Today, November 8, is the Anniversary of the day when HRH the Prince Regent, later HM King Charles III, entered the Kingdom of England at the head of his army. An occasion for a loyal toast?
When the family was young, we used to have fireworks, and a bonfire on which an effigy was burned.
All things shall be well, when the King shall have his own again. Vivat Rex!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
King Charles II, surely?
And now there is a real King Charles III on the throne of the United Kingdom for the first time.
Dear Catholic England
I don't understand your point. Charles II died in 1685; I wasn't aware that he was ever granted a Commission of Regency.
Fr Hunwicke is referring to the events of 1745 from the standpoint of a non-juror.
Really Fr H, you do tease us! Surely you know that BPC was never King of Great Britain? It was the Parliament of Great Britain that had the capacity to decide the laws governing the succession to the throne of Great Britain, and those laws stated that George I, Elector of Hanover, and his eligible (i.e. Protestant) successors were Kings/Queens of Great Britain.
Dear Greypeople
What is your view of the legitimacy of the de facto 'parliaments'that sat during the 1650s?
And now Jacobites can openly toast His Majesty Charles III (nudge-nudge, wink-wink), and no-one need suspect a thing!
i must disagree with Grayman.
The authority of Parliament regarding the succession is an outgrowth of Henry VIIIs grasping, and the Protestant revolt which followed.
Dear Father H,
By "Greypeople", I take it you're addressing me, "Greyman 82".
The legitimacy of the parliaments of the 1650's is a subject about which I remember little, having been taught about it some 45 years ago at my C of E secondary school. Being realistic, possession is nine-tenths of the law, and the parliament that had fought against and removed the King from his office, and removed his head from the rest of his body, had the real political and military power to do so, even if its actions may theoretically be judged ultra vires. A later parliament *invited* Charles II to become king on the terms offered by that parliament, and a later one still judged that James II had abandoned his kingdom, and it then *invited* William of Orange to take over. Finally, the Act of Settlement 1701 created the simple rule excluding Catholics from the throne of England, quite properly in my view if the monarch of England is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Hankering after a past that in reality never was (e.g. the notion that Charles Edward Stuart was ever King Charles III) seems to me to be futile, bordering on Quixotic. We present-day Catholics are surely called to live in the world as it really is, which has its real, documented history. Refusing to accept the outcome of the 1745 Jacobite rising would be like refusing to accept the outcome of the Norman Conquest and taking the view that the descendants of Harold Godwinson are the true monarchs of England.
With best wishes,
Simon
Post a Comment