I will not argue your previous mistakes concerning the American Revolution…

As for King Louis XVI:

I pray my beads for his soul; if needed.

It is important that his Date be remembered.  Thank you.

Jacobins? The real problem is those Angevins.
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/09/the_frog_of_war.html

A short, but important article.  Thank you, Mr. Zmirak.

Burkean/Tory Conservatism—the only conservatism that should own the word “conservatism” and worthy of the upper case—has its fount and origin and defining moment in opposition to the French Revolution. This applies both in the British Isles and on the Continent. This is a solemnity and a sacred day for us.  I thank John Zmirak.

Gee, it’s nice to know that the only “true conservative” is one who thinks supporting a Catholic King is their duty. Perhaps we can arrange a King Rudy for you.

As much as one might abhor the Jacobins and appreciate the aid of the French Government during the Revolution and have sentimental feelings for this King who loved tinkering with clocks, to assert that King Worship is a “conservative “ litmus test is to ignore the last 215 years. This may not be an entirely bad idea given the growth of War Statism over the last 200 years but rest assured, the monarchies would likely have executed just as much mayhem.....if not more.

The King is Dead.......Good.
May we appreciate their good works while remaining mindful of the dry rot inherent to dynastic patrimony.

May we appreciate their good works while remaining mindful of the dry rot inherent to dynastic patrimony

Dry rot is inherent to every political system, ours included.  One need only look at todays viable candidates to see it.

@Dirk

Of course, a true conservative is all for having a king.\
Republics and democracies are newfangled experiments
which turn up badly quite as often, if not more, that
they do well. Monarchy in an ancient institution which
has provided much of value to the histories of their
countries.

Of course, a true conservative wants to keep kings
where they are, and only a wild-eyed radical would
think about getting rid of a tried and true institution
to start experimenting with systems which are alien to
one’s traditions.

You really ought to read Burke, you wild-eyed radical,
you.

Welcome back, Adriana! One reason I look at the comment threads on these articles is in hope of seeing what you’ve had to say.

Yes, the devil you know, is always preferable to the one you don’t know. That is one of the advantages of a hereditary monarchy over an elected leader: You always observe the next ruler growing up, so there is time to “fix” the succession, in case he looks like an absolute nitwit.
Besides that, the main problem with government is the same in all constructs: If you give them too much power over your life, sooner or later you will have one, who will abuse it.

There is an account (perhaps a legend) that says that as he awaited execution, King Louis read “Eikon Basilike”, the meditations of King Charles I on hos own impending death (murder, really), which took place on 30 January 1648. Perhaps Charles’ last word (to Bishop Juxon) will also be relevant to this day:
Remember.

30 January 1649, rather.

Vive Le Roi!

Adriana,
One of these days, I should read Burke I suppose, perhaps whilst incarcerated during a Restoration. Is it as entertaining as Boswell or Johnson?

“Wild Eyed” is the least of it but the damned things are beginning to go blurry on me and so radicalism might be best left to those who can run faster.

Would that certain parties might have “taken care of the loathsome humpbacked prince” in the current era, like Philip II did to the Infante in Spain.

Ah, Dirk, you illustrate a way in which monarchy is
superior to a republic. Under the monarchy, Philip II
had enough sense of duty to remove a man that he
judged incompetent to succeed him, even though he was
his father.

But Bush Sr. thought nothing of inflicting his
incompetent offspring on us.

ade 3.000.000 25.2008 um MALDIVES