Posted on 03/11/2018 10:22:26 PM PDT by WilliamIII
There is little she could do against the powerful tide of socialism after the devastation of WWI and WWII in her homeland, and the constraints placed on the monarch by Parliament since the time of Charles II. If she had fought vigorously, she risked ending the monarchy altogether.
I personally hope she had inveighed against her sons' disgusting episodes and abuses; my guess is that she did that privately, but they did as they pleased. Due to her duties as queen, her children were raised by nannies, and when the worldwide, so-called "sexual revolution" fueled by development of The Pill came along, her two oldest sons, her sister and to a certain extent her daughter were swept up in it. I see her as having steadfastly held the line in her example, in spite of the lock Parliament has on her actions.
As for "liking" the pomp and circumstance, who wouldn't? But to see her as superficially narcissistic, like Obama, with regard to ceremony, is a great misunderstanding. A flightier woman would have stepped down long ago and lived an alcoholic existence attended by gay courtiers like her mother and sister. Instead, she is continuing to perform public duties such as visiting the victims of disasters, attending church publicly with the press in attendance as she enters and leaves, reviewing the troops, and cutting ribbons at hospitals and schools—at age 91—and still does not let anyone touch her in public even to help her down a flight of stairs or into a car. She is keeping a vow she made at age 24. Few human beings possess her stamina.
The greatest country in the world will always be the greatest force for both good and evil in the world. The majority of the people in the UK and US historically have believed in God and many have worked actively against sins like slavery and oppression; but the world is the province of the devil, and he is always going to focus most of his activities against the most powerful of humans and nations. It's a constant struggle. Yours is not a balanced viewpoint; but rather a revolutionary marxist one.
It’s going to be a sad day when the Queen passes on and King Charles The Weird takes over.
If you listen to Lyndon LaRouche.
Methodism starts only in about 1784. That’s totally about 230 years, not 300 to today. And i,pf you count until the 60s then it was less than 180 years old. In any case it hardly made any inroads to India - that’s why less than 0.5% of Indians are Anglicans/Methodists/Lutherans/Calvinists.
I'm afraid you're simply misinformed on that point. Firstly, the Monarch has no power to direct Parliament to do anything (a Civil War was fought to establish that point nearly four centuries ago.) Parliament is sovereign. Secondly, the title has not been changed. I can only think you're referring to some other Commonwealth coountries such as Australia which recognise the Queen as Head of State, but with a differently-styled title. In the UK she is still
"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".
No one in proximate line of succession to the throne nor Prime Minister may be Catholic.
To take those one at a time:
There is no legal impediment to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister. (There are practical difficulties, such as the PM's role in advising on CofE matters etc - which is why Blair didn't formally convert until after leaving office - but there's no legal or constitutional impediment.)
On the monarchy itself, you are indeed right, and this is an anachronism: but, again, not one which the Queen herself has the power to change.Only Parliament can do that, by amending or replacing the Act of Setrtlement.
Yes, he participated in pagan worship for a mere, minor honor from a “Welsh cultural organization.”
It's a gross distortion to describe the Gorsedd as 'pagan worship'. Silly, yes, faux-antique, yes, but 'pagan worship' - no.
Again, how can you possibly know that? It's highly likely that she has repeatedly done so in the strongest possible terms.
Rather than speculating on those things she may not have done, how about celebrating one thing she undoubtedly has done - the subject of the posted article. What other modern Head of State in the developed world makes a passionate personal statement of Christian faith in an address to the nation, and does so year after year?
“Again, how can you possibly know that?”
Simple. No statements - public or private - have ever come to light. Ever. She has never called on her subjects - and they are HER subjects - to reject those evils.
“It’s highly likely that she has repeatedly done so in the strongest possible terms.”
Complete nonsense. If she had done so even once we would know about it by now. Queen Elizabeth II signed the 1967 Abortion Act. Why didn’t she refuse to do so as did King Baudouin I of Belgium? https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable-to-sign-abortion-law-takes-day-off.html The answer is simple: Elizabeth is pro-abortion or too much of a coward to stick to any traditional Christian morality on the subject.
“Rather than speculating on those things she may not have done, how about celebrating one thing she undoubtedly has done - the subject of the posted article.”
There’s not much there to celebrate.
“What other modern Head of State in the developed world makes a passionate personal statement of Christian faith in an address to the nation, and does so year after year?”
The Pope. He is a head of state (Vatican City) in the developed world. You asked.
>> Firstly, the Monarch has no power to direct Parliament to do anything <<
When the Sovereign expresses an opinion (which she is gravely loathe to do), it has great political sway. In fact, there is no legal position as “Prime Minister” at all. Rather, the Prime Minister is nothing other than the person whom the sovereign wishes to represent her in Parliament.
