Prince Charles2b
Christian Persecution

Charles – Defender of the persecuted Faith

 

“God brings him here,” said Maijida Nissan, 64, speaking about the visit of the Prince of Wales to the Chaldean Church in England gathered in Acton yesterday, many of whom are exiled for fear of being beheaded by ISIS on YouTube. Mrs Nissan thanked the Prince for raising awareness of the appalling plight of persecuted Christians in Iraq and the religious ‘cleansing’ taking place throughout the wider Middle East. “It’s the least I can do,” he responded. She told him how much she prayed, and he replied: “We all do.”

The Prince of Wales was welcomed by Fr Nadheer Dako, parish priest of the Chaldean Catholic mission in London. He met Neville Kyrke-Smith, national director of Aid To The Church In Need, whose mission it is support persecuted Christians worldwide. “You’re doing a fantastic job,” the Prince told him. And he talked with Archbishop Habib Bacha of Basra, who read a letter from Patriarch Louis Sako which urged the establishment of a refuge, a safe haven in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq where persecuted minorities might be able to begin their lives again. They have lost their histories, communities and identities, but they have their lives – if half-living in wretchedness and squalor and is any kind of life.

The Chaldean choir sung, and the Lord’s Prayer was said in Aramaic, just as the Disciples might have heard it on the hills of Galilee two millennia ago. And then the Prince of Wales delivered a speech – quite a remarkable speech in many ways; spiritually profound, theologically nuanced and rich in compassion for those who are suffering for their faith. It wasn’t mentioned by the BBC or C4 News – he didn’t mention the Yazidis, you see.

It was a speech of empathy, grace and humanity. His mind is clearly troubled; his heart is with the “unbearable suffering” and “indescribable agony” of Iraq’s Christians – a church which can trace its origins back to the ministry of Thomas the Apostle. Their eradication is “beyond belief”, the Prince said.

For one who has dedicated his life to the cause of peace and to a greater understanding between people of faith, the intolerance of the Islamist creed is beyond comprehension. “It is utterly inconceivable that a person of one faith could find it in themselves to persecute a person of another faith,” he said. “Surely to do so brings nothing but dishonour on the faith of the persecutor?” And then he took the theme of the Apostle Paul in his speech at the Areopagus:

It seems to me that all faiths to some extent shine a light on the divine image in every human life. If that is so, then surely to destroy another human being is to desecrate the image of the Divine, and to do so in the name of faith is nothing less than a blasphemy?

As these truly dreadful images of executions and beheadings are transmitted around the world via the Internet I cannot help but feel that we are in serious danger, in this so-called modern age, of descending into the dark ages of public executions.

Man is made in the image of God, and God is love. To kill another human being is to destroy what God has created; to kill in His name is nothing short of blasphemy. The Prince of Wales is not ignorant about the God he worships, who desires a living relationship with all those who would follow Him. Nor is he blind to the malignant doctrine of those who worship the pernicious god of Jihad: it is an idol of death and destruction, spreading its bitter creed through the modern media. St Paul spoke against the idols of gold and silver: Prince Charles faces down those who idolise terror, brutality and bloodshed. He continued:

The Apostle Paul, who went from being a persecutor to being persecuted, encourages us to be steadfast in faith. And, at this most agonising time we have to struggle not to forget that Our Lord called upon us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute. As you and your families know only too well, that is easier said than done.

But by being with you this Christmas time I wanted to assure you of my constant thoughts and sympathy, and those of my family. As you know, the story of the Nativity ends with the Holy Family fleeing for refuge from persecution. You and your families are quite literally following in the footsteps of the Holy Family.

My prayers, then, go with you that, like them, you too will one day be able to return to your own country, and to the place that has nurtured both your life and your faith.

In the meantime, you can have no idea how much I feel for those who, as I speak, are suffering for their faith in such terrible circumstances.

The Prince of Wales is preoccupied by the suffering of Christians in the same way as St Luke was preoccupied by the suffering of Jesus (Lk 22:15; 24:26, 46 cf Acts 3:18; 17:3). The Prince empathises with the anguish and agony of persecuted Christians; Luke places great emphasis upon Isaiah 53. There are distinct parallels between Jesus’ ministry and apostolic ministry: eg Stephen’s trial mirrors that of Jesus (Acts 6:8-15 cf Lk 22:66-71 and esp. Acts 7:56 cf Lk 22:69); Paul’s passion (Acts 21:1-14); and the inevitable suffering of the disciples through persecution (Lk 21:12-19 cf Acts 6:9ff; 7:60; 12:2). Luke recognises that, just as the way of Jesus took him through opposition culminating in judicial murder, so too the path of the Word of God is beset by opposition.

