True Brit

[Big Orange]

We've got similar problems with people in positions of authority having unquestioned faith and tolerance in the function of multinational corporations that should make money at virtually everything's expense (they're now thinking of scrapping the minimum wage, banks through QE are said to be draining pensions, and the growing ire for foreigners in the UK seems partially attributed to disloyal corporations freezing out the more expensive native workers through the so-called Intra-Company Transfer scam, alongside other things).

[runalong]

Originally Posted by Happy-Hangman

Royal dynasties before 1700 were also rather more actively engaged in the whole hack-'n'-slash business of empire-building. To reign used to mean 'to exercise sovereign power or influence'. These days it's just 'the period of time a sovereign occupies the throne'. Back in the days when it was general belief that a King or Queen, however vile, should be tolerated because they were the Lord's Annointed representatives on Earth - that is, that God said that they should reign, and would ****-up the Kingdom if anyone tried to change the status quo - the monarch was more than just a figurehead...he was, physically, metaphorically and politically, the personification of power.

Since Cromwell the powers of monarchy in the UK have been eroded (a very good thing, as far as I'm concerned) to the degree that we are currently celebrating Lizzie's longevity rather than her authority.

To be fair though it was less that God appointed them rather than who has a big army to back them up preventing a chab=nge of leadership and plenty of Monarchs in the bad old days lost their crown in a war as the new God's rep took over.

[runalong]

Originally Posted by Big Orange

We've got similar problems with people in positions of authority having unquestioned faith and tolerance in the function of multinational corporations that should make money at virtually everything's expense (they're now thinking of scrapping the minimum wage, banks through QE are said to be draining pensions, and the growing ire for foreigners in the UK seems partially attributed to disloyal corporations freezing out the more expensive native workers through the so-called Intra-Company Transfer scam, alongside other things).

QE is being done by the Bank of England to prevent rising interest rates in a recession - not to do so may also have a bad impact on pensions unfortunately as they're tied to the stock market

[Happy-Hangman]

Originally Posted by runalong

To be fair though it was less that God appointed them rather than who has a big army to back them up preventing a chab=nge of leadership and plenty of Monarchs in the bad old days lost their crown in a war as the new God's rep took over.

Not really, Runalong.

The major dynasties all had Charter Myths associated with them, usually (spuriously, of course) claiming descent from Biblical (or otherwise Divine) figures. The idea of the Order of Being and the Divine Right of Kings was fundamental to the monarchies from the Dark Ages until the end of the 17th-centuries. A monarch is subject to no earthly authority, save perhaps the Pope (until the Reformation), deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God - not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy (which is what made Magna Carta such a remarkable document - philosophically as well as legally).. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king.

That Kings are deposed, murdered and otherwise disposed of by men with bigger armies is undoubtedly true - but belief in this Microcosm of authority (Powers, Principalities, Thrones and Dominions) was deep-rooted. Generally - as with the War of the Roses - it was believed that discord and blight within the commonwealth would follow any attempt to challenge the 'natural' order. Richard II was a shit king, and Henry Bolingbroke was a bit better - but the chaos which followed his coup and coronation as Henry IV was directly attributed, by many, as God's Wrath upon the kingdom for allowing the King, the 'Lord's Annointed' to be ousted. Henry Richmond's siezing the throne from Richard III (several kings later) put an end to this discord - by claiming that Richard wasn't just a bad king but damned close to being the Anti-Christ (gnawing his way from his mother's womb, 'sent before his time into this waking world, scarce half made-up'): a monstrous child-murdering freak from whose evil reign Henry saved the nation. Bollocks, of course, Henry had a rather tenuous claim on authority, and his blackening of Richard's name was a highly calculated bit of political spin (right down to his supposed hump - he was actually a rather good king with none of the abnormalities attributed to him by Tudor historians, or by Shakespeare, whose depiction of him is very much based on their accounts)...but one necessary to settle a nervous court and population. The same arguments are made during the English Civil War and the Jacobite Risings, though by the time of Bonnie Prince Charlie belief in the Divine Right was waning - which is partly why his attempt to sieze power failed: older pecking orders ceased to apply, and Rights of Kings, Princes, Lords, Lairds, Barons, etc as being above the general population were largely (in theory) removed by the Heritable Jurisdictions Act of 1746.

Another reason why these oustings, regicides and monarchical restructurings occurred, of course, is that most of those battling for Kingship were closely related: they claimed the same Charter Myths to justify their primacy.

Even in the 19th Century traitors were often charged with committing offences which were 'against God and the King', so these associations between the authority and security of the State and the Monarch are surprisingly long-lived.

