What’s the Cure for Ailing Nations? More Kings and Queens, Monarchists Say [NewYorkTimes]

The truth is, there was a professing Roman Catholic, in France, during the 16th century, who agreed with Knox's cardinal thesis against "petticoat government", but was not as virulent as John Knox.

Here is Mr. Bodin's argument against "petticoat government":

"I have said that the crown ought to descend in the male line, seeing that gynecocracy is directly contrary to the laws of nature. Nature has endowed men with strength, foresight, pugnacity, authority, but has deprived women of these qualities. Moreover the law of God explicitly enjoins that the woman should be subject, not only in matters concerning law and government, but within each particular family. The most terrible of maledictions uttered against the enemy was that they might have women to rule over them. Even the civil law forbids to women all charges and offices proper to men, such as judging, pleading, and such-like acts. This is not only because of their lack of prudence, but also because vigorous action is contrary to the sex, and to the natural modesty and reserve of women. ...

But dangerous as elections to the crown are, for the reasons we have already given, should there be a failure of heirs male, this expedient is to be preferred to the succession of women, for that means outright gynecocracy in defiance of natural law. Should the sovereign princess marry, as she must do to secure the succession, she must marry either a subject or a foreigner. If a subject, it is a great abasement for a princess to marry one other servants, seeing that the greatest sovereign princes in the world have found all sorts of difficulties follow marriage to a subject. There is besides the risk of the envy and jealousy of great and powerful nobles, in the contempt they always feel for men of inferior station, if she insists on marrying the man of her preference ... On the other hand no foreign prince who tries to rule over an alien people can be secure of his life unless he lives behind fortifications, and goes about strictly guarded. But if he thus has control of the armed forces he can control the state, and in order then to make himself the more secure, he is tempted to advance his own compatriots. This is a thing which no nation in the world will endure.

We have a thousand examples, among them that of William of Sicily. In 1268 the people of Naples were so enraged that a Frenchman should be promoted to the office of chancellor that they conspired to kill, and in fact did kill every Frenchmen in either Naples or Sicily. If the foreigners are not the stronger party, they get their throats cut on the slightest provocation by patriots. ...

If natural law is violated by gynecocracy, so are the civil law and the law of nations, and to an even greater degree. By them the woman is required to follow her husband though he have neither lands nor possessions. In this opinion canonists, doctors of civil law, and theologians are all agreed. The woman is bound in obedience to her husband, her dowry is his by right, as are likewise all properties accruing to her ... Nevertheless under the marriage treaty between Philip of Castile and Mary, Queen of England, contrary principles were laid down, although many are of opinion that when a foreigner marries a queen, the rights and revenues of the kingdom belong to him, although the kingdom, and sovereign authority over it inheres in the queen ... Such are the inconveniences and absurdities attendant on gynecocracy." (Jean Bodin, Six Books on the Commonwealth.) Bodin was not motivated by the political exigencies unique to that day and age, but by his fundamental philosophical belief that the female sex is a fundamentally, essentially, substantially, and ontologically inferior species of living things to the male sex, and therefore gynaecocracy (i.e. women rulers) is contrary to natural law and Divine Law. But I reject Jean Bodin's belief in the ontological inferiority of the female sex. Yea, I have grave philosophical reasons of common sense on my side against both Bodin and Knox. Let us consider Bodin's first objection against "gynaecocracy". His first objection is that "Nature has endowed men with strength, foresight, pugnacity, authority, but has deprived women of these qualities". This first objection of his had already been answered and CONCLUSIVELY refuted at least 300 years ago!

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A59093.0001.001/52?vid=108530:

But Bodin had another objection, namely that "the law of God explicitly enjoins that the woman should be subject, not only in matters concerning law and government, but within each particular family". I know and concede that the divine law enjoins that the wife should be subject to her husband, but when has it ever enjoined that a mother should be subject to the authority of her son merely because of their difference in sex? Or that the lady of the house should be subject to the dominion and power of her butler or footman merely because he is male and she is female?

