Sorry for the headline, but it’s the ugly truth.
Also, there is irony. I’ll get to that in a minute.
She became queen 70 years ago when her father George VI died prematurely at 56. George was king only because his brother, Edward VIII, abdicated the throne. Why? Because he couldn’t help chasing after Wallis Simpson, a twice divorced, shameless tramp who loved ambition almost as much as she loved fornication and adultery (and probably worse).
This isn’t detraction; you can easily look up the sordid details.
King Edward, the head of the Church of England, wasn’t allowed to marry a woman with two living “ex” husbands. The C of E still had morals back in 1936, and so many of its faithful actually held those morals, that Edward could not get away with changing the rules.
So Edward abdicated, and the crown passed to his brother George, and then George to his daughter Elizabeth, who proceeded to oversee the wholesale destruction of the entire moral order.
Which gets us to the irony. You see, if the Edwardian situation had occurred today, after the elimination of all moral precepts under the leadership of Elizabeth, Edward could have remained king without the batting of an eye, and Lizzy would never have been queen. Love wins!
Anyhow, credit where credit is due, old Eddie at least knew how to make sure that his abdication was clear, legal, and unassailable. The title of the document gives it away, the body specifies the particulars in short order, and no one ever questioned it’s effect. Sort of completely the opposite of what Pope Benedict did. (h/t to “PissedOffPureblood” in the combox)
The church of England (intentional lower-case c) as founded for one reason: so King Henry VIII could break the sacrament of marriage and divorce his wife. What a reason to establish a (false) church!
The most tragic thing about Elisabeth’s passing was that she had the chance to end it all and bring what’s left of the Anglican church into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and she failed to do so. May God have mercy on her soul.
Let’s pray that Charles breaks stereotypes and decides to man-up, re-assert the monarchy, and try and bring England Home. Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us.
Charles, man up? I don’t really think that we’ll see that. He’s weak, was unfaithful to his wife, probably had something to do with her death, and appears to be entranced by Camilla. His father was a proponent of eugenics and stated that if he could be reincarnated, he would come back as a deadly virus.
But, I suppose in a way it was lucky he did, otherwise all of Europe would have been given to Hitler, for Wallis Simpson and Edward were enthusiastic Nazis and Hitler supporters.
Yes. Something I neglected to mention.
It’s become more known in the last few decades that he was compelled to resign over his foreign (Nazi) sympathies, in a kind of coup led by British security Establishment figures including Winston Churchill, with the Wallis thing being an excuse they put forward to the public.
So it could still happen today; they’d just need a different excuse. Like maybe Charles ain’t woke enough. Or tie him publicly to Jeffrey Epstein, as with his brother Prince Andrew.
Obviously the King, like the President and unlike the Pope, has no canon in place to render forced resignations self-invalidating & thus impossible.
She would have abdicated and let her son become king eons ago if she was a real Christian because she would have acknowledged male headship is best for the nation. Period. So she was a horrible queen and a worse mother and worse Christian. Now Charles becomes king two weeks before he kicks the bucket of old age. Ridiculous.
Personally I believe contemporary feminism is Satan’s gift to men, but comments like that are part of the reason it has gained any traction at all. And if genetics has any influence here, Charles may be around for another 20 years. If we have another 20 years.
Since Queen Elizabeth’s uncle who abdicated — King Edward — had no children, the throne would have passed to his brother, Queen Elizabeth’s father, and she still would have inherited. Only if King Edward had had children would she not have inherited, and there was speculation that Wallis Warfield Simpson and/or Edward were incapable of having children (and they never did). So Elizabeth would have inherited anyway I believe.
That sounds correct… would have been at Edward’s death in 1972.
Are people here seriously arguing in favor of King Charles Climate Change the IIIrd?
The Queen did the world a favor by keeping that guy off the throne. She departed from us in the Feast Day of the Queen of Heaven… Coincidence? I’m not saying she’s saved, only that it may mean something in the grand scheme of Providence.
