Quote:
Also, minor quibble - the Julio-Claudian dynasty extends from Julius to Nero and ends there, and even then it involved lots of adoption, which can incorporate merit into the system. After Nero you had the Flavians (dynastic, ended in assassination) and then the Nerva-Antonines (adoptive, did well until Marcus Aurelius tried to put his son dynastically on the throne and Commodus ended up being a disaster).
Yep. That was the point I was trying to get across... "dynasty" doesn't necessarily mean traditional hereditary succession from dead monarch to his/her eldest direct descendant. It can mean picking the "best" available relative or even adopting in the most able. Augustus was a product of it with his adoption by Ceaser, though he was his nephew, I believe. Augustus then did something similar with Agrippa (world's greatest bestie) by marrying his daughter/niece to him, not that Agrippa succeeded him, but that may have been the plan, given that the sickly Augustus was always expecting to die early. Augustus had the right intentions, but the Julio-Claudians were some screwed up people. Anyway, regarding your first paragraph.
Quote:
I get your point, but that also doesn't seem to vibe with the merit based monarchy that I think you mentioned earlier. If it ends up being dynastic in the end, you end up with a state that takes on the image of its ruler, who may not be as Christian as you wish. The alternative is a constitutional monarchy with a branch of government checking the monarch in case he's not Christian enough, but then do you want it to be a clerical branch or a democratically elected branch? Either way, they will be vying for power with the monarch.
I think you would agree that the Holy Roman Emperor was not an absolute monarch. I think you would agree that the Holy Roman Empire was explicitly Christian for over a thousand years, despite the varying levels of piety of its rulers.
I would actually consider them to be something of a Constitutional Monarchy. I'm fine with all the Emperors in my hypothetical nation coming from a single family, provided they married in, or adopted, worthy people over time. That would naturally happen, though. I would imagine them, like the Holy Roman Empire, being held in check by the electors, who in turn are held in check by the people they rule over. Its similar to the question of, "Why didn't the emperor just violently quash the reformers?" Well, the answer is that several electors thought the reformation was a good thing and the emperor himself, though fervently Roman Catholic, didn't want to risk popular unrest, internal war, and economic disruption. Nobody is saying it would last forever, as all things fall short of a divine, direct rule by Jesus Christ, but a thousand years is not too shabby. Kind of like the Byzantine Empire as well in terms of longevity.
Christianity would be constitutionally mandated and all citizens would subscribe to an overarching constitutional catechism which leaves room for several conservative denominations, but is strict on moral law. Something like a Heidelberg Catechism, without any of the Protestant-specific proclamations, but with an added list of things that God disapproves of, such as sexual immorality. It isn't that complicated to envision how it would work, since various sovereignties have done similar things of one sort or another throughout history.
However, being that it is Christian, it would look nothing like a Muslim Theocracy. The differences are laughably obvious to someone who is religious and apparently undetectable to someone who isn't.
Remember, patriot, what they took from you. Your nation's identity, its religion, and its people are no more. Remember how we got here.