It is also a fact of English civil and juridical history that in the 16th century a certain respectable widow woman named Dame Dorothy Packington wrote a letter to return 2 men of her own choosing to be members of Parliament:

The quibble that Dame Packington was a returning officer, and therefore not subject to the same legal, natural, or zoological incapacity for that right, liberty, or privilege as are women for the right, liberty, or privilege of voting in the political elections, or for exercising real authority and government under the title of being a reigning queen, however plausible and intuitive it may seem prima facie, cannot avail anything in favor of Bodin's first objection. For of all of the material and formal causes inherent in the very act of choosing a burgess to serve as a member of parliament (which is a public office), one important and considerable such cause is precisely the same as if one had been voting for members of parliament in a political meeting. It requires the same kind of judgment in political and civil affairs to discern what sort of men would be fit for serving in the parliaments as it does to vote for them in the political elections. Either women are naturally and inherently deficient in this required judgment or they are not. If they are, well then it follows by parity of reason that Dame Packington should have been considered and deemed just as incompetent to be a returning officer. But if they are not, well then not even the natural capacity can excuse women from the fiendish guilt of usurping a prerogative which the Divine Law and the British Constitution have denied them. Either it is altogether lawful in the sight of God and the Constitution of England for women to vote for members of parliament, or else it is altogether unlawful. If lawful, well then, Oh how unjust and cruel it was for Lord Coke in his Institutes, to assert that women even having a freehold are ineligible to vote for public officers!! But if unlawful, well then, not only is her letter of return null and void, but it is also a dictate not only of reason and honor, but of Christian discipline and piety, that Dame Packington should have been just as publicly rebuked and chastised; for she addressed her letter "to all Christian people to whom this present writing shall come", and therefore sinned though that very letter, and all those to whom that letter has come are witnesses of the fact, and therefore of her evil example. Nor will their ignorance of the law excuse her from the guilt. It would have been truly right and meet that she should be publicly rebuked and chastised and disgraced in terrorem so that all may hear, fear, and no more approve of her evil example. But the public officials who had known and read of that letter made no efforts to punish her or reprimand her for daring to interfere in politics or in any affairs pertaining only to the male sex; therefore they would have been pusillanimous, base, rascally, unmanly cowards, partakers in the iniquity of female usurpation of the exclusive prerogatives of the male sex, and a FOUL BLOT on the ESCUTCHEON of the very NAME of a gentleman: all of which are the most grievous, malicious, and foul calumnious LIBELS that could have been uttered against the judges and magistrates of England. Duels have been fought over affronts far less injurious than this!!! (But if the historical records DO show that these public officials DID make sufficient effort to oppose Dame Packington in her efforts to return 2 men to be members of Parliament, well then I retract everyone of the accusations I have made against them of being pusillanimous, base, rascally, unmanly cowards. But no such opposition would be made against her unless the public officials sincerely believed Dame Packington's act of nominating and appointing 2 men to be members of Parliament to be contrary to the British Constitution and/or Divine and/or Natural Law.) But there are other objections Bodin made against gynaecocracy which I cannot necessarily answer now. All I can say for now is, Have you read https://forums.anglican.net/attachm...king-reigns-but-does-not-rule-rev-1-pdf.2041/? It contains the full proof of my cardinal theorem proving that the quibble that the king/queen reigns but does not rule is untenable.

 

My wife and I have a home in Thailand. We have a home in GA, USA. The monarchy in Thailand is certainly not a cure for an ailing nation. Their new king spends more time with his concubines than he does in the Royal Palace in Thailand. His father, Rama IX, was devoted to the nation and ruled, at the time, the longest of any living monarch. He passed and the son, heir per statutes, took over as Rama X. Many feel it will be the last of the line. The rest of the government is a Constitutional Monarchy. The elected government changes often via coups and lack-of-confidence votes. The monarchy has proven itself impotent in "fixing" the economic and political problems that plague their nation. Corruption in government, at all levels, is very prevalent. The monarchy does nothing to stem that trend. Thailand has the rule of "lese-majeste" as it pertains to the monarchy. So, there is very little printed or digital complaint about the lack of leadership by their king. I am certainly not convinced that the monarchy is the key to success in the world and its governments.

