Rebellion in the Irish Church

Just when you think you've hit rock bottom...

The New translation of the Roman Missal is set to hit Ireland From Advent onwards, this missal, to sum it up simply if somewhat inaccurately, would enforce a stricter interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, slight reforms in the procedures and layouts in Novus Ordo Mass, and a greater liberalization of the Latin Extraordinary form (or so I'm led to believe, I welcome people to correct me in the comments if they feel I am in err).

This new Missal has got alot of liberal Catholics everywhere worried, which is what originally made me so interested in it, and I am rather shocked to learn that organizations of priests in America are advocating outright rebellion against Rome should this be implemented. The sad thing is there is an element of this rebellious spirit in the Irish Church too but I am ignorant as to its full extent, as I am fairly certain my own parish priests would submit to Rome is push comes to shove. But this element of rebellion is troublesome.

Outside of the obvious religious and social concerns I have over these developments, regular readers will recall I have previously stressed a renewal and strengthening of the Catholic Church in Ireland is needed to institute traditional conservative mentalities among the Irish from which any movement to re-establish a Gaelic monarchy can possibly be facilitated, and my own support of what I viewed as an Inquisition into the Irish clergy in the Apostolic Visitation, (again inaccurate but I liked viewing it as such), from which we have learned one of the Bishops say the Irish Church has less then ten years to avert disaster. Which when you think about it is a generous portion of time compared to the rest of Europe. Without a Strong degree of Religious Unity Ireland will sink that much faster into the pit of secularism and I do not need to point out the intrepid dangers of such a path.

Keep in mind, it was Ireland's conversion to Christianity that gave Gaelic civilization a desperate revival it needed when the rest of Europe was in its dark age, it didn't fix the problem of Irish Society being so stagnantly conservative that we were using armour and weapons designs in the 1400s that dated back to La Tene Celtic culture. If the Church can revitalize and consolidate itself, we will have a real chance to start the counter revolution properly in Ireland. Otherwise Apathy and death await the country.

I am under no illusion about these schismatics, should they as a group split from communion with Rome and go full liberal backwater, they will die out incredibly faster then the Protestant movements are. I honestly believe these to be hollow threats to scare Rome from putting its foot down as it inevitably will, sooner or later.

Protectionism, and how it is neccessary

Onto something that has always bugged me. Ireland's economy.

Now I will step of my high horse long enough to say this: I am well aware that this is a vast and complex issue this is, and how divisive it can be for both intelligensia and laymen to discuss, that such talks of economics can not in the traditional sense be grasped by so called 'basic understanding' for to understand economics fully is to have enough liberty to be free from its effects, and thus impossible. I confess that economics naturally lends itself to politics, ideology, bias, and culture. My American readers, (and there are a goodly number of you) are well aware of this. I know that it will be impossible for my view and my arguments to be persuasive enough to convince even a small minority of you, and those of you of a socialist bent on Market theory are likely already aware that nothing I say could convince you.

Now with that said I'll just get back onto my high horse here and say this.

There is no such thing as Monarchist Economics and such talk undermines the Principles of Monarchism. I say this firstly because, of course, everything in this blog relates to Monarchism and the Irish situation, so it needed to stated before I am mistaking for speaking for all Monarchists of my stripes, which I am not. And I say it secondly, because it is true. Monarchism, as an ideology, is an ideology of realism, one of enduring traditionalism that absorbs new ideas that strengthens it and one on which it can rely upon good thinking and sound decision making of ages to guide its judgement and hence cannot be restricted y economic theories when said theories only emerge with the times. Monarchism allows for the Sovereign, (one should note I am speaking as an Absolutist here wherein the Kingdom has the Monarch retain a certain amount of active and decision making powers as either a check on Parliament or in communion with it), allows for the sovereign to choose economic policies free from party restrictions, petty election time restraints and concerns, and for the short term popularity or unpopularity of said decisions. After all, in any monarchy the principle about what is always popular is not always right reigns, (or at least it should).

Now how does this relate to Ireland? Well you may recall my previous blog posts lamenting Ireland's shattered harp, the celtic tiger and the threat of Irish Labour, and it got me to thinking of Ireland's economic situation as a whole. And when you get down to the nitty gritty of supply and demand, it is impossible for Ireland to survive without trade, we cannot possibly be a self-sufficient country, in any sense, (I can hear the Greens cry already).