[runalong]

Actually all that proves my point HH

It's a useful bit of PR to say King X is the chosen one but in reality if Prince Y wanted to he could always be the new improved chosen one that lasts longer with more flavour. The amount of plots, traitors or rebellions in just UK history shows that it Divine Rule was optional. I think far more what enforced a reign was arms, money and complex political networks

[Happy-Hangman]

Actually, I think you're missing my point. Those insurrections, coups, etc., which failed to justify themselves through Divine Sanction all seemed destined to failure or deep-rooted suspicion, because the Microcosm was so entrenched. Superior arms and organization were never enough, as Cromwell's Commonwealth illustrates.

The claim of James Francis Edward Stuart, the 'Old Pretender', son of the deposed James VII (II), is based entirely on Divine Right, and the there was massive support for his Jacobite cause in Catholic Europe. He failed, largely - as would his son, Charles, in The '45 rebellion, because while the Charter Myths they used to justify their claim of primacy still had romantic appeal (and still do, in some circles) as - laws and protections for citizens gradually moved from the titled to the property-owning classes for the first time - they no longer had quite such a deep-rooted part in the collective British psyche as they retained in mainland Europe.

Until coin takes over from coronet, any attempt to sieze - and keep - power without reference to Divine Right was scuppered.

[runalong]

I think their claims failed more due to insufficient military force/resources and not having enough allies to prefer them in charge rather than romantic view of divine right. My take on this is that this more that history will be won by the winning side the King rules by Divine right until another ruler turns up. I've little doubt the opposition to James also claimed his defeats were a sign that God was showing his support for them.

Post 1700 yes you can argue The Enlightenment is having an impact in changes of leadership but I think even before then Divine Right was still optional a hereditary head of state could only thrive if he/she kept political allowances or military strength - otherwise their reign would be shortened

[Pie Man 70]

Always a bit of an odd one this. One of the points where my wife and I disagree. I'm with Bill hicks (And indeed Will Self) that the idea of being proud of being any nationality is a bit odd. I did nothing to achieve britishness (or Scottishness) passed no trial. In fact the only thing that made me British, Scottish, Suppose technically Glaswegian, is that my parents lived in Milngavie when I was born and hence Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow was the nearest maternity ward. So where as I am proud of my educational attainment, the quality of my work, my ability at Street Fighter II, I have difficulty finding pride in something I had no influence in. I may as well be proud of being male, or White, or Dark haired, or Right Handed.

At this point my wife usually tells me that I know fine well what people mean when they say they're proud of being Scottish/British and I should stop being a bloody pedant.

I am proud of many Scottish/British achievements, we are a relatively free and democratic country (Despite the number of unelected/Hireditory institutions in our government) We have achieved great leaps of progress in engineering and science. However to counter that our Imperial ambitions had some very shameful escapades. However overall I'm fortunate to live somewhere like Britain.

It is what annoys me when people talk about British Values, like there is a set of distinct values we all adhere to that are uniquely British. Its not that in the huge Venn Diagram that any survey of British values would produce there won't be many areas crossing over, but that these areas would be uniquely British. Do we have the Monopoly on a sense of "Fair Play?" Do the french old Fair play in disregard? Are Germans less prone to "Carry On Regardless?"

The most we coudl really say that defines any nationality is a selection of shared cultural touchstones, like World War II or the 1966 world cup (Except for Viewers in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland) and these will only serve to unite specific generations. My cultural references would be alien to my Great, Great Grandfather, I would at least have some historical reference to his.

I wonder if the nostalgia for a British identity merely comes from a postwar generation, when everyone had a solid, huge uniting event in their lives. As for a specific set of cultural values, I really question that.

[Big Orange]

You notice that the countries that aggressively shed or from the ground up shied away from monarchies, France and America respectively, seem to present their republic officials and offices in pseudo-monarchy BS and reverence?

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Big Orange

You notice that the countries that aggressively shed or from the ground up shied away from monarchies, France and America respectively, seem to present their republic officials and offices in pseudo-monarchy BS and revrence?

It's interesting that France tried Governments with the Presidents holding less power but are now in their 5th model (The Fifth Republic) giving the President more power than any other President has ever had.

In the US the President has less power but with the recent log jams between the Senate and Congress I wouldn't be surprised to see the President taking on more power. In the UK, Prime Ministers pretty much have their way but in the US all legislation has to suffer so many deals (even with Senators from the President's own party) that virtually everything becomes watered down and ineffectual

Regarding British Values, it's interesting to see in France so much talk regarding an "Esprit de Francais" (spirt of France). Over the past few decades the country has faced an onslaught of Anglo-Saxonism/Americanization that speakers from both sides are calling for a return to goodl old traditional French Values