10 June 2015

White Rose Day

Well, this side of the Ocean spring came early; and the white roses have long been out in the hedgerows. But that is no reason for failing to wish my readers a very Happy White Rose Day, on this Anniversary of the Birth Day of our late Sovereign liege Lord King James VIII and III ... our longest reigning monarch. And the last King of England to whom the Holy See accorded the right to nominate bishops ... so I suppose that all those admirable Vicars Apostolic, Petres and Talbots and Stonors, including Bishop Challoner, who were nominated before 1766 and look down at us from their portraits in their bands and wigs and 'Gallican' blue cassocks, were named by him. I am sure they all rejoice, and deem it mightily suitable, that the old Bavarian Embassy Chapel in Warwick Street is now in Ordinariate hands. And very appropriate that the Crowns of these Three Kingdoms are destined eventually to devolve de jure upon the princely House of Liechtenstein, where Vaduz Cathedral is reported to enjoy a very good level of Churchmanship under a quite Advanced Archbishop.

Then let us rejoice
With heart and voice
There doth one Stuart remain;
And all sing the tune
On the Tenth Day of June
That the King shall enjoy his own again.


A toast consueto more, this evening, to the Monarch? Go on! Unless there's a water shortage!



15 comments:

Peregrinus Toronto said...

We are preparing to toast Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada (and other parts of the Commonwealth) as she becomes the longest reigning monarch of this Dominion come September 13. The preacher for the day has recently had to withdraw for family reasons. I don't suppose you plan to be on this side of the pond at that time, Father. If so, we could have an interesting public address followed by a seminar for Ordinariate folk on the Jacobite succession versus the Plantagenet claim which holds that King Michael I (an Australian) is the rightful heir to the throne of England (Scotland and Ireland are another matter) and so of Canada and of the Commonwealth, by divine right and bloodline.

Patrick Sheridan said...

De iure monarchs are a very modern invention, father. Do you know whether any of the Pretenders could cure scrofula? Queen Anne could.

Don Camillo SSC said...

De jure? By what law of England did William of Normandy acquire the crown?

Liam Ronan said...

My sept, the Ronan's, took a right pasting here in Ireland during the War of the Two Kings. Sometimes one is right to take up arms for the side destined to lose (an Irish thing).
We have a vase full of white roses on our mantle piece today and there is no lack of 'water' (uisce) here.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Coming from a family with a long history of Jacobite sympathies, a relative was aide de camp to James II/VII at the Battle of the Boyne, I strongly approve of this post.

William Tighe said...


"De jure? By what law of England did William of Normandy acquire the crown?"

There was, in 1066, and long after, no "law of England" regulating the succession; arguably, not until Henry VIII's three successive succession acts (1533, 1536, and 1544); until then, at least from 1216 onwards, a legally undefined custom, interrupted in 1399, 1461 and 1485, prevailed (from 1066 until 1199 kings acted as though they had the authority to bequeath the Crown as they would). One might, however, peruse the statute recognizing James I as rightful king, and its statement that hereditary right was indefeasible. Compared with that, what authority did a pack of thieves and traitors calling itself a "convention" have in 1689 to claim that James II had "abdicated" and offering the crown to William & Mary?

ansgerus said...

Could someone help me to understand, why it is no contradiction that one pope grants a king of a country the right to nominate bishops - who can become bishops only by valid consecrations -, and another pope about 100 years later can declare that all orders of this country including the consecrations of bishops are null and void, including the consecration of those bishops for whom the nomination right was still accorded to the kings of the country until 100 years before. The only explanation I have is that at least at the times when the nomination right was still granted to the kings, the popes accepted also the consecrations, which consequently means that also the consecrations must have been valid at those days, because they were undertaken with the consent of the pope himself. And if there was no change in the consecration formulars after 1766 which would have made the consecrations invalid, then there is also no logical reason to declare them invalid later.

William Tighe said...


Ansgerus, your comment leaves me totally confused. Does it concern Anglican bishops, or Catholic bishops? Fr. Hunwicke's article refers to the nomination of English Catholic bishops (i.e., vicars apostolic) by James III; your question, on the other hand, seems to refer to the papal condemnation of Anglican Orders in Apostolicae Curae. I will add, however, that the main branch of the Anglican Nonjurors (they began to split into different groups from the 17-teens onward, much like the later "Continuing Anglicans") also sought approval from James III for their self-chosen bishops, at least (if I recall correctly) down to the 1730s.

Don Camillo SSC said...

In the end, government is with the consent of the people. If the people of England accept Elizabeth II as their lawful sovereign, who can gainsay them?

Rubricarius said...

A toast indeed to our Monarch and to Her Consort on the occasion of His ninety-fourth birthday.

Matthew Rose said...

Don Camillo, the power of government and the power to govern comes from God. "From the consent of the governed" is blasphemy.

ansgerus said...

William Tighe,

if until 1766 the Vatican granted the (heretic) Kings of England explicitly and only the right to nominate bishops for catholics in union with Rome, you are completely right. But isn't still in this case a contradiction remaining in asking the self-declared leader of a heretic entity to nominate bishops for the members of the one, holy Catholic Church? This historic example, however, might be an interesting hint for us today how to deal in a truly catholic way with heretic authorities: to acknoledge them as far as their role as leaders is concerned, when decisions have to be made, which they can execute even being heretics, without giving harm to the Holy Church, but do not to follow them in any of their heresies.