Ireland has few natural resources. We have few precious minerals we can exploit and those resources we can exploit are dwindling and were small to begin with. We have, and likely always will rely heavily on agriculture, farming and fishing, as well as tertiary goods, high end products such as electronics. One thing Ireland has always been good at is producing very high quality products in high enough quantity to warrant the interest of investors, creating jobs, stimulating the economy and other such nonsense we we rent worried about when the country was getting drunk on the celtic tiger.

Yes thats right I am seriously claiming the celtic tiger stunted the Irish Economy, much like how coffee gives you an energy boost yet stunts your overall growth. Yes it gave Ireland the money it needed to build up its infrastructure and help 'the poor man of europe' to catch up but that was not the point of it. Not at all.

In truth, while the EU was subscribing to flawed notions of unending boom, (something that'll take more then a few blog posts to go over, I assure you), it was still relying on the economic make up of Europe during the beginning of that boom, one in which France and Britain controlled the trade in western Europe. Now dont get me wrong, I am not going to berate the French and British for looking after their own interests, its what any of us would do in their place. It was this set up that the EU relied on for their overall market. For the sake of argument, Ireland had a much stronger industry, its beef and grain increased in price due to its high quality and highly sought after worldwide would bring trade to Ireland (this is an isolated example), more trade would flow Ireland's way then it normally has done, Ireland's economy would grow at a slower, but steady rate, it'd pull itself out of the depths of poverty and become a respectible power. At the same time, this would decrease the level of trade that currently goes through France and Britain, American trade, which is still highly sought after, would increasingly invest in the Irish market, to the detriment of the British, this would change the economic make up of Europe.

Solution? Outside of Embargo, the easiest is to make the poor country (Ireland) economically rely on you. The celtic tiger was just that, investment from the EU had the same effect on Ireland as handing a man who had been poor all his life $1000, he will live like he has $1,000,000. And predictably he will get drunk, squander his money and be surprised to find himself sleeping in the same gutter he was in not 20 nights before.

Now, even while this was going on, Irish Industries where hamstrung by EU and UN restrictions on fishing and farming, in fact several times farmers and fishing communities in Ireland where near up in arms over these restrictions, and in other affected areas. These stifled growth, and were further harmed by other, less then above the counter effects. International chains in Ireland, markets famed for the quality of their goods weren't using Irish made products that they were advertising. This is old news for some but in Ireland when this comes to meat sales its quite serious. When most people go to the markets and buy beef, or lamb, or fish, 98% of the times they are buying goods imported cheaply from places such as New Zealand and masqueraded as Irish meat to attract consumers. I've spet a year working in a meat packing plant for such chains to know this is a cold truth. This means that Irish products, despite high quality have to undersell both in local markets and international markets all the time. The downsides should be obvious, after all, isnt this the same thing that happened to the linen industry in Ireland 200 years ago?

The only way a truly responsible government, republican or monarchical can rectify this is through a certain degree or economic protectionism. We have to protect what industries we have in order to justify investments and improve exports and the flow of trade in Ireland and, well, to hell with Europe if such is the case, I mean why not? They say to hell with us. This will no doubt offend those who espouse laise faire policies, but my only response is complete hands off approach to the economy is the same as riding a horse without any gear. And to those Libertarians who think I am a devil for approving some interference with markets, well, I'm flattered. Since I never liked you anyway.

And really my good Gentlemen and Ladies of court, what self respecting Nation hasn't broken a few UN regulations and restrictions in self interest? Come now, lets be sensible here.

Restoration II: Clans and the Role of the Church

If a fully Irish Monarchy in today's world is to make any kind of sense, we need a ressurrection of the traditional clan mentality of the Goidelic celts. Something which still exists to an extent in both Ireland and Scotland where family ties still remain incredibly strong in comparison to the rest of western civilization. Family means alot, who you are, who's related to you by blood or marriage, who your parents were still matter a great deal and this has obvious pros and cons. Obviously this is nowhere near as strong as it used to be, the McLoughlin clan say, feels nothing for an opposing sept of the same McLoughlin clan on the other side of the island, despite both septs of the family have common shared ancestry. In fact it is no controversial thing to say that these septs dont have a chieftain, or if there is one they don't know who he is, (the Irish Clan chieftains is a male only held title while in Scotland females may hold the title, although this is rare). And here is where the role of clan chieftans of even the none royal clans can play a vital role in an Irish Monarchy in the form of a native aristocracy that will make sense to the Irish psyche, thus necessitating a renewal of the clan mentality.