>> There is no legal impediment to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister. <<
I cited the very law which proves you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN ACT OF 2013.
“A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.”
AMENDS ACT OF SETTLEMENT OF 1703:
“ that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same: and in all and every such case and cases the people of these realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance: and that the said Crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons, so reconciled, holding communion, professing or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.”
Lest you think some intervening Act gave rights to Catholics:
“The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, restrict succession to the throne to the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover that are in ‘communion with the Church of England.’ [1] Spouses of Roman Catholics were disqualified from 1689 until the law was amended in 2015. Protestant descendants of those excluded for being Roman Catholics are eligible”
“It’s a gross distortion to describe the Gorsedd as ‘pagan worship’. Silly, yes, faux-antique, yes, but ‘pagan worship’ - no.”
That a clergyman would participate in a ceremony designed to appear pagan, and dedicated, even in jest, to demon-gods is outrageous. It declares to the world, “Fear of the worship of demon-gods is ridiculous! Look at me, a Christian priest: even I join in such pagan rites!”
“Complete nonsense. If she had done so even once we would know about it by now. Queen Elizabeth II signed the 1967 Abortion Act.”
Game. Set. Match.
“What other modern Head of State in the developed world makes a passionate personal statement of Christian faith in an address to the nation, and does so year after year?”
The Queen does not profess her faith to advance Christianity, but to advance Liberalism as acceptable within Christianity. The socialists are trying to claim Christianity as compelling subservience to them. If you want to see a political leader talk incessantly about her alleged faith, look to none other than to Nancy Pelosi.
You are correct about the start date of Methodism. My bad. (I knew there was a reason I liked art so much more than math.)
What can I say?
The Prince of Wales treats Islam with respect, and some people might regard that as a mistake.
But he treats all religions with respect and Islam gets no more than any other.
In terms of his own faith, he’s a devout Christian. He seems to lean towards the Greek Orthodox faith of his father’s family rather than the Church of England which is... politically problematic given that he will be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but doesn’t really surprise me - I left the Church of England myself for the Catholic Church because I believe the Church of England has lost its way over recent decades, and I suspect the Prince feels the same, but can never really say so.
I have the feeling that he has only really become Christian in the last twenty years at most. I don’t think he was devout as a young man, paying mere lip service to his faith, but that does seem to have changed.
His private home contains what is close to a Greek Orthodox shrine. He has visited Greek Orthodox monasteries on at least a few occasions. And he has spoken out a number of times about oppression of Christians - especially Orthodox Christians - in the Middle East. Oppression by who? For the most part by Muslims.
Your comment about the 1967 Abortion Act shows a misunderstanding of the Queen’s constitutional position. She had no choice but to give her Assent to the 1967 Act, or to any other Act. The fact that she did so says nothing at all about what she may have felt or said about it using the constitutional means available to her.
I think you overestimate the freedom of action, including freedom of public speech, available to the Head of State. In many respects she has less freedom of action than an ordinary British citizen.
I made it perfectly clear, I hope, that there is indeed still a prohibition on a Catholic becoming King or Queen.
That does not, however, apply to the office of Prime Minister, which didn’t exist at the time the Act of Settlement was adopted. You appear to be unaware of the provisions of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, which removed the restriction on Catholics holding any public office except that of Lord Chancellor. That exception was removed during Margaret Thatcher’s government.
Had Ian Duncan Smith, a Catholic, remained leader of the Conservative Party, and had gone on to win the 2001 General Election, there would thus have been no impediment to his becoming PM. Had the Catholic Emancipaton Act not been in force, he would never have been elected party leader.
Incidentally, there have been Prime Ministers who have belonged to various Protestant denominatons other than the CoE (Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist). And of course we had a Jewish Prime Minister as long ago as 1868. (Although Disraeli had nominally converted and joiuned the CoE, it now seems to be accepted by istorians that everybody at the time understood and accepted that this was for convenience only). And had Labour won the 2015 election, there would have been a second Jewish PM - Ed Milliband.
Walter Bagehot in his classic study of the British constitution wrote what is now accepted as the definitive statement of the rights of the monarchy. Those rights are 'to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn'. No more than that, and no less. Bear with me if I quote what Bagehot said at slightly greater length:
"To state the matter shortly, the sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect. He would say to his minister: “The responsibility of these measures is upon you. Whatever you think best must be done. Whatever you think best shall have my full and effectual support. But you will observe that for this reason and that reason what you propose to do is bad; for this reason and that reason what you do not propose is better. I do not oppose, it is my duty not to oppose; but observe that I warn.” Supposing the king to be right, and to have what kings often have, the gift of effectual expression, he could not help moving his minister. He might not always turn his course, but he would always trouble his mind."
