Legitimacy of the British monarch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Londoner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And no handy Stuart claimant in Tutbury, or wherever she was on the day, either. So Babington is right out, too.

I guess we’re stuck with it.
 
My knowledge of the Spanish Navy is limited to around the Spanish American War period, so I had to check wiki. The SN has 3 more bottoms afloat than does Her Majesty.

For what that’s worth. I think the Jack Tars can take the Dons in a walk-over.
 
Last edited:
If only we knew what Henry Stuart, son of James III and longtime cardinal secretary of state in Rome, thought about all this.

The coronation rite may have been a sacrament, or part of Holy Orders. That is one reason for Henry’s claim to be the Head of the Church. I suppose you could even make an argument for the validity of Anglican orders based on coronation.

Not that it would get you anywhere. The movement of history has been away from these beliefs. I don’t even know how the Russians dealt with the idea during the Soviet era. That Scotland and England have maintained some aspect of a divine monarchy is a sign of how tradition bound they are.

Also, David was anointed as King of Israel 3 or 4 times. The initial private ceremony by Samuel was followed by public ceremonies after he became the political leader.
 
TechieGuy said:
40.png
Londoner:
unless they want to admit that it’s just for show.
Click to expand...
You got something against elaborate shows?
Click to expand...
Yeah really. Aren’t we all guilty of that? Birthday parties for one year olds? Huge school proms? Massive weddings (I mean all the elaborate details - really, you need your couple, your witnesses, and your clergy, yet a wedding can cost tens of thousands of dollars)? High school and college graduation ceremonies? Presidential inaugurations and parades? All this stuff would happen without the pomp and circumstance.

Coronations are huge displays of tradition and patriotism. To a point it is for show, and I don’t know one Brit who would deny that. But, seriously - why not keep the tradition going? It’s symbolism, and there’s nothing wrong with stoking national pride in the process.
 
Last edited:
Very true that Queen Elizabeth II has been in many ways the model for monarchy - but I think the main thrust of the OP was to do with her ‘legitimacy’. Well in terms of legitimacy according to Mother Church teaching, her coronation was deficient of communion with the ‘One True Church’.

BUT, having researched some of my own ‘royal’ ancestors, such as King John, Emperor Nero, and even historic great-grandfather Herod ‘The Great’, and indeed many others; I really do have to ponder rather hard over the issue of just who is ‘legitimate’, other than our ‘King of Kings’?
 
Dovekin - It seems that many of the Judean Kings, including a smattering of my own ancestors [BTW David and his son Solomon are supposedly also ancestors], attempted to resolve any issue betwixt Church and State, by doubling as High Priest - that includes such ‘nice guys’ as Herod ‘The Great’.
 
I am a British Catholic and a Royalist. I have a deep love for my Sovereign and Royal Family. I have never questioned the fact that HM Queen Elizabeth II IS Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. As to the validity of the coronation rites…I have no idea. Yet there is no doubt that Her Majesty legally succeeded the throne.

Domine salvam fac reginam nostram Elisabeth
 
The issue in looking at ancient Israel, is that different scriptures describe
a) the anointing of priest in Leviticus
b) the anointing of Kings in Samuel
c) the ‘anointing’ of prophets in Isaiah et al.

Alll of these were known as Messiah, or Christ, along with military leaders. When later generations anointed kings or priest, the already confused roles were thrown into more confusion.
 
mrsdizzy - Ah, the ‘Three Crowns’ - surely they are Bishop titles? - Bishop of The Church, Bishop of Rome, and Bishop of the Vatican State.
 
Actually, I was thinking literally as Head of State of Vatican City which is a sovereign nation…
 
Last edited:
alex - Yes, ‘legality’ is a secular concept, and she is also our queen in similar validity and even legitimacy terms - but I think that the OP question was slanted towards how Mother Church views it - that such a coronation lacks sacramental - ‘Divine Right of Kings’ legitimacy. ‘Fid Def’ on coins no longer refers to the monarch as being defender of the Catholic Church, but as defending [as Governor] the ‘Anglican Church’ Which is not the one that Jesus founded.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
To a point it is for show,
Click to expand...
Indeed, to a point it is, and, as you say, nothing wrong with a show of tradition and patriotism. But I think our understanding is that for the Queen it was not just show. That the promises she made before her God were real promises, and that she believes the ceremony conferred on her real responsibilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top