The clan chieftain's role is simple, he is the head of the family. The buck of family affairs stops at him. He is by virtue the clan's 'favoured uncle'. In the old ages this would mean he was the military and political chief of his clan and the go-to person if someone wished to petition their regional king. In the modern a

ge he would provide and equally important role, that of unity and family identity, bearing importance on familial relations and establishing a deep seated sense of cultural pride which has obvious benefits. He will be often at times the only link one disparate sept of a clan shares with the larger sept, creating a sense of security. I do not intend to argue the chieftains control political power, because that would be ridiculous and unneccessary as such chieftains would have unstated influence anyway due to their position, besides, if clans had chieftain appointed representatives to their local district councils, suddenly people would have their local governments filled with people who give a damn about the condition of their roads and schools.

Clan relations would of course, cause Irish society to become more complicated and sophisticated as a result, as everyone has not only loyalty but Blood loyalty to the aristocratic ruling class, creating an inherent sense of worth and expectation of higher standards of even the lowest class of Irishman. It also dissuades revolutionary ideas, as no one really wants to kill their favourite Uncle. Well ok no one who is sane anyway. The Chieftains would of course have a keener sense of duty to their clansmen as a result.

Now such a system is not perfect but its an example of how the clan system can justify and create an intelligible aristocracy to a race of people who've only ever in recent memory been familiar with the English model, which has obvious drawbacks on the people's view of legitimacy of the monarchy.

I will touch upon the role of the Royal clans later on in this exercise, and how they relate to the local clans and the High King. Right now I wish to talk about legitimacy and the key pillar of supporting such a claim.

It is no historical secret that the celts, especially in Ireland have always been a fervently religious people. This is true both in Pagan times as it is

now in Christian Ireland. Even in today's world where the Religious establishment has been rocked by abuse cases, poor catechises of its members, corruption of its highest officials, the fact remains that Ireland is still a religious country. In the face of falling mass attendence, priesthood recruitments et al, the idea of a secular country is still an Idea most Irishman either passively dismiss with half hearted words like ''well its a nice idea'' or flat out refuse to acknowledge it as a legitimate concept. During the Christmas season this is especially evident that even with the typical modern decorations you will usually find Christian symbolism in the forms of traditional image of Christmas, especially nativity scenes, strewn absolutely everywhere. This is a country that tacitly allows preachers to give sermons and speeches on the steps of its government buildings and courthouses whether its officially against the law or not, whose government invested radio station talk hosts openly discuss theology on national radio with guests and each other, whose constitution STILL favours a quasi state religion even given all the recent troubles and promises of republicanism and constitutional betrayals said government has performed only recently. Make no mistake, the power of the Catholic Church in Ireland is still amazingly strong amongst its lapsed Catholic population for all the liberal pollution both have undergone. If there's anything the Irish are guilty of giving lip service to, its the ideas of secularism and egalitarianism.

With that said the Church is extremely important yet in the face of an Irish Restoration, it is also the single most unpredictable factor.

What I mean is this, the chance of the restoration of the High Kingdom of Ireland rests solely on a more socially and religiously conservative Ireland and the only really reliable way to guarantee that is for the Church to shake itself out of this 40 year heretical liberal reverie its been stuck in. I made a previous post on my support for the Irish Inquisition and further Inquisitions into the lives of religious and clergy, both high and low elsewhere in the world, because I fundamentally believe such investigations are needed for the Church to clean up its act, regain its moral authority in the eyes of the people, and start preaching good sense to the masses. For if it doesnt and the restoration begins, all it will take is a few liberal bishops and priests to stand against it and preach against it to awaken the dormant nationalism in the Irish working classes (which we saw in Dublin a few years back) in the favour of republicanism and the counter revolutionary movement in Ireland will be set back another century.

It all really boils down to how well the Papacy, the Curia and the magisterium clean house within the Church, something which neither the Irish people nor its government can ever have control of, (nor should they), making the Church's role ultimately necessary in legitimising an Irish monarchy and, unfortunately, the most unpredictable, as a secular monarchy is both nonsensical and unwanted in the Irish case to begin with.