Persecution and suffering offer an opportunity for gospel witnessing (Acts 6:10 cf Lk 21:12-15); indeed, persecution led to the flight not only of the Holy Family from Bethlehem, but of many Christians from Jerusalem, thus assisting the spread of the gospel throughout Judæa (cf Lk 9:5). As you read the Acts of the Apostles, by the middle of chapter nine it is apparent that fleeing persecution and suffering resulted in churches being established throughout Judæa, Galilee and Samaria, and by chapter 20, throughout most of the Eastern Mediterranean.

The restoration of the Kingdom of God is an eschatological expectation. The Prince of Wales engenders hope through the apocalypse and urges steadfastness through suffering. The Temple may have been destroyed, but the End is not immanent, even though it must surely feel that way for Believers in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

In the meantime, we have the joy of a Chaldean Christian community established in Acton with its own eschatological insights, and they pray in Aramaic for the Parousia. As the Prince of Wales left the church, Maijida Nissan said: “I am very happy that he came here, and thanks to God that he came here.” And we are happy, too, that 4000 Chaldeans may live safely among us, helping to spread the light and love of Christ in London, and to England, and to the United Kingdom, and thence to Europe and, God willing, to the ends of the earth.

  • Stig

    You know I’ve suddenly developed a new repect for Prince Charles. Excellent article.

  • Shadrach Fire

    From an apologist of Islamic Culture, to a defender of the persecuted faithful. I too see Charlie in a different light and God Bless him for making this bold stand.

  • dannybhoy

    I think Prince Charles is coming of age spiritually, and hopefully and prayerfully we may see him emerge as a leader King addressing the big issues of our time. Like all of us he has had his growing pains, embarrassments and failures.
    Yet he continues in my eyes to be the Royal who “gets it.” He gets the importance and responsibilities of the role, and the opportunities it affords to help provide guidance for a country that has seriously lost it’s way and lost its vision.
    I sincerely wish him well, and I rather think his two boys will draw inspiration from their pop’s example.

    • alternative_perspective

      My thoughts also. I once thought him an embarrassment but he seems to be ministering from his brokeness with great compassion and wisdom.
      I sincerely hope he has come to realise that plurality cannot exist in a relativistic vacuum but only by grace, only by the benevolence of a secure and privileged philosophy or religion, i.e. the Christian faith. Like a mustard tree in which the birds of the air can find rest; rather than a scorched patch of secular land or the briars of a thorn bush.

      • dannybhoy

        Poetically put, Sir.

  • Uncle Brian

    Is this the same Prince Charles who once said that when he succeeds to the throne
    he wants to be known as “Defender of the Faiths”, later amended to “Defender of
    Faith”? Has he changed his mind, or is that still his intention?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html

    • dannybhoy

      Who knows UB. The point is that he does what we expect a royal in an influential position to do; he speaks up and influences. I hope he realises now that Islam has to be treated very carefully, because however practiced the seeds of intolerance, oppression and cruelty are found there.
      We shall be supporting “Aid to the Church in Need” http://www.acnuk.org/ and “Open Doors” http://www.opendoorsuk.org/ this year.

    • alternative_perspective

      I was thinking the same thing, perhaps a little eschatalogical fervour has sharpened his thinking and put steel in his spine? I can only hope… and pray.

  • Philip___

    A good and encouraging post. It is good the Prince of Wales is continuing to speak up for persecuted Christians especially the appallingly persecuted Christian community in the M East (more than our ruling metropolitan lib-left elite and their government and their media – such as the BBC – is doing).

    Perhaps he could maintain his constitutional requirement to defend “the” faith (i.e., the established reformed protestant faith), but adding a pledge of a more general commitment to defend freedom of (any) faith, thus including his wish to be “defender of faith”

    • Leacock

      Perhaps he should just leave well enough alone? If he tinkers then why shouldn’t the monarchy be tinkered out of existence, or given to the Jacobites or any number of things.

  • Linus

    The whole point of a constitutional monarchy (if a point there be) is that it’s impartial and adaptable. That’s why it’s still there. The queen has survived by shutting her mouth and dressing like a pantomime dame for 60 years. People think of her as an unchanging rock in the midst of a turbulent stream, but she’s actually more of an unchanging buoy. She herself never changes, but she bobs along with the flow and never tries to stand in its way.

