Legitimacy of the British monarch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Londoner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand from this that social dissension with the earthly ruler even if someone not affiliated to God through Sacraments is not what Jesus wants us to do.
I tend to think of the UK as a special case. England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland were all Catholic countries until the events of the sixteenth century. Indeed, devotion to Our Lady was so strong in England that we were called Our Lady’s Dowry. Historians have now shown that Catholicism remained popular among the ordinary English people right up until the Reformation imposed from above by Henry VIII for pragmatic reasons. Mary was highly successful in restoring Catholicism after the death of her brother Edward VI. Catholicism of course remained the majority religion in Ireland, and remains the majority religion on the island of Ireland (part of which is claimed as part of the UK) to this day.

It is my view that Henry VIII and his Protestant successors essentially stole the Catholic Church in England and Wales (and to some extent Ireland) and established Protestant kingdoms of questionable legitimacy. When Henry VIII broke with Rome he didn’t have the decency to establish a new, parallel Protestant hierarchy, with Protestant cathedrals, parishes, etc. No, he stole our bishops, our clergy, our episcopal sees, our dioceses, parishes, cathedrals, and churches. He dissolved our monasteries. Do not forget that Westminster Abbey, where the monarch is crowned, was founded as a Catholic monastery. Do not forget that St Augustine was a Catholic bishop sent as a missionary to Britain by our Catholic Pope Gregory the Great. Today, Justin Welby sits in the stolen Chair of St Augustine in the stolen Canterbury Cathedral, where Henry VIII destroyed our Catholic shrine to our Catholic saint Thomas Becket.

I cannot help feeling that England is a historically Catholic nation and that the Church of England and all monarchs after the Act of Settlement (enacted specifically to exclude Catholics from the throne) have usurped our ancient Church and our ancient kingdom. It is one thing recognising a non-Christian ruler, such as the Roman emperor, the president of the United States, or the emperor of Japan, but quite another recognising a monarchy that has usurped the throne of a Catholic kingdom.
 
it really doesn’t matter what the Catholic Church teaches. they don’t call it the Church of England for nothing. with a username like Londoner you must know the history of
the Church of England and its relationship to the monarchy.
 
i agree, England, historically, was a Catholic nation until the reign of King Henry VIII and he became impatient with the Pope and started his own church. it is a tragedy what happened after that. when the Protestants were ruling, the Catholic suffered terribly. yes, the king took all the property that had belonged to the Catholic Church.
it is all history. the Spanish Armada was defeated. Mary, Queen of Scotts, was beheaded before she could have any chance of ruling. the Protestants prevailed and outlawed Catholicism for a certain period of time.
we can only imagine what might have been, what a great Catholic country, England might have been.
all the religious pageantry is very valid in their eyes within the Church of England.
 
Then again, look at France… Louis IX did them a fat lot of good in the long run 😬😬
 
Don Ruggero would have been able to answer this question
 
our british CAF brethren here, at least some of them, seem so protective of their secular/protestant monarchy

i wonder why
 
Why are Americans so concerned about the British monarch at this day and time? Don’t we have enough problems of our own?
 
I can understand your sentiment. However, from history too, we have lost lots of Catholic nations. The present Turkey and the North African states for example.

However, Jesus says his Kingdom is not of this world. We, as Catholics, should be more cognisant of this. More importantly therefore is the winning of souls for the kingdom of heaven.
 
our british CAF brethren here, at least some of them, seem so protective of their secular/protestant monarchy

i wonder why
Not all of us. There are many Brits who have no time for the Royal Family. Personally, I think the Queen has done a good job of being Queen - all the other older Royals, not so much.

The Monarchy in the UK is an anachronism as far as I’m concerned. The general argument here is “Ah, but they attract so many tourists to the country”. I’d be interested to see what would happen if we didn’t have the Monarchy here. I’m fairly sure there would still be many visitors from other countries.

I’ve been asked by Americans on ore than one occasion, “Have you met the Queen?” No, of course not - she doesn’t meet people, except in a completely stage-managed way. It’s not like she pops down to her local Tescos to do the shopping!
 