Other posts in the Restoration Series

I) Rex Hibernie. Imperator Scotturum.
II) -
III) The Church and the Role of Religion in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary post: Divine Supremecy and Tolerance: The Neccessity of State Religion and toleration of Heretics
IV) The Legislative Process in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary Post: Monarchist Economics and Dynamic Politics
- The Role of Chieftans and other Lords
V) The High Coronation, the true All Ireland Final
- The Role of the Council of Chieftans, Dynastic succession issues and legitimacy
- The Role of the Church
- The Role of the Monarch and the Royal Family
- Lords, Statesman and Farmers
- Final comments on the Coronation
VI) And all the world is a stage... Foreign Relations and the Role of a Monarchical Ireland in Europe and Elsewhere.

Restoration I: Hibernie Rex. Imperator Scottorum

This is the first in a series of planned post I will be posting discussing the neccessities and complexities of restoring a Native Irish monarchy, the various forms this could take and the neccessary permutations of government that will result.

In this first post I will be exploring the nature of a possibly Irish Monarch, his position and duties and the meaning and impact of an Irish monarchy in today's modern age. Firstly I will be arguing whether or not 'King' alone is the right title for such a monarch.

Since antiquiety the position of the High King of all Ireland is a long recognised, highly fought over, but ultimately very weak institution within the Nation of Ireland. It is analogous to that of the position of the King of Gaul in both function and Nature. The tribes of Gaul, much like the Clans of Ireland, were fiercely independent of one another, each with their unique cultural traits to distinguish themselves from other Gauls but with enough in common to distinguish themselves as recogniseably 'Gaulish' from other Celtic nations to neccessitate the idea of a king. The throne of the king was traditionally left empty due to natural gaulish suspicion of eachother, and was intended only to be filled in times of crisis, (such as invasion by foreigners), where a suitable man would be crowned king of gaul and would act as supreme commander of all military actions of the Gauls. This was seen very famously in Vercingeterix's legendary yet tragic resistance of Roman Conquest, (who themselves had the position of Dictator for the exact same reasons as their tribal neighbours and which was usually left empty for almost the exact same reasons).

So to is the case with the Irish High King, while much of ancient Irish history is an insufferable mess of legends intermixed with real political developments, the position of the high king in Ireland is at least traceable to before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the Irish to their credit, always had someone ready to take up the position. Of course this usually meant the various Tuathes and their subordinate clans fought eachother in order to obtain a throne that would ironically end with none of the clans listening to their rule. Whoever gained the throne of Tara ended up only ruling the province of meath in addition to their own province, with the other kings being largely independent. This is most visible after Ireland became a largely Christian Nation, irish clans began adopting more formalised family surnames, geneaologies began to be traced and the beginnings of proper family dynasties were forming.

Now before I move on, I must say that this is exactly why the ancient Irish nation never truely united, we were proud celts, and we bloody well loved to fight eachother. It made the job of the Normans conquering us that much easier, as the old axium divide and conquer was already half achieved by the time they got here.

Now this is were I focus heavily on Brian Boru as he is commonly known, if you do not know of his tale I suggest you go research it, as I am not here to recite it to you but merely use the good king as an example. By all rights I should have something against the man, afterall it was one of my Royal Ancesters he bumped off in his quest, but I am not. Because I see what he was trying to do, what reasons he was doing it for and most importantly the sublime potential his ruthless quest held for a more glorious future for the nation as a whole extending beyond his own ambitions. And it is this that I have to speak about the nature of being a High King of Ireland, and just as importantly, Emperor of the Irish.

