I have heard that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, may have been invalidly baptized. One archbishop poured the water while another archbishop recited the words. Does anyone know if this is true, and if so, would it render her baptism invalid?
Was HM The Queen validly baptized?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
P
PetraG
Guest
Where did you hear that? All I can find is that she was baptized by Cosmo Gordon Lang, then-Archbishop of York (and soon-thereafter the Archbishop of Canterbury). I cannot even find mention of what other clergy were present.
Royal christenings then (and even now) tend to be conducted with very few people present. Besides, the future Queen was not the child of the yet-to-marry Prince of Wales and was only the first child of the Duke of York. Had the Duke of York had a male heir, he would have jumped ahead of her in the order of precedence, as would any child born to her father’s older brother. There was no reason at her christening to rush to the conclusion she would one day be the queen. I don’t know why two archbishops would have crowded in to be at her christening, let alone would have changed the rite (something the British monarchy of the time was not in the habit of doing, lol).
Baptisms performed according to the rites of the Church of England are valid. There is no reason to assume that the rite would be changed for the royal family.
Royal christenings then (and even now) tend to be conducted with very few people present. Besides, the future Queen was not the child of the yet-to-marry Prince of Wales and was only the first child of the Duke of York. Had the Duke of York had a male heir, he would have jumped ahead of her in the order of precedence, as would any child born to her father’s older brother. There was no reason at her christening to rush to the conclusion she would one day be the queen. I don’t know why two archbishops would have crowded in to be at her christening, let alone would have changed the rite (something the British monarchy of the time was not in the habit of doing, lol).
Baptisms performed according to the rites of the Church of England are valid. There is no reason to assume that the rite would be changed for the royal family.
Last edited:
I do not recall where I heard it, this was several years ago, but I think two archbishops were said to be involved, the archbishops of York and Canterbury IIRC.
P
PetraG
Guest
Since there was only one archbishop present for Prince Charles and he was 2nd in the line of succession, I’d doubt that.
T
twf
Guest
That is… the only two archbishops in the Church of England hierarchy?
T
TomH1
Guest
The Queen was baptised by Cosmo Lang who at the time was the Archbishop of York and like royal baptisms are it was private. The Catholic Church recognises baptisms in the Church of England as valid.
Back when Her Majesty was baptised the Church of England used the Book of Common Prayer and had not been infected by its modern day liberalism; things were done properly.
At her birth she was Princess Elizabeth of York. Until Edward VIII’s abdication she wasn’t destined to be The Queen. She was destined to be a minor royal like the current Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York. It’s quite normal for the Royal Family to ask a bishop to perform baptisms. However, two wouldn’t have done it.
Back when Her Majesty was baptised the Church of England used the Book of Common Prayer and had not been infected by its modern day liberalism; things were done properly.
At her birth she was Princess Elizabeth of York. Until Edward VIII’s abdication she wasn’t destined to be The Queen. She was destined to be a minor royal like the current Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York. It’s quite normal for the Royal Family to ask a bishop to perform baptisms. However, two wouldn’t have done it.
I do not remember where I heard it; in six decades of reading, and three decades of being online, I’m not going to remember the source of everything I’ve ever read or heard. I tried Googling this but in vain. Evidently it is not true, and I am glad of that — especially with my being a monarchist, I would certainly hate to think that HM was never validly baptized.
P
PetraG
Guest
A monarchist? You are British? A citizen of the Commonwealth?
I’d think a Catholic subject of the Queen would mostly wish that her ancestor, Henry VIII, had not seen fit to break away from Holy Mother Church so that he could be free to go through a succession of wives.
No, I’m not arguing that the Holy See’s denial of Henry VIII’s request for a decree of nullity was not politically-motivated. I don’t have enough knowledge of the particulars of his case to know that one way or the other. We are not guaranteed that every finding on such a matter must be infallible, after all. I am merely saying that breaking away from the Church and appointing himself the Head of his local church was outside his jurisdiction as King. He had no authority to do that and a great deal of innocent blood was shed as a result of that decision. (The current Queen, however, had nothing to do with that decision. She took up her duty as she was taught to see it, and has lived her life in commendable fidelity towards that duty, regardless of how anyone else might second-guess her.)
Last edited:
I am of British ancestry, but I am an American born and bred, and unfortunately have no ties to the mother country (though I have been there). I am a monarchist because I believe that Catholic monarchy (and monarchy is essentially a Catholic institution) is the form of government that most closely resembles the relationship of Christ to His church. I do not believe that the “founding fathers” should have broken with the Crown; legitimate though some of their grievances were, breaking with the Crown and setting up a government of the people, influenced by “enlightenment” and Masonic-inspired ideas, was not the way to go about it.