 

I don't find this kind of stuff helpful. In terms of this forum I think it simply debases any argument for the tradition. This is simply sexism with an argument from history that did not stand up in its own day, and certainly does not stand up in this day.

 

I've heard about this from my friend, who is himself part-Thai. I suppose it depends on the monarchy - everyone has heard of the sengoku jidai. There was a monarch who did nothing at all about centuries of civil war between his 'vassals'.

 

But I find it useful to quote such past literary sources, not necessarily to uphold the opinions they are teaching, but rather for historical or refutational purposes, i.e. for the purpose of exposing and refuting the errors, heresies, absurdities and irrational, unjust, immoral, heterodoxical, or heretical opinions they tend to promulgate. The statement that "Even the civil law forbids to women all charges and offices proper to men ..." may have been historically true in the sense that lawmakers and jurists of that day and age actually did hold and practice such an opinion, but it represents precisely the kind of juridical opinion and practice that I am trying to show is by its nature and tendency unjust and pharisaically hypocritical, especially on the part of "roman catholics" who pray to the "blessed virgin mary" to be our Advocate and Mediatrix and plead our cause before Jesus Christ, the just judge of all heaven and earth. But being an advocate, being a mediator, and pleading causes before a judge, and being a judge are precisely the sort of charges and offices the Roman Civil Law - and therefore the Canon Law of the "roman catholic" church, at least until 1916 - in the form of Corpus Juris Canonici / Decretum Gratiani, which had adopted much of the Roman Civil Law, though modified in many places in the light of the "roman catholic" church's professing "dogmas" on faith and morals - had always DENIED to women; since the Roman Civil Code held these three offices to be proper and unique to men, and therefore offices for which the entire female sex is ineligible. This provision of Roman Civil Law, especially as an integrant part of "Roman Catholic" Canon Law, is pharisaically hypocritical in light of the fact that these very same papists pray to Mary in their Rosary and many other pretended devotional acts of worship to exercise the first three of these offices (advocate, mediator, pleading causes) in the tribunal Heaven, even though the Corpus Juris Canonici / Decretum Gratiani DENIED these prerogatives to women in earthly tribunals.

Every practice of the office of mediator in the civil, criminal, or political sphere is an intermeddling of him who exercises this office with those particular civil and political (and juridical) affairs wherein the antagonistical parties are at variance. Likewise, every practice of the office of mediator in the spiritual realm is an intermeddling of him who exercises this office with those particular spiritual, moral, and soteriological affairs wherein a Holy and Just and Righteous God and sinful carnal man are enemies. The soteriological, evangelical, and moral & theological order of the Christian Religion is to the Kingdom of Heaven as the political, juridical, judicial, and criminological order of the Civil & Political estate is to the Civil and Political Kingdoms of this world. But to postulate for others in civil and criminal matters was always deemed by the Ancient Roman Law and the Roman Catholic Canon Law (before 1917) to be a virile office, and therefore not lawful for women to practice. But every prerogative of interceding, pleading, and postulating for us poor miserable wretched sinners in the judicial and legal affairs of Divine Law wherein we are verily guilty is to the Kingdom of Heaven as every prerogative of postulating for others in civil and criminal matters is to every Kingdom of Earth. Therefore it is not just unreasonable and highly absurd - but Pharisaically hypocritical - that female deceased saints should have the analogical prerogatives of interceding, pleading, and postulating for us poor miserable wretched sinners in the judicial and legal affairs of Divine Law (in the Kingdom of Heaven) wherein we are verily guilty that these SAME females were denied by virtue of their female sex on earth in the political and criminological realm. This Papist dogma by which deceased females canonized as saints should, no less than the deceased males canonized as saints, should therefore have the very munus and/or officium in Heaven of interceding, pleading, and postulating for us poor miserable wretched sinners in the judicial and legal affairs of Divine Law wherein we are verily guilty, although these females were denied (even by the Papists’ own pre-1917 Code of Canon Law (Corpus Juris Canonici / Decretum Gratiani)) the analogical prerogatives on Earth in civil and political matters, is evidently one of the tares the Devil had been sowing while men slept.

