Who Appoints Royalty? And Why do we Bow Down?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6c23c020c30.jpg[/atsimg]


Hi all,

Welcome again to another one of my speculative threads!

So the question is simple....Who appoints royalty? These are seemingly regular people, that are just like you and me...and yet all throughout history people have simply accepted the status quo and bowed down to these people to "serve" them without questioning.

Now I understand that sometimes there have been coups to overthrow kings, and then the leader of the opposition becomes king himself...that's understandable..

But lets take a journey back....wayyy back..

How in the hell did the first "king" become a king? Who exactly died and appointed him as royalty, to rule over the REST OF THE PEOPLE in his country?

There are many theories, such as ETs interbreeding with humans in the past and then appointing their offspring as rulers of the planet..

I still have trouble understanding why people would blindly follow someone who isnt better in any way shape or form than an average man? How did this occur?

I believe the answer can only be found by looking at the very first example of "royalty", now this is where im having trouble.... Who and Where was the first "king" in our history? and if he was appointed, then who the hell appointed him? Wouldnt this person have more power than any king?

The thing is that ever since then people have blindly accepted this status quo "they are royalty. so they must be better than us, therefore we need to bow down to them, and serve them"

Am I the only individual that has an issue with this? Why am I expected to care who prince william is dating? Why should I be more interested in that, rather than who my cousin or next door neighbor is dating? What makes that person more special than the rest of us? Why is a human being "supposed" to "serve" anyone other than himself and his fellow man? This isnt a restaurant and im not a waiter...

Maybe this is linked to mans inherent need to be "led"? Or maybe it is something far more sinister?

Thoughts?

---GeminiSky

Napoleon and the Roman emperors did quite alot of it, don't really know about any others.

reply to post by GeminiSky


You trace back any royal line and you will eventually find a warlord who rose to power by "right of arms" Early on, it was simply a matter of land acquisition, followed by protecting your conquered peoples and having them think of you as king. As civilization advanced, politcal machinations were introduced via dynastic hereditary systems, arranged marriages, King appointed titles and the tracing of bloodlines back to the various warlords etc who started the whole confounded mess.

But in the end, the whole system is founded on blood. Specifically, who spilled the most while avoiding spilling their own.

I would speculate that it goes back to the tribal despotic times. When the best hunter would be the chief of the tribe, from there it just continued into bigger and bigger "tribes" this best hunter would become the best fighter, and then a conqueror of other tribes and he would teach his own offspring his secrets, and persuaded his followers that it was a genetic superiority in his family line.

The rest I would assume is history!

Originally posted by Romekje
Napoleon and the Roman emperors did quite alot of it, don't really know about any others.

ok, but what about other countries or continents? How about the kings that ruled over the african continent? Or was that only something I remember from "coming to america'?

Having done a bit of family history research, I believe I can answer that question:
Way back, during the medieval times many of the forerunners of the nobility and royalty were elected into their positions. How they were elected and by who, that is still somewhat something I am looking into, but it is known that the church had a hand in doing such. The modern titles we all see, came about in the late 1200 early 1300’s, and it was in the 1100 that titles starting to be hereditary in nature. This would mean someone whose father or mother held a title, by birth would be granted that title as well, after the parent died. Course this lead to some infamous wars and family feuds that decimated many populations along the way. If you trace back many of the royal families of Europe, apart from seeing a lot of inbreeding, there is are several key points that are clearly mentioned. Unfortunately, the name escapes me, but it was either though one of the royal families either in Spain or Germany where the actual hereditary titles came to be. Many of the other royal houses came to be, due to being placed there by someone in charge, like the Holy Roman Emperors for some service, as thanks for helping out, while others had such stripped from them on the grounds of treason. But alot goes back to the leaders who were warriors and conquerors that took over. People like William I, king of England, took over by force the country of England, removing the Saxon royalty from the throne. That is where kings came from.

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
reply to post by GeminiSky

 

You trace back any royal line and you will eventually find a warlord who rose to power by "right of arms" Early on, it was simply a matter of land acquisition, followed by protecting your conquered peoples and having them think of you as king. As civilization advanced, politcal machinations were introduced via dynastic hereditary systems, arranged marriages, King appointed titles and the tracing of bloodlines back to the various warlords etc who started the whole confounded mess.

But in the end, the whole system is founded on blood. Specifically, who spilled the most while avoiding spilling their own.

You know? I was thinking it was something along those lines....but there is something inherently evil about these "dynastic hereditary systems"

Its one thing to have a "title" passed down the lines, but why should people see me as their ruler, because of something my forefather accomplished millenia ago?