Long story Short, High King Brian Boru, because few would argue he was not the master of Ireland after such a long struggle, created the title of Emperor of the Irish as a style, (he did not crown himself such, for as brutal as he was he was an honest Christian man, and crowning oneself Emperor is inherent blasphemy, example, Napoleon) He did this for very practical reasons, his conquest of Ireland was in many ways special and quite different from previous High Kings, he didnt conquer purely for egotistical gain, he genuinely wanted to strengthenthe country, and he needed to make this impression on the kings of Ireland, so he styled himself as Emperor, not of the land but of the people, the Irish. The meaning was lost on no man. More to the point he was making the High Kingship hereditary, a practice not unheard of but deeply unpopular in certain sections of the islands, the dominant tradition being that royal clans had a gathering of enobled cousins to vote among themselves as to who would be the next king, primogeniture was rare. Now here is where the tragedy begins, after some elements of the clans saw the ageing Boru as weakning they struck out seeking to claim the High Kingship from him and to do so they allied with the descendents of viking settlers, enraged at such a shocking disregard for his hardwon authority, the Emperor took to the field, while he himself was too old to do battle, his first son carried his banner into the fray, (Irish Kings were very much of the older understanding of kings being by neccessity warlords as well as rulers, their participation in battle was neccessary, which speaks volumes for Brian). His son fell in battle but Brian won the day and the war, the dissenters were scattered and many expected a reckoning to come to the leaders of the traitor clans, Brian did what one would expect an old man to do in the situation immediately after the battle, he went and prayed, giving thanks to the Almighty for the deliver and for the repose of his noble son's soul. He had dismissed his bodygaurds to give chase to the enemy as he prayed in his tent and, well.. the rest is as they say, history.

The story of Brian Boru, what he did and what he represented presents a great deal of food for thought for any monarchist interested in restoring an Irish monarchy. For starters it neccesitates this: A ressurrection of clan loyalties. Their cannot be a true restoration of Ireland unless clans, and the love of expanded families, tradition, prid of name and history are fully restored so that even the poorest Irish Dockworker can hold his head high for knowing exactly who he is and bearing the family coat of arms above his door, for this is worthy and expected in any irish kingdom, as all Irish are fundamentally descended from Kings. Damn near every last one of them because of the old clan system, to ignore this is nigh treasonous if we were to establish a monarchy but I will expand on this in a later post having to do with Irish Culture.

The large point that this raises is that any Irish Kingdom,any Irish Kingdom will never be Just a Kingdom. It will always be a collection of clans and tuathes, leasri, ri, princes, knights (in the irish understanding of them), and will never be either, a federation, any kingdom of Ireland needs a High King, and thus becomes a High Kingdom. The only one in the world, (if its established that is), anything less does the nation and its fierce independence an injustice, or would truculent republicans really like to argue to me a Connaught man is the same as an Ulsterman in temperment and mannerisms?

This does neccessitate that the high King would also, by Tradition considering its establishment by Brian, would need to be an Emperor, although the title of Emperor would be a style compared to the Actual title of High King, in which the High King acts with the power and duties he is due.

Which brings me tot he functions of the High King. As High King, His Majesty would act as Head of Government with executive power. Powers which in the Republic are normally entrusted tot he Head of the Government would be lessened and some of these executive powers would be entrusted to the Throne (another advice I would give to my fellow monarchists in Ireland is that we should always refer to an Irish Monarch' s office and ministers as 'The Throne', it has a grounding, earthy effect of authority that resonates with the people and to sufficiently distinguish us in Political Culture to the British, as referring to 'The Crown' in Ireland conjurs very British imagery) The empowering of the Monarch would create a 'strong' constitutional monarchy. In this I am compromising for at heart I am and wiull always remain an Absolutist. And witht he tradition established that the monarchy has grown to weaken the parliament we will have a reversal of the effect the english civil war had on the British Monarchy. His Majesty will then have power and authority to questin the actions of the Diall Eireann, (should it remain called such in a Monarchy), making the diall Eireann Accountable constitutionally to the People WHILE making the elected representitives of the people Accountable to 'The Throne'

This will of course be a drastically radical concept some of our more constitutional brethern will find reprehensible and make outright democratists appalled. Good. Because that means Ireland has placed itself on the map politically in modern geo politics and made every sit up, take notice and more importantly take us seriously because we dare questin the paradigm in such a very real manner. And in that the Restoration has already achieved one of its aims, bringing prestige to the nation.