    If the prince of Wales takes a stand and tries to set himself up as the “defender of Faith”, he’ll be fixing himself in one point of the stream and trying to resist the current. The waters will rise around him and what future for the monarchy then? Washed away by a tide of secularism? Because it’s secularism that will define 21st century Britain, not faith. If the prince of Wales wants to position himself and the institution he represents as a barrier in that stream, he’ll be taking a great risk. Does he have the power to hang on and stem the flow? He’ll have to show fortitude and character magnitudes greater than anything we’ve seen yet. Only a truly great man can stem the flow of history. Is the prince of Wales that man?

    I think his mother realizes his limitations and will hang on for dear life in an attempt to outlive her son and pass it all on to the next generation. And they’ve already made it clear where they’ll take the monarchy. None of these highfalutin’ and anachronistic ideas about defending faith. They’re already papping their way around the world and rubbing shoulders with rockstars and reality tv “personalities”. That’s the future of your monarchy, as glitzy celebrities on the front pages of tabloids and glossy magazines. And that’s one role Charles just isn’t suited to play.

    So hang on in there, queenie. Just a few more years and you’ll be able to pass on the fluorescent colored mantle directly to the balding grandson and his photogenic Stepford wife. Monarchy will be relegated to the pages of OK and Hello Magazines, but at least it will still be there. And Charles has a decent consolation prize at Highgrove. Let him bumble off there and grow his organic cabbages and be content.

    • dannybhoy

      But Messieur Linus,
      (Back again I see.. 🙂 )
      although you are quite right
      “The whole point of a constitutional monarchy (if a point there be) is
      that it’s impartial and adaptable. That’s why it’s still there.”
      But like salt, once it has lost its savour it is fit for nothing but to be cast out..
      The Queen has served this country well for most of her reign, but the challenges facing this non homogenous society require a voice, a “tuning fork” if you will, that is in tune with the people and can speak up when necessary.
      In past years, my life time; we were pretty much a homogenous society and were bound together by a history of internal and external conflict. We had Navy Days, parades, celebrations and traditions that everyone pretty much understood and enjoyed.
      That has gone. Now we have different cultures, different faiths and different practices, all staking out their own territory in the major cities and rarely intermingling.
      The good thing is that it has served to shake up the established order and especially the Christian Church (ALL the Christian Church, Jack).
      The really bad thing is that we are seeing things being practiced here which are alien to our culture and values. Trust is being broken down and suspicion and fear are taking hold. Our military are told (in their own country! not to wear their uniforms in public. Now the police are being threatened.
      So to have a royal who does think deeply about things, who has faced his own failings, but continues to take an interest in what is going on in society, is in my opinion no bad thing.
      Otherwise I see no future for the Royal Family.

      • Linus

        There’s only one of me, so no need to refer to me in the plural. Well, almost plural. Plural minus a rather crucial consonant. But who’s going to quibble over a missing letter?

        In any case, what you say above is demonstrably false. There’s one overriding British characteristic that all of your myriad separate and hermetically sealed communities share. It’s called “OK Magazine”. Or “Closer”. Or “Daily Mail”.

        This is precisely the level at which the younger generation of the royal family is pitching itself. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists can all flick through the pages of glossy mags and gawp at photographs of Kate Middleton wearing the latest in tawdry Top Shop fashion and feel all warm and proud and British inside. That’s what your monarchy is going to become: a state sponsored extension of the British “fashion” industry (such as it is) and a circulation booster for the gutter press.

        Poor old Charles doesn’t stand a chance in that game. So let’s hope the old bird doesn’t fall off her perch too soon, eh?

        • Lol ………..

          You dare talk about a disconnect between reality and symbols of national identity ! Have you listened to the words of the French National anthem? And you laugh at the British Monarchy !

          “Grab your weapons, citizens!
          Form your batallions!
          Let us march! Let us march!
          May impure blood
          Water our fields!”

          ROFL …………

          • dannybhoy

            “May impure blood
            Water our fields!”

            Jack you do know that this refers to English Catholics who were afraid to stand by their aristocratic brethren in France,,,,,,?

          • It wouldn’t surprise Jack. France has been under judgement since it murdered so many of its Catholic clergy. However, it is Jack’s understanding these lyrics were directed at the foreign armies of Prussia and Austria who were invading at the time.

          • dannybhoy

            I think that was part of it, but the fact is that English Catholics as much as they hated Protestants and Non Conformists

            (Yippeee!)

            did not go to succour their French brothers in faith..

