'Like the Thread on "The Scrouge of Royalty and Aristocracy", this thread seeks to defend Monarchy and give it another tool in order to survive and thrive.'

The only tool that will allow a proper Christian kingdom to survive is for the Royal Family to adopt or return to Catholicism and defend it as the only legitimate religion of the realm.

 
'We all know the story of Henry VIII, how he could not sire progeny for the continuation of his line.'

This is a lie, deliberately put forth by 'Protestants' who seek to legitimise Henry VIII's royal hissy-fit.  As Darth Korbus pointed out, Henry VIII did in fact 'sire progeny'.

'He asked for an anulment and was denied and his right hand man St. Thomas More went against his lord in favor of the Church's teaching. This caused innummerable problems'

Well, what caused the problems was not that St. Thomas upheld the Church's position, but that Henry went against it.  As 'Defender of the Faith' he had a positive obligation to defend the Catholic Church.

'The absence of royal progeny is a bane for royalism.'

Not necessarily.  The Holy Roman Empire had a limited elective monarchial system.  In theory, anyone could be elected Emperor.  In practice, the imperium was held by one family until the line died out or lost ability to lead.

'The effect of no effective princes affects the governing house and the people.  It is disastrous.  Furthermore, with Fate, the sustainablity of ONE SMALL family is highly problematic.  It leads to instablity at home and abroad and one small family is a bane on the effectiveness of the royal office.'

'The leading problem which Henry VIII exemplifies is the disastrousness of monagamy for monarchy.  Therefore, in certain circumstances, Polygamy is necessary for the longevity and sustainablity of Monarchism.'

Not just no, but hell no.  'Royalism' (or 'monarchism') is not the over-riding concern: the Faith of the people is.  Every Christian will be scandalised by a polygamous sovereign.

If this were China, or Japan, or someplace in the Middle East about which we were speaking, then perhaps polygamy would be acceptable.  In fact the Chinese and Japanese sovereigns did use concubines for a time in order to guarantee male offspring.  So, for them, polygamy is all fine and well.  Not for Christians.

 
'First.  Every Law has an exception.'

That does not make the exceptions desireable or right.

 
'In this regard, This is a fact of life.  Life, as Francis Parker Yockey, is irrational! Not everything is answered according to strict rules.  Life doesn't follow rules.  The general does but not the exceptions.  Life is full of exceptions where the rules don't apply.'

It is precisely when we refuse to follow God's rules (i.e. the Faith) that problems occcur.  Adopting polygamy would only make matters worse for the West.

'Second. Polygamy is not a strict sin but was practised by the Patriarchs and Kings of Israel!'

Yes, Polygamy is mortally sinful.

'Polygamy is not morally wrong in and of itself.'

Being mortally sinful, Polygamy is in fact totally wrong.

'King David and King Solomon had many many wives.'

Big deal.  It is completely irrelevant.

'Nowhere are they condemned for this practice.'

Then again, they were Jews and not Christians.

'It was erroneous, very erroneous for the Church NOT to consider allowing King Henry the VIII to practice Polygamy in order to secure royal progeny!  I believe that this would have solved the problem and kept the English Church in the fold.'

That is totally false and completely ridiculous.  The argument you're putting forth is that, it was wrong for the Church to grant Henry VIII's request for a divorce because it led to the defection of England.  That is pure and utter nonsense.

It was the vanity of the English 'monarch', solidified by his heretical offspring, that caused the separation of England from Christendom.  Better to lose an entire nation than to permit the corruption of doctrine that would destroy the Faith itself.

 
'For the general public and for commoners, monogamy is the rule.  When a King, and the Royal family are threatened with being childless, I believe it is necessary and right that the Royal engage in Polygamy in order to secure its future existence!'

So, a double standard of morality?  God commands one thing for kings and another for everyone else?  Where is that upheld in the Church's traditions?

I should have been clear in what I meant as Progeny. 

First off, LEADERSHIP IS MALE.  The Spartan people never never never allowed for female leadership.  Leadership is NOT for females! This is what Nature teaches and the Scripture teach.  The principle is "You are what you follow".  If my monarch is female, I must be a female to follow a female. The whole Trinity is Masculine, there is NO feminity in the Trinity.  Nor should there be in the Monarchy.  Monarchy requires MALE leadership. For Christians to look the other way and even consider female leadership is unsound.  In all cases, males are to be reared and breed for leadership.  And Christians are to make that happen.  There is NO possible way that Christianity should support females in Leadership roles.  If and when there is VALID and competent Male Leadership, the female head like the Queen of England needed to step aside and let the Males take the Leadership!  There is NO justification for any female to hold onto any leadership position when there is a mature, competent and valid male in the wings.

What you fail to account here is Order.  Christians uphold Order.  Leadership is Male.  That is the Order.  Male is in authority over female.  Female is under Male headship.  At all times, it is Christian duty to uphold that.

Not only are females unfit for leadership, females don't carry the FAMILY NAME!!!  Females lose their family name and adopt their husbands family.  To say that Henry VIII could carry his line through Mary is unsatisfactory and unreal! 

The failure Gilbert gea is that the Church failed to apply Scripture.  Scripture clearly points to polygamy as sometimes necessary.  Let's say after a war and a huge population of men are killed.  In order to repopulate the race and bring up manpower, polygamy would be necessary.  Necessity is a principle that the Catholic Church recognizes.  In some circumstances, Nature requires polygamy for survival.

Survival is key. 

Gilbert Gea makes my point:

The Catholic Church in its legalistic mindset of the Roman mentality is very destructive when taken to extremes.  Even Catholic jurists acknowledge when the Law must sleep.  Didn't Jesus point to the Story where King David ate the Shewbread!  Didn't David break the Law?  Was not the good Thief saved on the Cross without actual baptism? 

Legalism doesn't make good Faith practices.  The Spirit is.  Christianity is not Legalism Gilbert Gea.  Christianity follows the Good and the Truth.  Principles apply 95% of the time.  Not every situation is equal.

Polygamy like slavery is NOT morally sinful!

Nowhere is King David nor King Solomon condemned for multiple wifes!

And Jesus Christ is descended from these two people. King David committed murder and other sins but never was polygamy a sin!

Is the House of God divided?  If God created Nature, and as the Proverbs say, "God founded the earth with Wisdom", how does Scripture that also comes from God contradict what He did earlier?  You tell me that What God has done, He then contradicts himself?

Nature and Scripture come hand in hand.  Truth doesn't contradict each other.

What is a Miracle?  Is not a Miracle an exception to the Law?  Did not God cause the Sun to stand still---contrary to the Law of Nature.  Does not God allow for exceptions?  If the Sun can stand still and if King David could eat the Shewbread---Shows that God is not into Legalism.

The Faith is NOT Legalism but the Good. Scripture and Greek philosophy uphold the Good.

Christianity is about life and NOT death.  If Polygamy ensures the "LIFE" of the Royal line---Then it is a good!