Republic & Monarchy

[DoubtingThomas]

Watchman’s essay titled The King of the North Conspires for World Domination gives a clear and concise and plausible explanation of the centuries-long contest for dominance between the king of the north and king of the south as it fits in with bible prophecy.



Here is a link to that essay:



http://e-watchman.com/essays/print/king-of...-conspires.html (http://e-watchman.com/essays/print/king-of-the-north-conspires.html)



But me being the poor student in history and political science that I am made it difficult for me to truly understand the difference between a Republic (the form of government in the US) and a Monarchy (the form of government in the UK) even after reading this essay by Brother king numerous times. I am just a slow learner.



In watchman’s essay in identifying the KON he writes in part that: the ongoing struggle between the two rival kings should not be thought of merely in terms of a military contest between two opposing national armies on the field of battle. Outright warfare is only an outward expression of a deeply underlying philosophical, political conflict. Just as modern two-party political systems typically stand on opposing platforms on various issues so, too, the conflict between the king of the north and king of the south is rooted in two mutually antagonistic ideologies. As regards the succession of world powers from the Bible's perspective; the modern political expression of the iron and clay is embodied in the present Anglo-American dual world power. To this day, as the successor to the Roman Empire, London (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/empire.htm) remains the capital seat of the most powerful oligarchy that has ever ruled this planet. The United States has historically been the champion of human rights, liberty and democracy. Together, Great Britain and the United States of America are a hybrid and unworkable fusion of two incompatible systems of political economy.



Well, earlier today I saw the movie The Queen, and I think I now have a much clearer understanding in my own mind of the inner workings of a monarchy as opposed to a republic, and how the UK as the world’s leading Monarchy very likely can be identified as the KON in Daniel’s prophecy.



The film The Queen was released September 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_15), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) in the UK, and more recently here in the US. It has also been nominated for several Academy Awards. Many of our friends here on this DB are located in the UK, so perhaps they have already seen this movie. This film takes an intimate, behind-the-scenes glimpse at the interaction between Queen Elizabeth II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom) and British Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom) Tony Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair) during their struggle following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales), to reach a compromise between treating her death as a private tragedy for the Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Family) and appeasing the public's demand for an overt display of mourning.



I won’t spoil the plot or ending of the movie for any who still may want to see it - but the film begins on the eve of the 1997 UK British general election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_1997), which saw Tony Blair as the United Kingdom's first Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29) Prime Minister in 18 years. As the days pass, the British tabloids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid) become increasingly impatient with the absence of an expression of public condolence from the Monarch over Diana’s death. Blair's popularity rises sharply, to the delight of the Prime Minister's more republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom) advisers, including his wife, Cherie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherie_Blair), who see the Monarchy as hopelessly antiquated. Film critics have written that some aspects of the characters in this film are known to be true to their real-life counterparts. Cherie Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherie_Blair)'s hostility to the monarchy has been widely reported, including her refusal to curtsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtsey) (said to amuse the Queen in private, as it does in the film).Blair, however, does not share these sentiments. He wants to save the Royal Family "from themselves" before it is too late. Despite not concurring with the Royal Family's course of action, Blair respects the Royal Family and chides Cherie for her lack of respect. (Later on, Blair reveals himself as a traditionalist who supports the Monarchy and angrily denounces the anti-royal disdain of his Labour counterparts.) The Queen was filmed entirely on location in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) in London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London), Halton House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_House), Buckinghamshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckinghamshire) and the Scottish Highlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Highlands).



Now, having seen this film, I can truly see how the Anglo-American duo is truly like a mixing of iron and clay in feet of the image in Daniel’s dream. The way the two systems of governement operate are truly not compatable.



BTW – this is just an interesting side point, but earlier this month, after a passenger complained, Jaguar Distribution revealed that an edition of the movie distributed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_distributor) to airlines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline) had bleeped out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beep_%28sound%29) seven occurrences of the word "God", including in the phrase, "God bless you, ma'am". It was determined that this was the result of an attempt to remove profanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity) and blasphemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy) from the airline edition of the movie.

[Eli's Foe]

The struggle between these ideologies is very interesting. I must confess to confess to having some difficulty in following the thread regarding the King of the South. Whilst the King of the North as explained by Watchman came out of the Roman stable, the link between the US and Egypt under Ptolemy is more difficult to follow.

As a footnote, the struggle is between Republicanism as stated, and an Oligarchy rather than Monarchy.

Oligarchy (Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government) where political power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power) effectively rests with a small, elite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism) segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military prowess). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho).



Early societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societies) may become oligarchies as an outgrowth of an alliance between rival tribal chieftains or as the result of a caste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste) system. Oligarchies can often become instruments of transformation, by insisting that monarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch) or dictators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator) share power, thereby opening the door to power-sharing by other elements of society (while oligarchy means "the rule of the few," monarchy means "the rule of the one"). One example of power-sharing from one person to a larger group of persons occurred when English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) nobles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobles) banded together in 1215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215) to force a reluctant King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King) John of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_England) to sign the Magna Carta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta), a tacit recognition both of King John's waning political power and of the existence of an incipient oligarchy (the noblility). As English society continued to grow and develop, the Magna Carta was repeatedly revised (1216 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1216), 1217 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1217), and 1225 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1225)), guaranteeing greater rights to greater numbers of people, thus setting the stage for English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England) constitutional monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy).

Oligarchies may also evolve into more autocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocratic) or monarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchist) forms of government, sometimes as the result of one family gaining ascendancy over the others. Many of the European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European) monarchies established during the late Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) began in this way.

Quotes courtesy of Wikipedia.

Hence Britain is not a true Monarchy as it once was, since the monarchy exists by permission of the Oligarchy ie. the power concentrated into a few hands rather than just one.

Now as Watchman accepts in one or more of his essays, even the US is drifting towards being an Oligarchy, whilst Great Britain also has strong pro-republican factions, so this is not a black and white situation.

The essential thing is that constitutionally the two countries are very different. Hence the iron and clay not sticking together naturally.

EF

[Nambo]

From an Englishmans point of view I would say Monarchy died in this country after King Charles after storming parliament looking for the 6 MPs and suffered defeat in the insuing civil war. Since then no King or Queen can even step foot in the chamber of the House of Commons.

The monarchy has since been reduced to a tourist attraction, the Queens speach at christmas and the opening of Parliamnet, everything she says has been written her by the Prime Minister.

Any influence the Royal Family does have will now be as members of the secret ruling behind the scenes elite.

[eyes&ears]

Het DT!!,

You are not alone my friend. History, Politic Sci, Geography are not my strong points either. I have difficulty digesting and sorting out most of this type of information even after reading it over and over. I also feel I am a little slow in comprehension in these areas at times. But I understand what needs to be understood and that is all that matters imo.

However, Jehovah has blessed all of us with other gifts.

Jehovah will always take care of us and make sure we have the understanding we need to do his will and take care of ourselves spiritually. You are doing very well.

Best to you and your family. Hold on tight to Jehovah and Jesus Christ.

Eyes & Ears

[Berean]

I'd say that the US and UK aren't too far apart in terms of government. Like Nambo said, in current parliamentary monarchies, the royal family plays a role that's pretty much ceremonial. Now I'm not a historian, but I am studying to be one, so if there are any questions that are more related to history, don't hesitate to ask me, even if I may not know the answer.