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

[MW 590]

But if all of this was prophesized, why would Morgoth even bother starting a second war in the first place? Why not just do nothing, contradicting the design and causing discord like he did in his infancy as Melkor? I’m just not sure I can get behind this theory.

Morgoth's arrogance made him think that he could win the battle. It is just like how he today is planning to fight against God in the Battle of Armageddon.

 

[Remove Goat]

tfw the guy who was hardcore debating the reality of catholicism makes a post explaining how lotr fits into his alternative reality fanfiction featuring super mario and star wars

best timeline

 

[RG 448]

Morgoth's arrogance made him think that he could win the battle. It is just like how he today is planning to fight against God in the Battle of Armageddon.

Interesting. So did Morgoth also in actuality cause the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, or would that have been another of the maiar?

 

[Vorhtbame]

Back when I was Catholic, I would say that this universe is also a universe where God chose to have relations with humans, but now that a user here made me agnostic, I'm not sure that it is the case.

Don't try so hard, son. You're getting obvious.

 

[MW 590]

I discovered very recently that there was a statute in 1351 that restricted inheritance to those born in liegance of the sovereign or are naturalized. Prince Edward, the ancestor of Louis Alphonse was born in Portugal which means that Louis Alphonse is not the rightful king after all. The closest English male relative to Richard II who was not excluded from the throne was John Holland(1395-1447) as the son of John of Gaunt's daughter Elizabeth Duchess of Exeter. I am therefore now tracing his descendants.

 

[The Cunting Death]

Nigger are you high?

 

[Randall Fragg]

I discovered very recently that there was a statute in 1351 that restricted inheritance to those born in liegance of the sovereign or are naturalized. Prince Edward, the ancestor of Louis Alphonse was born in Portugal which means that Louis Alphonse is not the rightful king after all. The closest English male relative to Richard II who was not excluded from the throne was John Holland(1395-1447) as the son of John of Gaunt's daughter Elizabeth Duchess of Exeter. I am therefore now tracing his descendants.

Monarchism is a shitty system meant for a previous, more shitty era in human history. There’s a reason we Muricans kicked your faggy British asses so hard King George III went senile.
Why the fuck should my life be dictated by a person in power because back before people learned to not shit in the drinking water his great great uncle fucked someone inportant.

 

[AnOminous]

Monarchism is a shitty system meant for a previous, more shitty era in human history. There’s a reason we Muricans kicked your faggy British asses so hard King George III went senile.
Why the fuck should my life be dictated by a person in power because back before people learned to not shit in the drinking water his great great uncle fucked someone inportant.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

 

[MW 590]

Monarchism is a shitty system meant for a previous, more shitty era in human history. There’s a reason we Muricans kicked your faggy British asses so hard King George III went senile.
Why the fuck should my life be dictated by a person in power because back before people learned to not shit in the drinking water his great great uncle fucked someone inportant.

Hey, I am American too. One of the reasons why I am a fan of England is because America is an Anglo Saxon nation due to it being founded by English, having English as the official language, and having it’s laws based off of England’s laws. These are reasons why you should support my plan to restore the true king. I know our forefathers rebelled against King George III but he was an illegitimate king because he wasn’t of the rightful succession to the throne.

 

[Saint Topelius]

Monarchism is a shitty system meant for a previous, more shitty era in human history. There’s a reason we Muricans kicked your faggy British asses so hard King George III went senile.
Why the fuck should my life be dictated by a person in power because back before people learned to not shit in the drinking water his great great uncle fucked someone inportant.

Well, technically, the power of the Monarchy had already gradually diminished after the Glorious Revolution of 1690s. Hannovers were by no means similar autocrats or absolutists as the rulers of Stuart Dynasty had been. During their period, the parliament controlled the economy and judicial system, and the most powerful man in the kingdoms was arguably the Prime Minister. By the time of American revolution, the debate was more about whether or not American colonies should be given parliamentary representation. George III was by no means a tyrant. He respected the power of parliament, and supported it.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Hey, I am American too. One of the reasons why I am a fan of England is because America is an Anglo Saxon nation due to it being founded by English, having English as the official language, and having it’s laws based off of England’s laws. These are reasons why you should support my plan to restore the true king. I know our forefathers rebelled against King George III but he was an illegitimate king because he wasn’t of the rightful succession to the throne.

It baffles me that you think the rightful succession matters. If a king is just, kind, merciful, and fair to his subjects, but was illegitimate, while the legitimate successor was lecherous, violent, cruel, and avaricious, would you support the legitimate successor regardless? Is the bloodline all that matters in your mind?

 

[MW 590]

It baffles me that you think the rightful succession matters. If a king is just, kind, merciful, and fair to his subjects, but was illegitimate, while the legitimate successor was lecherous, violent, cruel, and avaricious, would you support the legitimate successor regardless? Is the bloodline all that matters in your mind?

In the case of a bad king, I would support deposing him and putting his legitimate successor on the throne. That is what happened in England when Edward II was overthrown and his son became King Edward III.

I traced the true heir on geni.com and got up to this guy.

https://www.geni.com/people/John-Westmoreland/6000000014309476355

His children are kept private on the site, but I will contact the profile manager who is married into the family about how her in-laws are the rightful heirs. The royal house they are descended from is the House of Neville.

