If Scotland Were Independent, Would You Support A Scottish Royal Family?

[Argyll]

It was mainly to cement alliances and other similar, dynastic reasons. In the Middle Ages, it was a very important diplomatic tool. A certain amount of snobbery was involved too, no doubt, but the best monarchs - the few genuinely intelligent ones - weren't snobs.

Well, yeah, I knew that much. I guess that part slipped my mind. I was thinking more of the whole "moral" part of it.

[Wulfhere]

Not forgetting his earlier illustrious European royal ancestor, Dracula (Vlad the Impaler). And Muhammad too, according to some researchers, for an even more blood-soaked, psychopathic tyrant.

[Wulfhere]

Well, yeah, I knew that much. I guess that part slipped my mind. I was thinking more of the whole "moral" part of it.

Monarchs have very rarely allowed morality to interfere with their political activities.

[Magister Eckhart]

I know that they have mated with other European families, and I didn't quite understand that. I always thought that royals should mate with their own people.

Mate with the peasants? Why? Half the trouble we have today is vulgar influence on the nobility, both spiritual and physical. I think the problem here is that you are assuming that the notion of nations being integral is very old when in reality it's only been around for the last three hundred years at most. The rightful Monarch has always been he who is annointed to rule and is answerable to God - thus Scots demanded their own King but this does not equate to that king being "one of them". He was one of them if he respected their customs and upheld Christian rule, he didn't have to be a "blood Scot".

Not forgetting his earlier illustrious European royal ancestor, Dracula (Vlad the Impaler). And Muhammad too, according to some researchers, for an even more blood-soaked, psychopathic tyrant.

Vlad Tepes was neither psychopathic nor a tyrant. He was a noble defender of his Christian nation against the incursion of Mohammedan invaders. He was a European hero, and I think deserves to be treated as such.

[Argyll]

Monarchs have very rarely allowed morality to interfere with their political activities.

Let me put it in better terms: divine and religous.

[Argyll]

Mate with the peasants? Why? Half the trouble we have today is vulgar influence on the nobility, both spiritual and physical. I think the problem here is that you are assuming that the notion of nations being integral is very old when in reality it's only been around for the last three hundred years at most. The rightful Monarch has always been he who is annointed to rule and is answerable to God - thus Scots demanded their own King but this does not equate to that king being "one of them". He was one of them if he respected their customs and upheld Christian rule, he didn't have to be a "blood Scot".



Vlad Tepes was neither psychopathic nor a tyrant. He was a noble defender of his Christian nation against the incursion of Mohammedan invaders. He was a European hero, and I think deserves to be treated as such.

Why not mate with native noble families, then?

[Wulfhere]

Vlad Tepes was neither psychopathic nor a tyrant. He was a noble defender of his Christian nation against the incursion of Mohammedan invaders. He was a European hero, and I think deserves to be treated as such.

He was certainly those things too. None of us is truly one-dimensional.

[Wulfhere]

Let me put it in better terms: divine and religous.

Medieval monarchs didn't go on about the divine right of kings, and all that guff. They were practical people. It was the Stuarts who started pushing that particular idea, and lost their throne (twice) because of it.

[Argyll]

Medieval monarchs didn't go on about the divine right of kings, and all that guff. They were practical people. It was the Stuarts who started pushing that particular idea, and lost their throne (twice) because of it.

But isn't it then that the divine right thing came around? Or even before? I remember reading about the divine right of many kings of Europe, especially France and Germany (more of the German area and the Holy Roman Empire).

[Wulfhere]

But isn't it then that the divine right thing came around? Or even before? I remember reading about the divine right of many kings of Europe, especially France and Germany (more of the German area and the Holy Roman Empire).

And look what happened to them.

A monarch, basically, has a job to do, on behalf of the state and its people. If he starts letting it go to his head, he is in grave danger of losing it (his head, that is).

Another thing about the Stuarts is this: they were incredibly stupid people.