Randoms of the Summer

Writes Dr. Gary North over at his website:

It wound up with a military dictator, Oliver Cromwell: 1649-1659. He was replaced by a new king in 1660. But the Parliament continued to centralize its power, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689 stripped much of the power of the King, but it did not reduce government power; it simply transferred it to Parliament. Parliament adopted a theory of parliamentary sovereignty second to none in the history of tyranny. It claimed, and it still claims, that it has final sovereignty over all aspects of British life. There was no written constitution to restrain it. There was only the common law to restrain it. That was something important, but the centralization continued. It continues today.

The Mad Monarchist is probably the most prolific for the pan-monarchist cause in the blogosphere. He has published his thoughts on his future as a blogger and has announced a strike. Let's hope he does in some way continue his great contribution in near future.

The Mad Monarchist writes:

It is true that, ultimately, considering what are known as alternate histories is a waste of time. We can never know for sure what would have happened, what might have been or how this or that would have worked out. However, if kept in its proper place, such speculation can be of at least some benefit. As well as providing some creative exercise that might generate valuable ideas, I also have found it a good tool for bringing people to an understanding of free will, that the way the world is today did not just happen inexorably but was the result of past decisions. If different decisions had been made, we would be living in a different sort of world. Actions have consequences and this is a point that can be brought home by considering alternate possibilities.

[...]

As we recently saw the annual celebration of America’s Declaration of Independence, it may be worthwhile or at least entertaining to consider what might have happened if such a declaration had never been made. Likewise, if it had, what might have happened if Britain had won the war and the American colonies remained in the British Empire?

First of all, despite the way most people make it sound, America would not be some sort of oppressed, downtrodden land of miserable tyranny. Under the British Crown the American colonies already had a higher standard of living and more individual freedom than most people in the world. King George III was no tyrant, he did not get his way all the time and he never refused Royal Assent to any acts of Parliament.

In an earlier post he writes:

Today Americans celebrate Independence Day but, of course, as is usual with such cases, the ideas that are celebrated are more myth than reality.

And back in mid-June he wrote:

Based on what I have seen, this usually comes down to the idea that, since libertarians think anyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want, it is absurd to say they do not have the right to choose their head of state. I must confess, that sort of “logic” never made sense to me. I thought libertarianism was about having the right to make decisions for yourself, not for other people. That is what democracy is all about; 51% of the herd making decisions for the other 49%.

[...]

The closest the world ever came to a privatized society was in the monarchial Middle Ages and while it is, in theory, at least possible that a more libertarian society could come about in a monarchy, it is impossible to believe that a democracy could ever be libertarian when everyone is always just one vote away from having it all come crashing down.

Asks Mr. Theodore Harvey over at his weblog Royal World:

[I]f the Regicide of 1793, undeniably one of the most horrible acts in History, was truly a "point of no return," how was it that France had various monarchies for two thirds of the following century?

Royal World also brings some thoughts on monarchism.

Tea at Trianon has a note on the French court and the American rebels.

Ad Orientem has an old quote from Gerald Warner.