Now with Charles in charge, I hope you like the World Economic Forum’s talking points, because that’s what you’re going to get for here on out! The U.K. finally has a King Biden, except this one is fully conscious!
Good points.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=216&v=eeNZ7CseBLo&feature=emb_logo
What the media won’t tell you about Charles the 3rd
King Charles can’t hold a candle to Scott Baio…
But Scott Baio isn’t king of an empire…..
But he was still “Charles in charge”
My theory is that Elizabeth II held on to life as long as possible because she knew more than anyone else that he was not fit to reign. A mother knows her child better than anyone else. But even all the way from Texas a person could see that he was not likely to be a manly alpha-type ruler. More likely to turn the United Kingdom into a caliphate.
It kept coming into my head at Mass this morning that each of us was created to be alive during these specific times. It’s the Divine Providence in operation, the same Providence that clothes the lilies of the field (Gospel today). May we all use the events of these unusual times for our spiritual growth in Christ.
At the TLM I attended today, the priest actually drew parallels between Liz Windsor and Our Lady – how their Queenship came to them unexpectedly and their subsequent years of faithful service. He also referred to us all as ‘her subjects.’ (Well maybe you are, Father, but like Samuel Goldwyn, you can include me out.) Oh, and apparently despite being offered all sorts of concessions, we were told it was a good thing that she chose to attend her husband’s funeral wearing a piece of cloth on her face and seated on her own – another sign of her solidarity with her subjects during difficult times. It never ceases to amaze me how English Catholics lose their minds when it comes to royalty and engage in all sorts of mentally selective gymnastics in efforts to prove their loyalty to the Crown.
I also can’t help thinking that there was probably enough remnant Catholicity in Henry VIII to make me guess that *he* would never have signed off on abortion and the LGBTXYZ agenda. Truly her silence was more eloquent than her speech.
I’ll sign off with this smokin’ quote from Fr. Frederick Faber, founder of the London Oratory:
“The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities. Yet how light we make of it! We look at it and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it and have no fear. We see it touch holy things and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odour and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.”
If the Crown fits, wear it.
Boom! Mic drop on the Father Faber quote!
He who prays with heretics becomes a heretic. The Council of Laodicea in 365 AD stated, “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”
The Church of England was built upon immorality, violating sacraments, and murder. It was never “moral”. Why it is important to rehash something most people know? The idea that Elizabeth II is somehow less moral than the C of E in 1936 is a false premise.
In short, the idea here is to get red meat clickbait by abusing the corpse of a 96 year old woman and then, just to make sure it’s Catholic enough, link it to Benedict’s resignation.
Would be better just to be honest: you relish the idea of Elizabeth roasting in hell. Most Catholics I notice have a strange happiness about her death. And that’s all this is. No sincere worry about her eternal soul.
We call this “masculinity”, according to Barnhard’s (protestant-informed mind you) interpretation. But what is really is is just a workaround to to weaponize pride.
We’re all going to the afterlife. We’re all going to see things. We actually don’t know much about Elizabeth, we are told not to condemn them, for only God can judge. But boy do people love doing it anyway.
I don’t see it that way. Heresy makes me horribly sad. It’s so lonely and pitiful to think of the billions in the world who do not know the true Faith, who live without the Sacraments, who will never taste the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Imagine what a horror your life would be if you were a heretic. It’s painful even to consider. I feel sad and scared for lost souls. And a true Catholic should examine himself as to whether he prayed and sacrificed to effect conversions. Those of us with the grace of true Faith have a terrifying responsibility to work to bring others into the sheepfold. It’s a serious and fearful topic.
It’s true. I feel the weight of this.
Re: Spudeater. My pastor also spoke about QE2 and that Anglicanism is a false religion in that it is based on a lie. And whatever is not FULLY true is a lie. And also those grand old Cathedrals in England are stolen property. QE2 saw the demise of what morality the c of E did once embrace–were all of her children divorced or only 3 of them? The one is or was prosecuted for his immoral behavior and she did strip him of his military ranks so he could be. She had to deal with scandal after scandal in her family for decades and was not able to stop them.