 

[The Cunting Death]

Even if you were related to royalty, no one else cares.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

I Fagatron, first of my name hereby declare myself Queen of Saturn.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

In the case of a bad king, I would support deposing him and putting his legitimate successor on the throne. That is what happened in England when Edward II was overthrown and his son became King Edward III.

You didn't answer my question: in a choice between an illegitimate good king and a legitimate bad one, which do you pick? Don't try and squirm out of it with some stupid answer about successors: let's say this is a Borgia-esque house and all legitimate successors are corrupt and vile. Those are your only two options in the question, and any attempt to take a third one will be taken as a tacit admission you care more about the bloodline then about the quality of the ruler but don't want to admit it.

I traced the true heir on geni.com and got up to this guy.

https://www.geni.com/people/John-Westmoreland/6000000014309476355

His children are kept private on the site, but I will contact the profile manager who is married into the family about how her in-laws are the rightful heirs. The royal house they are descended from is the House of Neville.

I hope you're ready for disappointment when the family tells you to screw off. How will you handle that? Will your plan become forcing them to assume the throne against their will?

 

[MW 590]

You didn't answer my question: in a choice between an illegitimate good king and a legitimate bad one, which do you pick? Don't try and squirm out of it with some stupid answer about successors: let's say this is a Borgia-esque house and all legitimate successors are corrupt and vile. Those are your only two options in the question, and any attempt to take a third one will be taken as a tacit admission you care more about the bloodline then about the quality of the ruler but don't want to admit it.

There are always more than two options. There would be children in the legitimate house that haven’t been corrupted yet. A young grandson in the line of primogeniture can be put on the throne, there will be a regency established, and the king can be raised to be a good ruler.

I hope you're ready for disappointment when the family tells you to screw off. How will you handle that? Will your plan become forcing them to assume the throne against their will?

Yes and their children in the line of primogeniture will therefore be groomed to future rulers.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

There are always more than two options. There would be children in the legitimate house that haven’t been corrupted yet. A young grandson in the line of primogeniture can be put on the throne, there will be a regency established, and the king can be raised to be a good ruler.

Yes and their children in the line of primogeniture will therefore be groomed to future rulers.

1. Alright, since you're an autist, let me make this as simple as possible. This is going to be a binary question: that means there are only two answers. There is no third option here. Which of the following is more important in a ruler: that they are of good moral character, or that they are of the correct bloodline? Any third option you introduce will automatically be you selecting the second one.
2. So you're saying that children should be kidnapped from their parents because they are choosing to abdicate. That's a power the "rightful ruler" has, I hope you realize. It sounds to me like you aren't respecting their wishes.

 

[MW 590]

1. Alright, since you're an autist, let me make this as simple as possible. This is going to be a binary question: that means there are only two answers. There is no third option here. Which of the following is more important in a ruler: that they are of good moral character, or that they are of the correct bloodline? Any third option you introduce will automatically be you selecting the second one.
2. So you're saying that children should be kidnapped from their parents because they are choosing to abdicate. That's a power the "rightful ruler" has, I hope you realize. It sounds to me like you aren't respecting their wishes.

1. Bloodline and good moral character are equally important.
2. When a monarch abdicates the throne, the next in line automatically becomes the next monarch and so a child monarch should be raised to be such.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

1. Bloodline and good moral character are equally important.
2. When a monarch abdicates the throne, the next in line automatically becomes the next monarch and so a child monarch should be raised to be such.

1. So you admit you weigh arbitrary lines of descent as being as valuable, in your mind, as the qualities actually needed to be a good ruler. Nice to know.
2. Even if doing so would require the abduction of the child and murder of the parent, who you previously were going to make monarch? (because otherwise, that parent would never stop trying to get their child back)? Wait: as 1. established, you have a sociopathic view of the world where morality is an ideal, but never actually impacts your actions, so of course you would be fine with that. What if the child refuses? What if they rebel against the idea that they must be monarch? Would you beat and lash them into obedience to your whims?
EDIT: Before you try and give a mathematician's answer again: this is a binary question. EITHER you don't beat the child into submission and they refuse to ascend to the throne OR you do beat them into submission and they obey your will.

 

[MW 590]

1. So you admit you weigh arbitrary lines of descent as being as valuable, in your mind, as the qualities actually needed to be a good ruler. Nice to know.
2. Even if doing so would require the abduction of the child and murder of the parent, who you previously were going to make monarch? (because otherwise, that parent would never stop trying to get their child back)? Wait: as 1. established, you have a sociopathic view of the world where morality is an ideal, but never actually impacts your actions, so of course you would be fine with that. What if the child refuses? What if they rebel against the idea that they must be monarch? Would you beat and lash them into obedience to your whims?
EDIT: Before you try and give a mathematician's answer again: this is a binary question. EITHER you don't beat the child into submission and they refuse to ascend to the throne OR you do beat them into submission and they obey your will.

The parents will be unable to get their children back from the entire government of England which will be taken over by my society.

I condemn physically beating and lashing a child, but when you say beating and lashing, is it a metaphor for strict discipline? I support strict disipline.