However, the argument does become circular.
The fact is that the succession to the throne is determined by the Act of Settlement 1701, an Act of Parliament passed into law by King William III. William III himself, of course, came to the throne, together with his wife Mary II, in an anti-Catholic revolution, replacing our last Catholic monarch, James II. The question is, by what authority did William and Mary come to the throne? By what authority was James II legitimately deposed?
This is a perfectly logical argument; the problem is that it leads nowhere. James II was king because the line of the Tudors led to him through Henry’s sister. But by what authority did the Tudors come to the throne? By treason and conquest. By what authority did Henry I come to the throne? By fighting his elder brother and imprisoning him for 20 years until he died. And so on and on back to 1066. By what authority did Wm I come to the throne when the Witan had chosen Edgar? And so on.

I know of no nation that has not undergone a revolution some time in its history (anyone?). That doesn’t mean no nation has a legitimate government. As to the United Kingdom, it is a democracy, and if the British people wanted a republic, or to parcel the Church of England up and present it to Rome, they could do exactly that. The truth is that they don’t want anything of the kind, and their continuing democratic assent to the constitution confirms its legitimacy.
 
Last edited:
Queen Elizabeth is an Anglican so it is
our british CAF brethren here, at least some of them, seem so protective of their secular/protestant monarchy

i wonder why

A lot of it is the result of the reign of Queeen Elizabeth II .

There is a very personal element in it which is not due to the monarchy but to the person of Queen Elizabeth .

No one , over such a long period , can come close to the duty and service Queen Elizabeth has given to her country , and continues to do so now aged 92 .
 
Yes, I’d agree with you here. The Queen has lived such a long life and has been monarch for such a long time that hardly anyone remembers when that wasn’t the case. And she’s always conducted herself with dignity.
 
when Queen Elizabeth II dies, the funeral for her and the farewell to her will be huge!

she has performed her duty to her country as Queen for close to 7 decades with much dignity. it will be a sad day for England when she passes and for the world.

since her Uncle abdicated the throne, the Queen’s father and Queen Elizabeth II have
helped lead England through the best of times and the worst of times. they prepared
Elizabeth well to rule as Queen from such a young age. i think having Phillip by her side was an immense help too as husband and father.
 
our british CAF brethren here, at least some of them, seem so protective of their secular/protestant monarchy

i wonder why
Yeah, we had a go at a republic under Oliver Cromwell. Wasn’t as fun as expected. Turns out he was a bit of a dictator.
 
when Queen Elizabeth II dies, the funeral for her and the farewell to her will be huge!

she has performed her duty to her country as Queen for close to 7 decades with much dignity. it will be a sad day for England when she passes and for the world.

since her Uncle abdicated the throne, the Queen’s father and Queen Elizabeth II have
helped lead England through the best of times and the worst of times. they prepared
Elizabeth well to rule as Queen from such a young age. i think having Phillip by her side was an immense help too as husband and father.
And part of Queen Elizabeth’s dignified duty has been her good relations with the Popes during her reign .

Before she was Queen the then Princess Elizabeth with Prince Philip visited Pope Pius XII in 1951 .
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

She visited Pius’ successor Pope John XXIII .
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

She met Pope John Paul II in Rome , and Pope John Paul II paid a visit to Queen Elizabeth in Buckingham Palace when he visited the UK .
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Queen Elizabeth welcomed Pope Benedict to the UK .
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Then her last visit to the Vatican was to see Pope Francis .
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Queen, though Supreme Governor of the Church of England, is reputed to have dubbed Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster , “My Cardinal”. She went to Vespers at his cathedral, and chose him to become one of the 24 members of the Order of Merit; he made a great effort to receive the honour from her at Buckingham Palace as his fatal illness grew worse.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Then there was Cardinal Hume’s successor Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor . Cardinal Cormac was the first member of the Catholic hierarchy since 1680 to deliver a sermon to an English monarch, in January 2002. The event took place at Sandringham, at the invitation of the Queen, during the Anglican morning service.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Looking from outside, perhaps we tend to see the romanticism of monarchy, of the splendour of kings and queens. For the Queen, it was all about duty, where she probably does not have the luxury of personal life of how she wants her family to be. Yet, in all that, she managed to carry herself will full dignity all the time.
 
of course, it was very important as Queen to have good relations with the Vatican.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top