London if it wasn't for the Royal Family?

On a serious note, educate yourself, its getting embarrassing.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[shropshire 0]

Quote

In America, the answer is that really big "We the People" at the beginning of the Constitution. In other times and places the royalty has claimed that some divine being has appointed them to be the leaders, after which they promptly killed anyone who said otherwise.

So if you believe that royals were appointed by some kind of god, then fine, go ahead and believe that. But if they weren't appointed by a god, then they're just ordinary mortals, and nothing that they've done to get or keep power is morally defensible.

Right and Presidents of the US of A never do divine bidding (so claim they do)?

Quote

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gary73 8]

Quote

The USA seems to rely in its founding documents on a certain faith in what God's point of view might be just as much as kings and queens do with the 'divine right of kings'.

Actually the Constitution doesn't mention God anywhere, and it's only mention of religion is to guarantee that the government will stay out of that business.

Quote

I'm not aware of any actual evidence of God's real views either way.

Agreed.

Quote

[Monarchs] are just symbolic... nothing more.

Check British law. The monarch actually has some real power in certain cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_powers

But even if they were just symbolic, why should they have any official standing at all?

Quote

The wording of the OPs poll is so shite it's not even worth voting on. There is no middle ground, just vitriol

That was the intent - to nudge people into actually thinking about how monarchs get their power. Few people ever think about that; they just go with the flow. Even here in the States we're raised on fairy tales which reinforce the belief that royal families are better that the rest of us. Even the evil or simply incompetent royals are acknowledged to have special standing, and there's no legal way to remove them from office. So yes, to me there is no middle ground: either the royals were appointed by God (not likely) or they simply took power on their own and brainwashed generations of people into believing that God appointed them. So which one is it?

Quote

I guess you never heard of the Magna Carta.

Actually I have, but as important as the document was in beginning the trend of limiting the power of royal families, it still states that kings, barons, etc., were endowed by God with the right to rule over the rest of us.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html

So again: are members of royal families appointed by God or not?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
So again: are members of royal families appointed by God or not?

Why don't you just ask Georgie-boy? If my memory serves me right, he was in permanent discussion with God.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

The USA seems to rely in its founding documents on a certain faith in what God's point of view might be just as much as kings and queens do with the 'divine right of kings'.

Actually the Constitution doesn't mention God anywhere, and it's only mention of religion is to guarantee that the government will stay out of that business.

Did you ever hear of the Declaration of Independence (or don't you consider that a founding document)?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gary73 8]

Quote

Did you ever hear of the Declaration of Independence (or don't you consider that a founding document)?

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

A lot of the same people were involved with creating the DoI and the Constitution, and certainly it can be referred to as a founding document and an indication of the mindset of the Framers of the Constitution, but no, it's not really part of the American legal system; it just gives the reasons why we wanted to be an independent nation and sets the stage for whatever government we chose to form after that. But even there, the authors made it clear that the right to govern comes from the people, not from any divine being.

The Constitution is the foundation of our government and legal system, and doesn't refer to the DoI a single time.

But all of this is not really relevant to the original question, which people keep avoiding: Are royal families appointed by God?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[Heatmiser 0]

I bow to all royalty, appointed by God, Allah, and the
Flying Spaghetti Monster. All hail Prince Billvon!

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[base851 0]

Quote

...too inbred. Maybe less so than in the past; but they could use a few more cabana boys named Julio in the mix.

Didn't the King of Spain, or some such guy, play the banjo in Deliverance?

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

But all of this is not really relevant to the original question, which people keep avoiding: Are royal families appointed by God?

I think that in the past the role of a king was similar to that played by cult leaders today. Today, of course, real kings/queens are mostly figureheads and in countries with a republican system of government like the USA there is no king/queen at all but rather an elected president.

But I think that in the modern relationship between a cult leader and his/her followers, we can still see some vestiges today of what the king/subject relationship used to be like.

The cult leader certainly claims to have been appointed directly by God. But if this isn't really the truth, how in practice do they maintain control over their flock? A larger cult will probably have some goons in its employ who can do the cult leader's dirty work, ideally somewhere out of view, if it comes to physical violence. Likewise the kings of old certainly had such goons working for them--bloodier in some reigns than others.

But the cult leader today--or the king in the past--doesn't have the time or the energy to use physical force more than a small percentage of the time. How, then, do they retain control? It is mostly through persuading people that they were appointed directly by God that they maintain control. If a subject/cult member genuinely believes that the leader is appointed by God, they won't challenge the leader's authority, because who would ever want to get on God's bad side?

A king/cult leader may not be appointed by God, but they are very good at persuading others that they were so appointed, and that is their primary means of maintaining control. Brute physical domination is very much a secondary method although most successful kings weren't afraid to be physically ruthless the small percentage of the time it was necessary.

[I'm using the gender-specific term 'king' because in the era when monarchs had absolute power, that monarch was almost always a man. By the time queens regnant became relatively common there were signs that the era of absolute power was drawing to a close.]

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Did you ever hear of the Declaration of Independence (or don't you consider that a founding document)?

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

What I keep asking here, and what no one has even tried to answer, is not how good the leadership is or how smooth the successions are, but rather the most fundamental question that can be asked of any government: "Who made you the boss of everybody?".

pretty funny question from an American whose couuntry is known around the world for trying to impose their version of "freedom" onto everybody else.

The same country where white people conquered and imposed their version of government and religion onto the natives.

People in glass houses......

[Gary73 8]

Yes, I read that part, too. Again, it goes toward mindset, but stating that we have Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness says almost nothing about the form that any future government will take.

Now, can we get back to the original question?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[Gary73 8]

Quote

pretty funny question from an American whose couuntry is known around the world for trying to impose their version of "freedom" onto everybody else.

The same country where white people conquered and imposed their version of government and religion onto the natives.

People in glass houses......

Please don't assume that I support every policy that my government has ever pursued. I'm an American, but believing in the principles upon which my country was founded means that I cannot help but be deeply ashamed at some of the things that it has done.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Please don't assume that I support every policy that my government has ever pursued. I'm an American, but believing in the principles upon which my country was founded means that I cannot help but be deeply ashamed at some of the things that it has done.

Maybe then it makes more sense to figure out how you can "fix" your own country before you worry about royal families in other countries?

[Gary73 8]

We fixed the royalty problem here a couple of centuries ago; you guys seem to be lagging behind so I thought you could use some help!

Seriously, dude, if you want to bash America you're in the right forum, just the wrong thread. Start your own; don't hijack mine. Fair enough?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan