Jacob Stuart Harrison Storytelling Thread - FSTDT Forums Ex-Pet Lolcow

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

The American rebels overthrew the illegitimate institution and set up a new government. By overthrowing the source that made the colonies illegitimate, they became legitimate because there was no previous legitimate government that ruled over the territory of the original 13 colonies.

The Iroquois, Algonquin, Cherokee, and Creek would like to have a word with you.

Well, since England was traditionally Catholic, the Church of England will be forced to rejoin the Catholic Church(I am an ex Catholic but Catholicism is still part of England’s cultural heritage).

Scotland will be made into a vassal kingdom with the heir to the House of Balliol restored to Scotland’s throne, since it was separate from England during the rule of Richard II.

The death penalty will be restored for mass murderers, and those who commit high treason(trying to overthrow the government). Traditionally, traitors were publically beheaded and their heads were put on pikes and publically displayed for a while.

Abortion will be made illegal except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger(which is extremely rare).

There will be a return of anti blasphemy laws against the Christian God because even though I am not sure he exists, he was the God that was traditionally worshipped.

There will be an end to open borders, to stop Muslims from immigrating to England and the Muslims living in England will have to either assimilate into western culture or get deported.

Traditional family values will be promoted because the family unit is a core function in traditional society and procreation will help save the native English demographic. Because of that, the institution of marriage will be between one man and one woman, and there will no longer be divorce. In the case of abusive spouses, there will be a legal separation that will be very much like divorce, but the separated spouses will still be considered married, unless an annulment is granted.

Since Richard II’s succession system was based on Salic law, the national anthem will be called God Save the King. The lyrics will also be revised to emphasize that the King will rule, not just reign.


God save our gracious King!

Long live our noble King!

God save the King!

Send him victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to rule over us:

God save the King!


O Lord our God arise,

Scatter his enemies,

And make them fall:

Help them get defeated,

Their charges to be read,

Then they be beheaded:

God save us all.


Thy choicest gifts in store,

On him be pleased to pour;

Long may he rule:

May he defend our laws,

And ever give us cause,

To sing with heart and voice,

God save the King!

The fact that you no longer believe in Catholicism but still want to force adherence to it on others isn't surprising, given that you want to reinstate the monarchy in a country you have no intention to live in. To speak honestly: your obsession speaks of a disordered state of mind. Have you ever been diagnosed with autism? Because your monomaniacal obsession with the "correct" way England should be reminds me of an autistic person's "special interests".

 

[MW 590]

A Basilius to the Byzantine is what amounts to an Emir or Vassal Lord. Domimus, the same name used to describe God was a title of the Roman/Byzantine Emperors from Diocletian onwards. Irene and Michael were both Basilius as well, but that was not their only or even primary title.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_I_Rangabe

Charlemagne was to the Byzantine a vassal allowed to administer their territory. The fact he had far more power than an American State Govenor and the Byzantine were in denial about their own ability to command him his neither here nor there for this argument; they never recognised Charlemagne as Emperor in his own right. More important still, the Byzantine did not recognise kingship as hereditary;had they the power they would have installed someone else in his place if they were going to. It's one of the reasons Irene was so keen to marry him, because she seemed aware that the West was beyond her power and needed to be brought back under the Greek yoke. A child of both him and the Greek Emperor(ess) would have wielded unprecedented military, political and economic power for that era;and at least two of the three even if he was never elected Junior or Senior Emperor.


Neither is the claim that Charlemagne was awarded patrimony by the Pope drawing on the Donation of Constantine valid due to it being a forgery ,making the Holy Roman Empire invalid.

Hail Constantine! Defender of the true valid legitimate faith of the worldwide Greek Empire; Greek Orthodoxy!

The title of Basileus became a more important title by the time the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire.

By the 4th century however, basileus was applied in official usage exclusively to the two rulers considered equals to the Roman Emperor: the Sassanid Persian shahanshah ("king of kings"), and to a lesser degree the King of Axum, whose importance was rather peripheral in the Byzantine worldview.[6] Consequently, the title acquired the connotation of "emperor", and when barbarian kingdoms emerged on the ruins of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, their rulers were referred to in Greek not as basileus but as rēx or rēgas, the hellenized forms of the Latin title rex, king.

So by recognizing Charlemagne with such a title, it meant that they no longer considered themselves to have sovereignty over the territory he was ruling.

And the reason why Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans is because he saw the Byzantine throne as vacant due to the fact that Irene deposed her son Constantine VI making her an illegitimate Empress. That fact makes him a valid Roman Emperor.

Here's the problem. You seem to expect people would just go 'oh, okay. Well if the law says so, we must obey'. Even if your choice of puppet was enstated, parliament isn't going to just accept it. Even if parliament was forced guns-to-head to dissolve themselves for good, the people would just take the fight to the palace. The English are not adverse to killing their own royals if need be. More likely, your puppet would be every bit the useless, powerless national pet that royals have been for centuries now.

I very much enjoyed this telling depiction of your personally perfected England, though. Really shows everything there is to know about you.

As I said before, my secret society will infiltrate parliament and then pass an act that will change the monarchy and give the true king absolute power. So it will be done by legal means.

The Iroquois, Algonquin, Cherokee, and Creek would like to have a word with you.


The fact that you no longer believe in Catholicism but still want to force adherence to it on others isn't surprising, given that you want to reinstate the monarchy in a country you have no intention to live in. To speak honestly: your obsession speaks of a disordered state of mind. Have you ever been diagnosed with autism? Because your monomaniacal obsession with the "correct" way England should be reminds me of an autistic person's "special interests".

But the English colonists were the first to bring advanced civilization to the region. And I already explained the reason why I want to restore the true heir to the English throne. I have English ancestry, my dad has a British sports car, and America is culturally, an Anglo Saxon nation.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

But the English colonists were the first to bring advanced civilization to the region. And I already explained the reason why I want to restore the true heir to the English throne. I have English ancestry, my dad has a British sports car, and America is culturally, an Anglo Saxon nation.

1. Incorrect. The nations I listed above had continent-spanning trade routes, walled cities, complex legal codes, and diplomatic channels. If Rome was an advanced civilization, so were they.
2. None of these reasons are rational, especially the idea that America is culturally Anglo-Saxon, therefore you must work to enact the rightful king of England and grant him absolute power, but not extend his throne to America despite their cultural linkage. Once again, and I want to stress I'm not meming here, this comes off as an autistic fixation.

As I said before, my secret society will infiltrate parliament and then pass an act that will change the monarchy and give the true king absolute power. So it will be done by legal means.

Genuine question: do you understand the difference between legal, moral, and socially tolerable?

 

[AnOminous]

As I said before, my secret society will infiltrate parliament and then pass an act that will change the monarchy and give the true king absolute power. So it will be done by legal means.

How is a sped like you going to start a secret society when you can't convince even a single other person of your crackpot notions?

 

[MW 590]

1. Incorrect. The nations I listed above had continent-spanning trade routes, walled cities, complex legal codes, and diplomatic channels. If Rome was an advanced civilization, so were they.
2. None of these reasons are rational, especially the idea that America is culturally Anglo-Saxon, therefore you must work to enact the rightful king of England and grant him absolute power, but not extend his throne to America despite their cultural linkage. Once again, and I want to stress I'm not meming here, this comes off as an autistic fixation.


Genuine question: do you understand the difference between legal, moral, and socially tolerable?

1. But they did not have a system of writing before the English colonists came. And their system of government was still at the tribal level because they had chiefs instead of kings.
2. It makes sense not to extend his throne to America because America was never territory of England during the time period that the legitimate kings ruled England. The true king therefore only has a claim to the territory that England had back in 1399 when Richard II was overthrown.
3. I understand the different definitions but they often go hand in hand. It is a moral duty to obey the law. And what is socially tolerable changes throughout history. While absolute monarchy is socially intolerable in England today, it was socially tolerable back in medieval England and it will become socially tolerable again, when England enters a golden age of prosperity and the education system will teach children to be loyal to the king.

 

[Tempest]

Well, since England was traditionally Catholic, the Church of England will be forced to rejoin the Catholic Church(I am an ex Catholic but Catholicism is still part of England’s cultural heritage).


There will be a return of anti blasphemy laws against the Christian God because even though I am not sure he exists, he was the God that was traditionally worshipped.

wait you're not catholic, but you want England to be forced to be catholic? Why do you want people to live under the rule of something you don't even believe in?

 

[MW 590]

wait you're not catholic, but you want England to be forced to be catholic? Why do you want people to live under the rule of something you don't even believe in?

Because even though I am no longer religiously Catholic, I am still culturally Catholic so the Catholic Church will be the official church just like the Church of England is the current official church. But don't worry my plan has always been that only the Church of England that will be forced to join the Catholic Church.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

1. But they did not have a system of writing before the English colonists came. And their system of government was still at the tribal level because they had chiefs instead of kings.
2. It makes sense not to extend his throne to America because America was never territory of England during the time period that the legitimate kings ruled England. The true king therefore only has a claim to the territory that England had back in 1399 when Richard II was overthrown.
3. I understand the different definitions but they often go hand in hand. It is a moral duty to obey the law. And what is socially tolerable changes throughout history. While absolute monarchy is socially intolerable in England today, it was socially tolerable back in medieval England and it will become socially tolerable again, when England enters a golden age of prosperity and the education system will teach children to be loyal to the king.

1. Actually, the chiefdom was an electoral position in most of the "civilized" tribes (Algonquin, Iroquois, Cherokee): decisions were made by a council of respected community members, with the "peace chief" (the word used would be better translated as "respected elder") acting as a mediator. In times of war, the "war chief" (once again, the word would better translate as "mighty man" or "great man") would suspend ordinary council operations until the war was over. You may realize this bears a striking resemblance to a republican system: specifically, the senators and dictator of the Roman Republic. Indeed, the "Great Law of Peace" of the Iroquois Nation was used alongside Roman Republican philosophy in inspiring the Constitution. So, in essence, you're saying they were illegitimate because they didn't write things down (because they didn't need to, because they had a deep oral tradition kept by the priesthood, much like the early Angles from whom the entire institution of the "king of England" extends). But not only did the "illegitimate" government of England recognize them as legitimate states, but the "legitimate" governments of France, Holland, Portugal, and Spain as well.
3. And why would this happen? And saying "because the True King will be on the throne" isn't an answer: the belief that a True King can cure dropsy with a touch and will make all right by the mere presence of his arse on the throne is based in Catholic religious beliefs that you no longer hold.

 

[MW 590]

1. Actually, the chiefdom was an electoral position in most of the "civilized" tribes (Algonquin, Iroquois, Cherokee): decisions were made by a council of respected community members, with the "peace chief" (the word used would be better translated as "respected elder") acting as a mediator. In times of war, the "war chief" (once again, the word would better translate as "mighty man" or "great man") would suspend ordinary council operations until the war was over. You may realize this bears a striking resemblance to a republican system: specifically, the senators and dictator of the Roman Republic. Indeed, the "Great Law of Peace" of the Iroquois Nation was used alongside Roman Republican philosophy in inspiring the Constitution. So, in essence, you're saying they were illegitimate because they didn't write things down (because they didn't need to, because they had a deep oral tradition kept by the priesthood, much like the early Angles from whom the entire institution of the "king of England" extends). But not only did the "illegitimate" government of England recognize them as legitimate states, but the "legitimate" governments of France, Holland, Portugal, and Spain as well.
3. And why would this happen? And saying "because the True King will be on the throne" isn't an answer: the belief that a True King can cure dropsy with a touch and will make all right by the mere presence of his arse on the throne is based in Catholic religious beliefs that you no longer hold.

1. Well those tribes were within the established borders of the United States and previously within the established territories of the other colonial powers, so they were nations within a nation. The US later expanded it's territory out west with treaties such the Louisiana Purchase. And when the Anglo Saxons came to England, they already had a writing system called runes which were replaced by the Latin Alphabet by the 9th century.
2. The true king will bring prosperity by implementing a full Brexit, making England fully economically independent and not burdened by European Union regulations. There will also be economic protectionism in foreign trade to protect England's industries. There will be an end to usury since usury was illegal in medieval England. And as I said, there will be an end to open borders to stop Muslims from bringing in terrorism and sharia law, and England's demographic will be saved through traditional family values, and the encouragement of procreation.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Let's assume your premise is correct and Irene was an invalid emperor and the Byzantine throne was vacant.

Why does the Pope have the authority to declare Charlegmagne Emperor? As a Cleric he is forbidden from holding high office (hence why Irene liked to force her political rivals to take holy orders and serve her communion in Hagia Sofia), but more than that he wasn't eligible to even cast a vote on who should be emperor, let alone decide himself who should be.

The Pope's own temporal authority is invalid, even a beliving Catholic would have to conceed an Italian did not have the right to participate in an election restricted to Greek nobleman.

 

[MW 590]

Let's assume your premise is correct and Irene was an invalid emperor and the Byzantine throne was vacant.

Why does the Pope have the authority to declare Charlegmagne Emperor? As a Cleric he is forbidden from holding high office (hence why Irene liked to force her political rivals to take holy orders and serve her communion in Hagia Sofia), but more than that he wasn't eligible to even cast a vote on who should be emperor, let alone decide himself who should be.

The Pope's own temporal authority is invalid, even a beliving Catholic would have to conceed an Italian did not have the right to participate in an election restricted to Greek nobleman.

Church and State were intertwined back then. It was believed that the Emperor’s authority came from God and so, while the Pope did not normally have the authority to crown Emperors, the Bishop of Rome crowning Charlemagne was seen as God choosing Charlemagne the next Roman Emperor due to the normal succession being disrupted by Irene’s coup against her son.


Since the Church was part of the state bureaucracy and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was recognized by the Byzantine Emperors(though dispute over the nature of the primacy led to the East-West schism), in the event of a vacancy, the Church would be considered a remnant of the government.


Normally Nikephoros as a finance minister would not have the authority to declare himself Emperor, but the illegitimacy of Irene’s authority gave him the right to overthrow her making him and Charlemagne have equally valid positions as Emperor.

 

[BillionBisonBucks]

As I said before, my secret society will infiltrate parliament and then pass an act that will change the monarchy and give the true king absolute power. So it will be done by legal means.

Yeah, that would be the 'guns-to-heads' bit I mentioned.

Also, you are incredibly uncharismatic. Do you have any followers? Do you have any plans to develop the skills and resources to attract them? Because brother, this ain't it.

 

[MW 590]

Yeah, that would be the 'guns-to-heads' bit I mentioned.

Also, you are incredibly uncharismatic. Do you have any followers? Do you have any plans to develop the skills and resources to attract them? Because brother, this ain't it.

It wouldn't be guns to head. What I am saying is that the members of parliament themselves will be secret agents of my society.

What will help me gain followers will be when I marry @pomme and move to England. There I can gain supporters within the United Kingdom Independence Party. And me and Pomme's children can convince their friends to join my society. I can also get Scots to join the society by promising the Scots independence when the true king is restored, because the true heir to the throne of England is not the heir to Scotland. My society can establish a youth wing similar to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts that can teach children about the true king. While I may not see the true king restored in my lifetime, my descendants will multiply, and the society will gradually grow larger so the plan will eventually be fulfilled.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

@Jacob Harrison you are either a very dedicated troll or, and I am being completely frank with this, a mid-functioning autist. I'm not going to try and engage you any more on this issue because you've made it clear your mind will literally never change on this. You will continue to torment yourself with actualizing this pipe dream until you die, and as a result will live a miserable life. I pity you.

 

[Rabid Weasels]

If you are relying so heavily on your own offspring to fulfill your plan, I suggest you modify it to incorporate a lot more trains and hedgehogs.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

If he's serious about his newfound agnosticism, it sounds like he's going to crash hard when it dawns on him all these messianic Catholic God-King prophecies aren't actually actually going to happen.

I mean he's still attaching magic significance to the Pope, so that'll be something to watch.

 

[dopy]

did we ever solve the mystery of who the true and honest monarch of إنكلترا is? i dont tune into this channel often, missed a few ep's

 

[MW 590]

If he's serious about his newfound agnosticism, it sounds like he's going to crash hard when it dawns on him all these messianic Catholic God-King prophecies aren't actually actually going to happen.

I mean he's still attaching magic significance to the Pope, so that'll be something to watch.

Back when I was Catholic, I wondered whether I had enough time to restore the true heir before the return of Christ. Now that I am agnostic, I know that humanity will last at least up until the next natural mass extinction on Earth which will be way in the far future(and humans will have at least colonized the moon and Mars by then).

It is therefore inevitable that the true heir will be restored someday as my descendants and members of the society will slowly increase.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Back when I was Catholic, I wondered whether I had enough time to restore the true heir before the return of Christ. Now that I am agnostic, I know that humanity will last at least up until the next natural mass extinction on Earth which will be way in the far future(and humans will have at least colonized the moon and Mars by then).

It is therefore inevitable that the true heir will be restored someday as my descendants and members of the society will slowly increase.

Gird your loins @pomme ,you're gonna be the mother of nations!

I think the wars over fertile ground and water because of climate change near the mid-end of this century will probably finish humanity off tbh.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Gird your loins @pomme ,you're gonna be the mother of nations!

I think the wars over fertile ground and water because of climate change near the mid-end of this century will probably finish humanity off tbh.

I strongly believe that either GW's effects will be curbed or a supervirus will cause a mass dying-off that will restore humanity to a healthier level before then. On the plus side, maybe the pandemic will cause the UK to stop existing so that Jacob Harrison (if he survives) can live a happy life.