Neither can I accept the papist quibble that even though the Virgin Mary did not hold these offices in Heaven in any official sense, yet she exercises these functions virtually through the influence a mother has over her son. For such a quibble is nepotistical and smacks of favoritism. Every feminist and/or woman-suffragist in the 19th and 20th century has contended that such an indirect and informal and unofficial influence of women in legal affairs over inferior magistrates like Judge, Laywer, Governor, Prime Minister, Member of Parliament is apt in too many cases to be irresponsible (i.e. it tends to evade responsibility and accountability), and therefore untrustworthy, untruthful, underhanded, mendacious, and pernicious.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...849-a462-4400-89f4-097732ee4d52/SecondReading:

But enough of that quote has been made to illustrate my point, and constitute the most decisive reason WHY such a papist quibble of the indirect influence of women cannot be accepted.

Again, have you read https://forums.anglican.net/attachm...king-reigns-but-does-not-rule-rev-1-pdf.2041/?

 

I don't think Constitutional Monarchy is a wonder-cure to all ills. But I think what is worth considering is what Thailand might look like in absence of a monarchy. Would they be better or worse? There are always going to be cases of unstable countries. That Thailand has not descended into the vicious dictatorship we saw in Cambodia, and undemocratic totalitarian state we see in Vietnam, is a miracle. They had the initial advantage of never being conquered by a colonial power, but in the 50s - 80s they had as much instability and cause for ruin as any of their neighbours.

The reality is that the world's most stable countries are almost all Constitutional Monarchies. Of the 10 oldest and long lasting continuous democracies, 8 are constitutional monarchies (the only exceptions being the US and Switzerland). I have no doubt Thailand would be in a far worse shape today had it abolished its monarchy.

 

[QUOTE="ZachT, ......

The reality is that the world's most stable countries are almost all Constitutional Monarchies. Of the 10 oldest and long lasting continuous democracies, 8 are constitutional monarchies (the only exceptions being the US and Switzerland). I have no doubt Thailand would be in a far worse shape today had it abolished its monarchy.[/QUOTE]
I am not disputing any of what you state. I am concerned with what the current monarch does, as he spends time not only with his concubines within the nation, but heads to his retreat in Germany where he has resident concubines. He is not at all like the national treasure his father was. His lack of involvement in national affairs, to me, is a detriment, rather than a help. His father could sit down with opposing factions and get compromises. This is why Thailand survived the various coups and lack-of-confidence votes. This has not occurred in any incidents to my knowledge of late. His one unmarried sister handles affairs of state and many would wish her to be Queen, but Thai law prevents this, as only male heirs can sit on the throne. This instability is part of the reason so many expats have fled the nation. Many actually moved to Laos or Cambodia.

 

Kings and Queens are Biblical, unlike Popes and Presidents!?

 

No thanks

 

Yes and look what happened to Cambodia after its King was expelled and look what happened after he came back. What happened to Sth Vietnam when they got rid of their Emperor.

But don't forget one of the Swiss Cantons (Neuchatel) had a prince till 1848. And of course having a prince it wisely decided against entering the Sonderbund war of 1847, a Swiss civil war, and Europe's last war of religion. Only those democratic Cantons decided to enter into the war.

To their eternal shame The USA decided not to act on some people and states wish to have Prince Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart as their head of state

 

I don't know how true this is, but I've always been told Alexander Hamilton wanted to propose George Washington as king, but George asked him not to.

 

I've heard that, too.What he proposed at the Constitutional Congress wasn't far off. Under his proposal, the President would be elected by members of Congress, serve a life term, and bear the title " Your Excellency".