Name: King Alfred the Great
Born: c.849 at Wantage, Oxfordshire
Parents: Aethelwulf and Osburh
Relation to Elizabeth II: 32nd great-grandfather
House of: Wessex
Became King: 871
Married: Ealhswith of Mercia
Children: 5 children, Aelfthryth, Aethelflaed, Aethelgifu, Edward, Aethelweard
Died: October 26, 899
Buried at: Winchester
Succeeded by: his son Edward

Anglo-Saxon king 871–899 who defended England against Danish invasion and founded the first English navy. He succeeded his brother Aethelred to the throne of Wessex in 871, and a new legal code came into force during his reign. He encouraged the translation of scholarly works from Latin (some he translated himself), and promoted the development of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This ensured that his deeds were recorded in history as legends and we know more about him than any other Anglo Saxon King. Anglo Saxon Britain Book available here

Alfred was born at Wantage, historically in Berkshire but currently in Oxfordshire, the youngest son of Aethelwulf (d. 858), king of the West Saxons. In 870 Alfred and his brother Aethelred fought many battles against the Danes. Alfred gained a victory over the Danes at Ashdown in 871, and succeeded Ethelred as king in April 871 after a series of battles in which the Danes had been defeated. Not all his campaigns were so successful; on a number of occasions he had to resort to buying off the Danes for a brief respite. Five years of uneasy peace followed while the Danes were occupied in other parts of England. In 876 the Danes attacked again, and in 878 Alfred was forced to retire to the stronghold of Athelney which was at that time an island in the Somerset Levels. The legend of him burning the cakes probably comes from this period. Saxons & Vikings Book available here

His come back and great victory at Edington in 878 secured the survival of Wessex, and the Treaty of Wedmore with the Danish king Guthrum in 886 established a boundary between the Danelaw, east of Watling Street, and the Saxons to the west. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that following his capture of London in 886 'all the English people submitted to him, except those who were in captivity to the Danes'. In some respects, therefore, Alfred could be considered the first king of England. A new landing in Kent encouraged a revolt of the East Anglian Danes, which was suppressed 884–86, and after the final foreign invasion was defeated 892–96, Alfred strengthened the navy to prevent fresh incursions.

During periods of peace Alfred reformed and improved his military organization. He divided his levies into two parts with one half at home and the other on active service, giving him a relief system he could call on to continue a campaign. He also began to build burhs (fortified strongpoints) throughout the kingdom to form the basis of an organized defensive system. Alfred is popularly credited as being the founder of the Royal Navy; he did build a fleet of improved ships manned by Frisians and on several occasions successfully challenged the Danes at sea.


Queen Elizabeth II really directly descended from Alfred the Great?
She is the 32nd great granddaughter of King Alfred who 1,140 years ago was the first effective King of England. He ruled from 871 to 899.

reply to post by GeminiSky


The masses do, kinda.

You arent wrong, human beings DO have a need to be led. And some people are natural leaders. And all would be good if......................................it were not for the issue of heredity.

A "king" or "chief" or whatever used to be the best person in the group for the job, it was the person who the group chose and supported in the role of leadership, generally because of intelligence, strength, character, etc. And in the distant past, when one died or could no longer perform, another was selected.

As I said, it was all good and in totally harmony with God and Nature when it worked that way. But along the line, around the time we started agriculture and settled in, leaders decided to settle in too. They started to insist their offspring take their place, and because agriculture allowed the accumulation of resources, it also allowed the person who controlled those resources to bribe others to support their claim to the throne for all time.

The problem with hereditary monarchy, (or really even hereditary wealth) is that great men and women can produce duds. And often, just a life of privilege MAKES you a dud, even if your genes could have made you great. So the masses end up being led by those more interested in preserving themselves and their position than the good of the people they are leading, which is the source of all legitimate leadership. Serving the common good makes you a legitimate leader, and only that. Even a popular leader who is serving himself and his friends is illegitimate in the eyes of God and Nature.

Natural selection decrees that each individual should rise or fall on their own merit, and hereditary wealth or power fly in the face of that law. That subversion of natural or divine principle is why "free markets" do not behave properly as well.

So, in the beginning, royalty was royal because they were blessed by God and nature and they were the best of their group. But once law, and armies and hereditary wealth and power set in, they became tyrants imposing their reign over the group, rather than the group selecting the best from among them to lead for the common good.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


I think you're pretty on point with this.
History/Royalty
It's all ruled and written by those that those that 'won'

reply to post by GeminiSky


We shouldnt, but we do because we get born on "their" land and the only choice we have is go to someone else's land. I think it will take at least one more generation until people start to fully grasp we get born into modern slavery. Sites like these help though

Originally posted by GeminiSky

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
reply to post by GeminiSky

 

You know? I was thinking it was something along those lines....but there is something inherently evil about these "dynastic hereditary systems"

Why should people see me as their ruler, because of something my forefather accomplished millenia ago?

Why? Usually because your father also passed down to you vast wealth, armed men loyal to your house, alliances with other entrenched members of ruling class, etc. Of course, people NOT recognizing people as their rightful ruler is where the many delightful skirmishes, battles, wars, coups, assassinations, and other intrigues come in to play. But for the average serf toiling in the fields 13 hours a day, they didn't especially have the time and resources to object to the hereditary system.

