tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post3583235872409596508..comments2023-10-15T00:20:43.111-07:00Comments on Sarah Maid of Albion: A diminished throneSarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-71241401667080412782009-12-30T16:45:35.684-08:002009-12-30T16:45:35.684-08:00We should ignore this daft, old slapper, and this ...We should ignore this daft, old slapper, and this geezershould be honoured.<br /><br />http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20091230/tuk-dj-sacked-for-pulling-plug-on-boring-a7ad41d.htmlMister Coxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-19705657786103444182009-12-26T16:23:34.041-08:002009-12-26T16:23:34.041-08:00There used to be frequent discussions on The House...There used to be frequent discussions on The House of Windsor, on the defunct Conservative Democratic Alliance forum. Their name for the queen was "Brenda"! <br />Several thought the entire Windsor family dysfunctional and needed replacing. Apparently, there is a direct decendent from the Stuarts living in Europe!misterfoxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-39849786896965198982009-12-26T06:54:46.459-08:002009-12-26T06:54:46.459-08:00It seems to me that there is another possibility. ...It seems to me that there is another possibility. One can still be in favor of monarchy but not supportive of the current monarch or this line, the House of Windsor. It would be entirely possible to establish a new, royal house (even if difficult).<br /><br />Although now one of the Queen's subjects, there have been a number of times when I have felt inclined to write to her regarding what I see as her failure to act as a Christian monarch.Sarah has pointed out the "negative control" that the Queen has, but even in the limited scope I think she could have done much more (1) to protect and promote the CoE, and (2) to defend Christianity in the UK and elsewhere in the Commonwealth. I have been very disappointed in that respect.<br /><br />Her remoteness from the people, a sense of being out of touch, was very evident at the time of the Diana affair, culminating in Diana's death. The way the monarchy (mis)handled all of that was one of the best arguments for its abolition they could possibly provide, in my thinking.<br /><br />Sarah, you speak warmly of Camilla, and since she and Charles have married, there has been far less scandal and sensationalism, it seems. On the other hand, she was the third party in the marriage between Charles and Diana, as Charles was the third party in her previous marriage. This does not speak very well of the morals of either, it seems to me. Can you imagine this sort of behavior in Elizabeth's parents? I certainly cannot. They were people the nation could look up to, not down upon.<br /><br />Coming from the outside, I have to say that I am rather touched by your reason for defending the monarchy as an assurance against a tyrant. I wish I could believe that it really worked, but I do not see the evidence. I am more inclined to think that all man made systems of governance are subject to corruption, and sooner or later will be. This is what I think I see before me.Dr.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18360786634583725263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-22466910840817219792009-12-26T05:22:03.903-08:002009-12-26T05:22:03.903-08:00I think it's about time she abdicated. If it c...I think it's about time she abdicated. If it could miss Charles that would be better. http://northfieldpatriot.blogspot.com/ic1malehttp://northfieldpatriot.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-58960773874732368972009-12-26T00:41:35.460-08:002009-12-26T00:41:35.460-08:00Thanks for the comments.
Judging by the reaction ...Thanks for the comments.<br /><br />Judging by the reaction to this article here and more so at the Green Arrow, where I also posted it, I have hit on a topic which a lot of people feel very strongly about, and that there is a lot of hostility to the monarch.<br /><br />Certainly from the reaction at the Green Arrow, this has been one of the least well received articles I have ever written.<br /><br />That saddens me in a way because I still feel strongly in favour of the monarchy in principle. I would love to have Britain back as it was, and part of that is to have a king or a queen.<br /><br />However, the betrayal may be so overwhelming that may not be possible. Given what has happened, I do understand the reaction to this posting.Sarah Maid of Albionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-54531813719879969782009-12-25T11:08:05.992-08:002009-12-25T11:08:05.992-08:00Thank you for this analysis, Sarah, much appreciat...Thank you for this analysis, Sarah, much appreciated.<br /><br />I hope that you and your family have had a most blessed day and, as others have said, thank you for your prodigious blogging efforts throughout the year.<br /><br />The matter of the Coronation Oath is a vital subject, complicated by the fact that the oath that Elizabeth swore allegiance to in 1953 was illegally altered in 1910, to remover reference to the Catholic Mass as <i>"superstitious and idolatrous"</i> in accordance with Article 31 of the Church of England (no wonder the C of E got rid of these articles some time back) my emphases: <br /><br /><i>The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore <b>the sacrifices of Masses</b>, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, <b>were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits</b>."</i><br /><br />The spiritualist Conan Doyle was a prime mover in the illegal alteration of the oath, it appears.<br /><br />4 years later, Britain was embroiled in the horror of WW1, a consequence that I don't believe to be coincidental.<br /><br />Sadly, I do believe that the Queen has broken her oath, because even in its attentuated form, it requires that the monarch, with one hand on an open Bible, formally pledge that, my emphases again <i>"the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom <b>the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law</b>."</i><br /><br />Queen Elizabeth has done anything but that over the last 56 years of her reign. If she had kept her oath, any immigrant to this country in the last 56 years would have had to forsake their non-Protestant Reformed religion before they could even enter this realm. HM has clearly failed catastrophically in this respect. <br /><br />I agree that the prospect of King Charles III is not an auspicious one. However, I do know that Charles has a high regard for the KJB and is patron of the 2011 Trust, which will coordinate the 400th anniversary of the 1611 Holy Bible.<br /><br />These are key issues, which is why I have commented at some length. Much, much more of great value could be said but the KJB is this nation's WMD - Weapon of Mass Deliverance. It has never failed Britain in the past and will never fail her in the future.<br /><br />When it comes to the 3 'm' menaces, Multi-culti-ism, Marxism and Mohammedanism, the KJB could chew them up and spit them out in less than a generation. The weapon only has to be deployed in the hearts and minds of the folk for whom, above all, it is rightfully theirs.alanoreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12013953165470026155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-33283696819161572142009-12-25T10:02:23.748-08:002009-12-25T10:02:23.748-08:00I think you are being too charitable to whatis the...I think you are being too charitable to whatis the worst monarch we have had snce King John, and probably worse than him.<br />As I understand it treason is no longer on the statute books but in any csae treason is against the monarch so the queen can not committ treason de jure, but de facto she has betrayed her people.<br />It is not just on immigration. She signs any law put before her and that includes those that gave oursovereignty to the EU State. <br />can she be queen over a region of the EU as we ceased to be a nation when The Lisbon Treatywas implemented on January 1st. If so <br />we should skip the tomato talker and Wills and go straight to Harry, the peoples prince. Charles in saying he wants to be the Defender of Faiths, has annmounced in advance that he will break his Coronation Oath. He has no right to be crowned.misterfoxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-32037974327976405282009-12-25T00:27:58.900-08:002009-12-25T00:27:58.900-08:00Almost convinced me but the Queen is diehard liber...Almost convinced me but the Queen is diehard liberal elitist.<br /><br />She clearly has no loyalty to the British peoples and we should return the sentiment.<br /><br />Off with her head!<br /><br />Merry Yuletide to nationalists everywhere. Perhaps 2010 will be the year a New Albion secedes from Babylon and where our people can live in freedom.AgainsTTheWallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3373165199675890724.post-23274930638657551672009-12-24T13:06:59.587-08:002009-12-24T13:06:59.587-08:00Couldn't we at least get rid of the aristocrac...Couldn't we at least get rid of the aristocracy?<br />Norway successful did so, and retains its monarchy.<br /><br />Excellent post, thank. And a very merry Christmas to you and all your readers.<br /><br />V.Tim Johnstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470464053181422637noreply@blogger.com