I am about to offend many of my potential readers with my personal opinion concerning the historically corrupt concept of hereditary monarchies. Yet I feel I am being consistent with the most logical Biblical view, based on thousands of years of trial, and error with the concept. This is in no way meant to seem irreverent, or even disrespectful of the innocent little tike born yesterday to Prince William, and Lady Kate ( if that's the correct way of addressing her). God bless him, and the whole royal family. That said, it's my opinion that there should only be one hereditary monarch, at least for those countries that profess predominate faith in the Judeo/Christian Bible. Jesus Christ is our de-facto King, and He will soon be our King in fact, eternally! Any nation that allows themselves to be even symbolically ruled by an earthly royal family is extremely unwise to say the least. Take into account also the obscene wealth that has been given directly into there possession, at taxpayers' expense ( and I'm focusing now only upon the European royal families), as payment for what amounts to a campaign of irrelevant, feel-good, and mostly politically correct, humanistic public relations appearances, and speeches, and you'll have extreme difficulty in convincing me that they are worth the money. One European royal family actually owns one of the largest international oil companies. If the entire family abdicated their royal titles, present and future, they would still be so rich that they could live in "royal" luxury for the rest of their lives.
Biblical accounts, both Old and New Testament give us endless record of horribly evil monarchies, set against very few good ones ( David, and Solomon were rare examples; and Solomon's reign was blessed of God mostly for God's abiding love for David). The absolute power of these evil Kings did indeed corrupt them "absolutely"; eventually leading to the destruction, and enslavement of the entire nation of Israel, by Babylon, as God's punishment for their evil ways.
Even worse is the history of the so-called "absolute monarchies" throughout the ages and the international lunacy that has frequently proceeded from the various thrones, ( some consider this to be the result of the inbred practice of one monarch frequently marrying their first cousin from another country, as if family relations were more important than national loyalty, or genetics). Not to mention all the largely unnecessary wars that have raged throughout the centuries, mostly because one "rightful heir" was being challenged by another that was considerably less so. Consider also that America might still be part of the British commonwealth if not for the greedy policies of the mostly autocratic rule of that insane tyrant, King George III, who was raised in Germany, and whose loyalty to England apparently did not extend further than the vanity of his inherited power to control his kingdom, and it's (read: "his") wealth. He cared even less for his American colonies, which he tried to brutally tax in order to fund his nation's inflationary profligate spending, rather than forcing his government to make painful budgetary cuts.
And now we hear in the international media that the apparent front-runner for the name of the innocent babe, Prince Who'sit, is likely to be "George". No disrespect meant for Queen Elizabeth's father, for whom the young prince would be most directly named, but it just seems rather unfortunate that a potential King of England should bear the same name as that old buffoon who bumbled his way into providing us with our freedom. While we are grateful that he did, we should have trouble respecting his memory, and feel pity for the child that may bear his name.
No comments:
Post a Comment