Specifically the Sovereign will have the usual ceremonial duties (the coronation of said Sovereign would be complex, I will outline why and how we should approach coronating an Irish Monarch in a later post dedicated tot he topic) but these will not be mentioned because they'll be covered later and I have little mind to dictate to His Majesty what he should and shouldn't be doing to display the splendour of an Irish Monarch and the symbolism he will embody. The Monarch would be default be the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and said forces will need to take an Oath to defend their Sovereign, his successors and subjects for the glory and safety of Ireland in service to God, this oath will help prevent the Military from being legislatively hijacked by an ambitious politician while preventing the monarch from abusing his power in this regard, (an Irish warrior declaring his services to God, the Monarch and the people in that order, if a politican is trying to become a dictator it is the warrior's duty to defend the sovereign and in reverse the soldier is not obligated to obey the sovereign should he order unreasonable slaughter of Irish Subjects, for this would be abhorrant to God. This is in keeping with ancient medieval principles of chivalry where knights were not obligated to obey their lieges in similar circumstances because it would be 'unChristian'), as well as this, His Majesty has the power to propose and veto legislation, ESPECIALLY when the Council of Chiefs find themselves in agreement with His Majesty, (I will cover this further in a later post), the power to grant titles and knighthoods, (this obviously means titles will be recognised constitutionally), the power to declare a state of war or peace, the power to appoint or dismiss Taoiseachs and the power to dissolve Dialls. These will be neccessary to stipulate in a modern Irish Monarchy.

Now His Majesty's duties with regards to being 'Emperor of the Irish', Imperator Scottorum, obstensibly means His Majesty claims the loyalty of all Irishmen and Women, so that means he declares himself the Emperor over the entire Irish Diaspora, (Sovereignty over Irish Descendants in foreign lands is something the Republic does anyway, so anyone who wishes to argue this point as unjust can pretty much get tossed). This will largely be a ceremonial sovereignty as it is unlikely His Majesty can actually command their loyalty, although it gives him leave to grant any irish descendent citizenship should he or she have sufficient proof and ceremonial duties. I am of the opinion that there is in fact a great deal of Irishmen out there who'd be more then happy to claim they have an honest-to-God Emperor in any context.

Now this is all theorizing and you all are welcome to argue my points, make suggestions or ask questions with regards to this, especially as this is still ongoing, input will be invaluable.

Other posts in the Restoration Series
II) Clans and the role of Culture in an Irish Monarchy
III) The Church and the Role of Religion in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary post: Divine Supremecy and Tolerance: The Neccessity of State Religion and toleration of Heretics
IV) The Legislative Process in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary Post: Monarchist Economics and Dynamic Politics
- The Role of Chieftans and other Lords
V) The High Coronation, the true All Ireland Final
- The Role of the Council of Chieftans, Dynastic succession issues and legitimacy
- The Role of the Church
- The Role of the Monarch and the Royal Family
- Lords, Statesman and Farmers
- Final comments on the Coronation
VI) And all the world is a stage... Foreign Relations and the Role of a Monarchical Ireland in Europe and Elsewhere.

The Death Penalty, and the one thing we should all agree on

The Death Penalty is an awkward thing for many of us in the modern period, (or post-modern if you want to be pretentious), to discuss about, some of us support it, others don't, we necessarily must factor in religious, ethical, and moral questions and qualms about Justifications and the Humane manner of executions, leading to all sorts of divides in all sorts of camps about how far many of us will go to supporting the death penalty, or if we support it at all. If you're no stranger to the blogosphere you've likely seen this argument come up again and again, almost as often as hilariously under-informed debates, discussions and slander fests about Religion in the comments of Youtube Atheists and Religious. And like such arguements, the debate never seems to end.

As far as I've seen the same is no different in the Monarchosphere.

However I would like to propose the one crime we should all agree upon, as Monarchists, that should warrant the Death Penalty, the crime of Treason.

Now this opens up all sorts of questions and discussions over 'What is Treason?' and 'Who is a traitor in X scenario with X conditions?' Could Briton Rebel kings and queens that were brought to Rome for Judgement be considered 'Traitors'? Can Counter-Revolutionaries in Republics be considered 'Traitors'? I wont pretend that I will answer these for you, this post is about actually agreeing that the crime of Treason ITSELF be worthy of the punishment of Death.

Personally I say yes, (at great risk to my own legitimacy), if one commits Treason, such as assaulting a Sovereign with intent to Injury, defamation with intention to cause unrest, spying for a foreign power, etc, etc, etc, should truly warrant the Death penalty and here is why, in order of pettiest to severe:

-By these actions an Individual deceives his peers with no regard to their safety

-He ruins the good names of innocents connected to him by business dealings and Acquaintance

-He ruins the standing and risks the estate of his family, both immediate and extended, by his actions. Putting his own desires ahead of his House.

-His actions likely result in injury or death, or in the case of spying, risking the injury, death, and possible conquest of Thousands or Millions of his Countrymen.