PseudonymousposterJohn said...

To address the concerns of William Tighe somewhat late in the day, I think more than arguably, there WAS a law of England on the succession before the Norman bastard turned up, but the idea that the skin heads brought order out of chaos is connived at by us all in not numbering any kings before them. The King was whomever the witan elected. It used to be the rule that it was whichever of the Athelings it elected, but after Canute killed so many of them, the talent pool had to be widened to include, er, Canute himself and later at least one of the Godwins.
Of course, inconveniently, the invading usurper, Guillaume le batard went to the trouble to get the then pope to issue him with a chitty to invade England (probably the eleventh century equivalent of a UN resolution, and on about the same level – not all holders of the office have been quite so esteemed as the current one). I think he may also have invoked right of conquest. That worked for Canute (the well-known damp murderer) – along with a speedy election where the electors were cowed by force-majeure, and See Below. It is certainly a pity that the last Atheling in possession for any period, Edward “the confessor” – the last of his brothers not to have been murdered by Canute – declared his support for the Bastard of Normandy. This was perhaps he was an early Europhile, and depressed about the prospects for England to make it on her own, what with danes rampaging about and murdering everyone, or else because they were all married to the same Norman woman, rather in the manner of the amusing joke that suggested that all the British Hanoverians were wed with ‘Lottie from Leipzig’. Which would explain a lot.
It is undoubtedly the case that those who adhere to the Plantagenet succession owe their allegiance to Lord Loudon, a man certainly over rather a lot of water from here. Was very struck by the tv show proving his case in which dear old ‘Sir’ Tony Robinson seemed positively to gloat over the idea of Princess Elizabeth of Saxe-Gotha, as he did not call her, having to do her own shopping in a supermarket somewhere in Germany. But no one has the bad taste to refer to that these days.
Anyhoo. Ernst-Stavro- Wilem van der Nass-ow, -wow wow, -Bow wow wow, wow-en, (whom I believe it was Geprge Lazenby conclusively proved was the then reigning Count Blofeld, and - tho’ Donald Pleasance already played him in the movie he wasn’t nearly creepy enough) did not. Invoke the right of conquest, that is. So he certainly never legitimately became monarch, with or without his wife, the first ungrateful daughter. The twentieth century constitutional historian Maitland goes into this in the proper detail. Somewhat briefly: the ‘convention’ said count Willem could be a king, and then count Willem said the convention could be a parliament, to make him a king. It obviously doesn’t work.

PseudonymousposterJohn said...

-Continued :
The events of 1688 were indeed disgraceful, but to the dismay of count Willem the majority in the real Parliament already extant in that year wanted no change of King, so he found it advisable to bring in his foreign troops to persuade the legislators. It was a military coup – only without the sunglasses and South American uniforms.

– Informative broadcast a little while ago in which the BBC stated, amongst other things, that Louis XIV could have blown the dutch fleet out of the water but decided not to as his government (wrongly) calculated a civil war would result in Britain, and that this was France’s greatest ever strategic mistake. To say the very least. Useful moral lesson: don’t desert your friends or try to play games with what you believe in.

But fortunately, standing aside from all that, His Majesty Francis II, By the Grace of God, etceera, etcetera, etcetera, is the senior living descendent of both Alfred the Great and that nice King Duncan whom Macbeth fought and killed -admittedly as well as from [that jammy little creep, Harry Tudor, and other] Tudors, about whom nobody admits to caring, whom I have heard described as robber barons – although that is probably a gross inflation of their status – so the union of the Crowns still subsists in the same person, as it has done since the demise of the extraordinarily long lived Edgar the Atheling, the last Englishman to be elected king by the witan, when the English succession went, by default, one supposes, to his sister, S. Margaret’s third and last remaining son. (If this were not so, the Norman Henry I would not have taken the trouble to marry S. Margaret’s daughter on the grounds that she was English royalty). Through which it has passed to (most of) the subsequent Kings of Scots. So none of this “III and VIII” business, please, Father. He was plain James VIII. To be a strict legitimist, one must be so in all generations.

Yay, the future Liechtenstein succession. If nothing else, their national bank could probably teach ours a thing or two about running a successful economy without huge and fraudulent inter-bank deals...

Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm. said...

Ansgerus, the Vatican never granted a heretic King the right to nominate Catholic Bishops. As Father pointed out, it was His Majesty King James VIII&III, a Catholic who should have been de facto king. In fact, he is buried in the crypt of St Peter's in Rome.

And, apropos the post and many of the comments: Give it up. As Catholics we should follow the Holy See's lead and since the death of King James on 1 January 1766, the Holy See has recognised King George III and his descendants as the legitimate Kings and Queens of Britain. And the Wittlesbachs aren't interested anyway. Years ago I wrote to Duke Franz's predecessor Duke Albrecht and asked his opinion. He replied that he was not interested in disturbing 'his cousin, Elizabeth' in the possession of her throne.