British Catholics and the Queen

[tafan2]

If you read a biography of him about the war years, you find he did much more than just try. The man made a huge difference. His support of Churchill (he was very reluctant to have the man as Prime Minister early on) during the critical spring and summer of 1940 was likely the difference between England preserving or deciding to sue for peace. His actions during the war, both symbolically and active participation in Churchill’s government, was a huge factor in the war effort. Churchill consulted with him on a weekly basis, it went way beyond just keeping him informed. His symbolic actions were quite impressive also.
He refused any men to for a protection detail during the war in his many travels around the country. Instead he carried a pistol in his car and practice escape driving with only a driver, he would shoot and the driver would drive (there was a real fear of abduction by Gernan agents in the government). He personally painted a line in every bathtub in Buckingham Palace and made sure no one used more water then permitted. He only allowed standard rations to be used for food in the palace. He personally inspected the grounds every night to make sure no lights were visible from the outside. He had a lathe installed in the palace when he heard of a shortage of parts for anti-aircraft guns so he could try his hand on weekends in making them. He and his was constantly visible to the people and the army throughout the war. All of the royal family of age were expected to assume wartime jobs. He would not allow the palace to be well heated in the winter. Eleanor Roosevelt was shocked at the poor living conditions of the royal family when she stayed with them during the war. When there was a fear of invasion of England, he personally drew up plans for the defense of Buckingham palace which included him staying there and dying to defend the grounds. Any talk of the King being evacuated to a safe country by members of government was ended shortly after the war started. On more than one occasion when Eisenhower had a serious disagreement with Churchill, he appealed to the King for help.

I could go on and on.

 

[Brendan_64]

Except that we have a national religion, a national church established by law, a head of state who is governor of that established church, bishops of that established church guaranteed places In Parliament, key national events and ceremonies conducted by priests of that established church … must I go on?

So all is good? No promotion of gender ideology? Pro-life views not being marginalised or treated as extremist? Faith schools not prevented from expanding? Traditional Christian values all safe and well in the UK?

 

[exnihilo]

You could spill a lot of ink explaining why this “the South was right!” nonsense is farcical from a legal perspective, but it’s more fun to say “vae victis.”

I’ve never encountered anyone who can resolve how the rebellion was legitimate but secession wasn’t. The confederacy was certainly more justified since sovereign states when joining a confederacy don’t cease to be sovereign.

Except that it was the Southern states who unilaterally seceded and violently took federal property and assets when they did so all because they lost a legitimate and fairly held election—held according to the rules of the Constitution they all acceded to and their elected officials pledged to defend. Not to mention, the Southern states had been using violence and bloodshed for hundreds of years to enforce slavery and had no problem using the idea of nationalism to force Northern states to return fugitive slaves.

That is an interesting outlook. True the first attack was on federal forces. But those federal military forces were occupying a sovereign state and had been asked to leave.

Violence is how all governments enforce their laws. If I don’t pay my taxes some government agent will show up and use violence to compel me to pay them.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I’ve never encountered anyone who can resolve how the rebellion was legitimate but secession wasn’t.

Probably neither was, frankly. But at least the revolution was able to vindicate itself on the battlefield.

 

[PickyPicky]

So all is good? No promotion of gender ideology? Pro-life views not being marginalised or treated as extremist? Faith schools not prevented from expanding? Traditional Christian values all safe and well in the UK

Nothing is all safe and well unless we make it so. Faith schools are in fact expanding. I don’t know what you mean by gender ideology, but I do know that there is increasing reluctance to marginalise those of minority gender and sex identity, if that’s what you mean, and it doesn’t seem anti-Christian to me. And all is unfortunately not good, nor has it ever been, in the UK or elsewhere. But the suggestion that Christianity is being “pushed out of public life” is nonsense. On the contrary, the rôle of Christianity in public life is quite out of proportion to the number of believing Christians in the population. I don’t complain about that — I’m actually quite content with it — but that’s the way it is.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t think that victory on the battlefield decides the truth or justice of a claim. That is trial by combat. Regardless, in the War of 1812 the British Army showed it could in fact defeat the Americans and burned their capital.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

It sort of does when it comes to international law and sovereignty. And burning the capitol =|= conquering the United States.

 

[exnihilo]

True. Might makes right in the world at the end of the day.

I didn’t say conquer. I think the British won the war. And they also embarrassed the US by burning its capital. The British weren’t fighting the war with all their might either.