-If he is a man of standing, he betrays the trust of the Lower classes, the trust of higher classes, and the trust of his Sovereign.

-If he is not a man of standing, he betrays the trust of all that he would be an upstanding Subject of merit, besmirching the image of the entire lower classes by his base actions, causing distrust suspicion and possible unrest within the nation.

-By endangering his Sovereign he not only shows his disloyalty to his nation and Countrymen, but a callous disregard for everything that Nation is, was or ever will be, by attacking and endangering the enduring symbol of the Nation's continuity, past present and future, that the Sovereign embodies.

All of these crimes show but a glimpse of the tremendous breech of justice that Treason causes, a breech that cannot be filled by simply languishing the Traitor in the worst jail in the Nation for his abominable crimes. Blood must be paid to satiate Justice in this regard, because it is simply not possible for Justice to be served any other way when the crime is against the Country as a whole, blood being spilled is an ugly necessity. It appeases the lower classes, and dignifies the upper classes, and all will know an ugly piece of history has been put to an end once this criminal has been killed. Obviously a Sovereign would have to careful that executing a traitor or rebel wont inspire something worse, as king George VI warned his Government against shooting the Easter Rising prisoners because he had the foresight to see what effect such an action would have, needless to say Parliament didn't listen to their King and here we are.

The rationale behind this would be lost on most republicans, (with the exception of the Americans), as they do not understand how Justice is done by killing the Traitor and not letting him suffer in jail for his whole life. Well, inevitable puns about 'Republican Justice' and the state of most modern Justice systems aside for now, Gents, the reasoning most monarchies, ESPECIALLY in Europe found behind this, was there was no more terrible a punishment for a Traitor's crimes then answering to the Divine for their crimes. And even then the condemned were given their chances to repent before God, not man for man could not forgive them, for their crimes before they met Him. Something that is lost on the modern world.

What do you say? Let us see if we can get another discussion going.

On Parliaments

(I'll save my disgust at the behaviour of my fellow Irish Nationalists here in the north recently, for another post)

Ah what a blessed, ugly thing, that great and fantastic, necessary evil for running any modern nation of peoples; that towering, rotten leviathan that has the audacity to refer to itself as the State.

Oh wait no, that's the supreme court I was referring to, my apologies, this post is actually about Parliaments and how I despise them.

I will admit from this point on I am, for lack of a better term, an Absolute Monarchist, after my hatred for the audacious and preposterous idea and notion that the King would ever need to bow to parliament to perform the simplest of His duties won the war of my affections over the notion of a long lasting Nation.

I will be the first to admit that the Dail in Ireland is necessary as a legislative body for the herculean task of managing the laws of the land, but by God it should not rule the country.

My rage at Parliaments, or in America's case, the Senate and Congress, stems not only from my utter distrust of politicians for the simple vice that they are politicians, but also for the more practical reasons that every Parliament in almost every monarchy actively seeks to silence the voice of the monarch, be it Luxembourg, who's Sovereign is to have his signature revoked from the necessity of passing legislature because Grand Duke Henri dared to act upon his constitutional and just role as head of state to disagree and refuse to sign into law a piece of legislation he disagreed with, or let us go to Spain, who's evil socialist government is even now actively trying to rid Spain of its Monarchy, or how the coalition government in Britain is now pondering constitutional changes and at the same time absent mindedly forgetting they have a Queen. Or in Norway where the Monarchy is absolutely hamstrung by the ban on all noble titles by the parliament save for the monarch himself, endangering the Monarchy to an overnight destruction at any given moment in the future.

How I utterly despise the notion of parliamentarian ism, I am firmly and utterly convinced that any ounce of power given to the parliament will always form into a dagger in the back of the Monarchy, I make no apologies from my utter dislike of the idea that Parliaments should be trusted with any length of power in Constitutional Monarchies, for was it not in an emergency meeting with the French equivalent of an assembly, where His Majesty King Louis was ready to give in to some reforms that the revolution truly begin to take place? And was it not through the greed of the Parliament in England that the Stuarts had to flee from the land and brought that Arch-Heretic Cromwell to blight my own country with his own reign of terror in the name of liberty and Justice?

Parliaments are a necessary evil, and are only good when muzzled and leashed, filled with statesmen and not politicians. Otherwise they are a slow, wasteful pox eating at the organs of Nations.

Oh, and with that said, happy First annual Counter-revolution day!