More recently, Halsbury's Laws adds an important clause to Bagehot:
"[The Queen] still has the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. However, she also has the right to offer, on her own initiative, suggestions and advice to her ministers even when she is obliged in the last resort to accept the formal advice tendered to her."
I can only repeat that we cannot know what warnings of this kind the Queen has given to her 12 Prime Ministers, or to what degree those warnings may or may not have modified subsequent events.
There's a perfectly understandable tendency for those accustomed to an Executive Head of State to overestimate the rights and powers of this non-executive constitutional monarchy, and to project onto the monarchy responsibility for the actions or inactions of the state of which she is nominal head. Those powers are very limited.
” She had no choice but to give her Assent to the 1967 Act, or to any other Act.”
That, of course, is false. She could have simply said no. Then what would happen? Perhaps a constitutional crisis but one which would not have effected the lives of a single British subject in any major way and it would have been for the good if it had. She, however, refused to take a stand or even to protest. She signed it willingly. She chose her crown over opposing abortion. That was her choice.
Think back: For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? (Mark 8:36).
” I think you overestimate the freedom of action, including freedom of public speech, available to the Head of State.”
I overestimate NOTHING. She should have refused. She chose abortion. She could have refused. Whatever resulted she could have easily endured with or without a crown. In the end, she showed she had no personal morals or principles. She simply did the bidding of evil without even the most feeble of protests. She is a pathetic creature.
What would people be saying if the 1967 law were about re-instituting slavery? The parliament passes a law which would immediately put every black person in the U.K. in chains and Elizabeth signs it. Would a single right thinking person in this world be saying: “She had no choice but to give her Assent to the 1967 Act, or to any other Act”? You and I both know the answer to that is “Hell no!” But we always make excuses for abortion don’t we? “Oh, she personally might oppose abortion, but convention means she has to approve a law that allows it.” If the convention is GROSSLY IMMORAL she CAN’T support it even if it means losing her crown if she’s a Christian.
“In many respects she has less freedom of action than an ordinary British citizen.”
There is nothing in British law that can compel her to sign something she morally opposes. Yes, she might be forced off the throne (although I doubt it) but that would be better than agreeing with abortion.
Keep making excuses. Keep saying she should agree with Mammon rather than lose her crown. Keep saying whatever salves your conscience and hers despite the uselessness of such excuses before the throne of God at the end of time.
The queen had a choice. She could refuse to morally support evil and accept whatever came her way from the tyrannical parliamentary government that thought nothing of killing children or she could have chosen to support the murder of children without so much as even a wimper of protest. She chose to do nothing, say nothing, protest nothing, write nothing but her signature. She chose to act as a person with no morals, no principles, no regard for the most vulnerable people on earth - babies.
No earthly crown is worth hell. She chose to support baby killing.
Years ago I was offered a job. All I had to do was agree to a certain statement - I had to say yes to something. I was perfect for the job. The job was perfect for me. To get the job, however, I would have had to lie - and it was an incredibly small lie by the way as lies go. I refused. I needed that job terribly, but I had to live with my conscience. The person offering me the job even said, “I’ll give you a minute to think it over” and told me I needed to change my word in order to get the job. After the allotted time, I was asked again, and refused. The person offering the job complimented me on my morals and then told me I couldn’t have the job. I chose. Elizabeth chose. We all do.
Please don't assume that I'm some kind of ardent royalist for whom the Queen can do no wrong. They certainly exist, though there are not very many of them, and I'm certainly not one of them. I'm all too well aware of the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the constitutional system in which I happen to live, and of the contradictions implicit in a constitutional monarchy. I just happen to believe, to misquote what Churchill said of democracy, that for the UK at least, it's the worst system for appointing a Head of State except all the others. What I do regret, and forgive me if I say that this seems to underly everything you say, is a tendency to project on to the individual the shortcomings of the role she occupies - a role which she self-evidently did not choose for herself.
Other monarchs have managed with similar laws have managed to avoid giving assent (Leopold of Belgium, Alois of Lichtenstein). (I’ll confess I didn’t realize Vladimir merely meant Royal Assent.)
But if Winniesboy is merely insisting that the Queen is merely a useless, cowardly Christian, but not actively oppose to Christian morals, consider the fact that the Queen gave the former head of Planned Parenthood International the rare and high honor of being named “Commander of the British Empire.” That should utterly put to rest any notion that the Queen was merely avoiding expressing an opinion out of a tragically misguided sense of deference to the mechanisms of democracy.
Her husband joked as he opened an abortion clinic, “We need to ‘cull’ the surplus population. In the event I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
If you aren’t horrified by such a joke, Winniesboy, you’ve utterly lost the ability to be outraged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.