To be totally consistent with my beliefs, perhaps I should move to Canada one day. (Their lack of a Second Amendment would be a sticking point.)
Here’s a great little book I enjoyed reading. It’s a quick read that can easily be finished in one sitting, and it comes in Kindle format:
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Spangled-Crown-Simple-American-Monarchy/dp/1944339051
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Spangled-Crown-Simple-American-Monarchy/dp/1944339051
I would certainly hope that the Holy See learned something from that little fiasco. (“We lost England over that one, and look what happened — let’s not make a mistake like that again!”)
Can you imagine what a Catholic British Empire would have looked like? :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: :uk:
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Monarchy is a Catholic institution? Since when? Monarchy as a form of government existed well before the birth of Christ and outside the realm of Christendom well before the evangelization of Europe, Asia or anywhere else. The royal families of Europe were converted by the Church, not created by the Church.
The United Kingdom is not a Catholic monarchy, though. The British monarchy broke away from the Church. You’d be looking at more like Spain or Belgium.
On top of that, let us be blunt: none of the remaining hereditary European monarchs rule anything. They have found a different role in their governments. Their nations are all ruled by democratically-ruled governments. The only Catholic princes who are allowed to influence politics directly at all are in Liechtenstein and Monaco.
More to the point, Our Lord told Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” (John 19:11) Remember that the Romans had taken over the rule in Judea from the heritary monarchs. King Herod was a puppet of the Roman empire; it was Pilate who had the power over life and death there. Yet Our Lord said that Pilate’s power was given to him from above. Rome was the regime of which St. Paul said, “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.” (Rom 13:1).
I would say you should not worry about what sort of government you live under, provided you live where you are free to practice the Faith, that is that the state allows you full freedom to follow both the First Great Commandment and the Second. That is really what matters. Even so, the Church has taught that even governments that tried to stamp Her out were given their authority by God and ought to be obeyed as far as duty to God allows.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Judging by the life of Henry VIII, the Church may have been hard-put to find every marriage invalid that the King wanted to have found null. I’m only saying that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon might have actually been invalid. That is not to say that the Church could have stopped his rebellion and apostasy by a finding of nullity in that particular case. I don’t think that is a given, based on history.
In other words, I put that split from the Church squarely on Henry VIII, not the Pope.
Last edited:
Let me rephrase that. Obviously not all monarchies are Catholic. But in its form and essence, it mirrors the relationship of Christ to His Church.
Indeed I would.
That is true, and that is sad.
Quite true. Catholic monarchs derive their authority from Almighty God.
As a practical matter, I do not entertain such worries. There is much, much to love about the American system of civil governance. But a Roe v Wade situation, or a ruling in favor of gay marriage, could never happen in a Catholic monarchy where the king actually rules and is not just a figurehead.
G
GabrielZacarias
Guest
I have heard actually of a british prince “baptized” this way. Although I don’t know if it is true, I do know it would be invalid.
What mistake? Mistakes were made by Henry VIII, not by the Pope.
P
PetraG
Guest
Let’s not romanticize what Catholic kings would do differently than Catholic elected officials, if they had power now now. The word “nepotism” came from an era when Catholic monarchs placed their second or third sons as bishops (and those sons both married and cleric had sons outside of wedlock who were styled as their nephews) and that didn’t work out so well. We can hardly know what they’d be doing now, if we had them, but history tells us that Catholic monarchs would still only be humans with great secular power prone to the temptations inherent in that position. It could be that such a situation would be wounding the faithful more than what we have now. We can’t know that. We can only trust that Providence will see to our needs, if we are faithful within the situation Providence has allowed us to face, regardless of the trials involved, with the help of divine grace.
Last edited:
The mistake of not granting Henry VIII the annulment, assuming there were grounds for it. There may not have been grounds. Historians debate this back and forth.
That is true, we can’t know. But I think a case can be made that Catholic monarchs, having ultimate authority, could act as a check upon lesser bodies that could go astray. On the other hand, in a Catholic social order, allowing things such as abortion and gay marriage would likely never even come up in the first place.
There is no harm whatsoever, even as a purely mental exercise, in speculating “what would it be like if we had a social order that more closely reflects the Kingship of Christ?”.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
Shocked by the view of history on this thread. For one I think it’s incredibly odd to start a thread about some gossip that a non catholic figure head was not baptized properly. Secondly the romantization of monarchy is extremely lacking in reality. And while I think a monarchy is a valid form of government, in no way do i find it spiritually superior to a democratic republic or even a dictatorship.
Last edited:
- Status