So a warlord appoints himself king, because no one is tough enough to say otherwise. 3 generations of his lineage rule the land until someone comes along and takes over by sheer force. He names himself king and 2 generations later, a descendent of the first warlord rises to claim that HIS bloodline is the true ruling bloodline etc . . . With the passage of time you've got your Plantagenets, Tudors, Windsors, Yorks, Denmarks and so on. All of them claiming precedent based on their relation to William the Conquerer or some other figure long passed.

It's actually a fairly sociopathic system that has disintegrated into meaningless and expensive theatre in most so called monarchies. But there you have it.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Wow ok I think this is the most concise explanation so far. Now considering what you have described is accurate, then why is modern man not able to see thru this control by accumulation of hereditary wealth?

Or is it that we can see it clearly but CANT do anything about it due to our comparatively meager power?

--GS

reply to post by darrylss


Very nice. I was talking in generalities, but this perfectly illustrates the concept (at least as it relates to Britain).

Traditionally royalty is appointed by God.
It's called the Divine Right of Kings.

So if you question royalty, you must start by questioning how religion was co-opted from AD 1-to now in some countries.
However as was proven in the colonies, it was safer to let the people delude themselves into thinking they are ruling, and bear the blame for whatever the nobility's elite stuff up.

So basically the church appointed royalty, and vice-versa (the first and second estates).

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Now considering what you have described is accurate, then why is modern man not able to see thru this control by accumulation of hereditary wealth?

We actually can and do see through it, we do know that hereditary wealth and power is unfair, but why we tolerate it is different in different times and places. In some times and places, brute force is used to keep the system in place. But where democracy has sprung up selfishness eventually gets the better of us. In other words, WE keep the system of hereditary wealth and power going hoping that someday WE will benefit from the injustice.

Human beings arent very good at long term strategy.

A last reason is, that no one has really outright written the book outlining the connection between hereditary wealth and the failure of the free market. Most economists dont really seem to have the understanding that Adam Smith was drawing his free market from the budding understanding of the principles of natural selection floating around Edinburgh at the time. You kind of have to both study economics and natural selection to totally see the way his system needs to work, and quite frankly, although I know I am not alone in seeing it, no one has really written the book on it yet.


In terms of hereditary privilege, many, many peoples saw the problem with that over the centuries, not the least of whom were our own founders here in the US. Thomas Paine clearly saw the problem with hereditary privilege, and wrote about it.

www.earlyamerica.com...

To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Or is it that we can see it clearly but CANT do anything about it due to our comparatively meager power?

--GS

So the true answer is that our understanding of the problem and the mechanics of the problem and out body of other knowledge in the sciences, etc. has been evolving, and our experiments in one direction or another have shown more clearly what needs to be done. In other words, the answer was still cooking, and now its pretty close to being ready.

Technically, Plato had it all down, perfectly, in the Republic thousands of years ago, but no one has really recognized his system for the absolute genius that it is. Platos brilliance has had to be proven to us by our own failure rather than just accepted as the gift it was.

It is called "the divine right of Kings" and while my family has royal ancestry and I have an affinity for the medieval period when monarchy was the dominant political order of the day....I have to say that today monarchy is an anachronism. People bow out of tradition (except for anarchists)....but they are mostly figureheads as far as the day to day governance goes but who also have enough real power to keep them on their thrones.

Its one thing to live in a world where the majority don't insist on a disbanding of all royal/bankers/mobsters and heirarchies, because I find that incredible and hard to believe as it is, however, one doesnt have to bow. That wouldn't even appear last on the list of things to do. Serve a citizens arrest comes to mind instead. Of course there is this barrier in species going on in some cases as well.....

I just keep seeing arrests being made from the top downwards, starting with the Rothchilds and House of Windsor and keep waiting for people to wake up enough. Forgiveness is important too, but taking care of our responsibilities to our families, loved ones, and fellow human should take priority over being being docile and living in the hellish pyramid system.

So does anyone here think that this unfair advantage will be seen for what it is and STOPPED by the majority of the humans on this planet (one day)?

Take that un-earned wealth and re-distribute to solve most major word crisis?

--GS

reply to post by GeminiSky

I think if it wasn't for mass media and organized religion, or massive propaganda, they would have been removed a long time ago.
That's exactly why we need wars to unite the public behind such figures.
Just look at Prince Harry and how media has teamed up with the military to create the image of this royal "for the troops" (when they really just took him for some propaganda pictures).
Some say if we didn't have royals and celebrities we'd have to create them.
Nobility gives the middle class something to aspire towards, even if only in fashion and gossip.
But essentially, I doubt humanity would recreate this mixture of rule and entertainment without manipulation.
But maybe we should face the truth also, to an extent we are gregarious, hierarchical apes.
We like to know our place, and it's better the devil you know ...