            The tumbrils rolled on. The ” dames âgées” continued knitting…

          • Linus

            Let’s look at the words of your national anthem shall we?

            #1 “God save our gracious queen”
            Translation: Imaginary sky fairy grant the life we hope will follow death, even though we have no proof of it, to our elderly, portly and badly dressed hereditary tribal leader

            #2 “God save our noble queen”
            Translation: Imaginary sky fairy grant the life we hope will follow death, even though we have no proof of it, to our hereditary tribal leader of middling birth whose grandmother was the daughter of a Dutch vicar and who wouldn’t qualify as royal, let alone noble, in any continental monarchy, bar Holland of course. Which says it all really…

            #3 “God save the queen”
            Translation: Imaginary sky fairy grant the life we hope will follow death, even though we have no proof of it, to the hereditary tribal leader (yada, yada, yada…)

            #4 “Send her victorious”
            Translation: Let her live out her life in luxury while we send hapless young men and women overseas to wage unjustifiable and illegal wars in which they will die on her behalf while she spends our money on horse racing and odd hats

            #5 “Happy and glorious”
            Translation: So what if she’s half cut on gin and Dubonnet most of the time and covers herself from head to toe in the most vulgar and bourgeois collection of stones you’ll ever see outside a Gulf monarchy? We think she looks lovely. Everyone else on the other hand…

            #6 “Long to reign over us”
            Translation: Please, please, please, PLEASE don’t let her die before her son!

            #7 “God save the queen” (see #3 above)

          • “Let’s go children of the fatherland,
            The day of glory has arrived!
            Against us tyranny’s
            Bloody flag is raised! Bloody flag is raised!
            In the countryside, do you hear
            The roaring of these fierce soldiers?
            They come right to our arms
            To slit the throats of our sons, our friends!”

            ROFL …………

            Jack has heard the French want to erect a statue to honour the man who killed Hitler.

          • Linus

            How about the last verse of “Imaginary sky fairy grant eternal life to the hereditary tribal leader”? You hardly ever hear it sung any more. I wonder why?

            Lord, grant that Marshall Wade
            May, by Thy mighty aid,
            Victory bring.
            May he sedition hush,
            And like a torrent rush,
            Rebellious Scots to crush.
            God save the Queen !

            English contempt for Scottish lives is so hard to conceal, isn’t it? When you treat your own countrymen as rebels to be crushed, the words about murderous tyranny in our national anthem don’t sound so very strange.

          • “We will enter the pit
            When our elders are no longer there;
            There, we will find their dust
            And the traces of their virtues. And the traces of their virtues.
            Much less eager to outlive them
            Than to share their casket,
            We will have the sublime pride
            Of avenging them or following them.”

            (Or, alternatively, the French could just surrender and rely on others to do their fighting – there’s sublime pride in that too.)

            ROFL …………..

          • William Lewis

            We don’t sing that verse any more but at the time of the Jacobite Rebellion sedition and rebellion were important matters. The victors would determine of who really would rule over us.

            By the way, if you want to be taken seriously then “sky fairy” really doesn’t cut it. It just looks petulant, tawdry and secular (in a bad way).

          • Linus

            It’s convenient shorthand for “ego projection of the self-deified believer contemplated in the mind’s eye as a perfected superhero.”

            I would use the longer description, but for brevity’s sake…

          • William Lewis

            “It’s convenient shorthand for “ego projection of the self-deified believer contemplated in the mind’s eye as a perfected superhero.””

            Now you are pretty hot on proof, so I presume that you have a proof for this assertion?

          • Linus

            Fairies and gnomes are commonly agreed to be imaginary. Mainly because we have no proof they exist. Lots of stories, but no proof.

            Similarly we have no proof that God exists. Lots of stories. But no proof.

            Bring me some proof of fairies and gnomes and, if it stands up to scrutiny, I’ll believe in them. Bring me some solid proof of God and I’ll believe in him too.

            In the absence of all proof, they remain fictional beings. And the origins of fictional beings lie in the subconscious of human beings. We invent all sort of supernatural explanations for things we don’t understand.

          • William Lewis

            So your proof that God is an “ego projection of the self-deified believer” is that you don’t have any proof that God exists? Unfortunately, that is a non sequitur and your proof, therefore, fails.

          • Does French character exist?
            We have no proof …… lots of stories ……..

          • Linus

            Well we definitely have proof of the francophobia of certain Englishmen.

            Francophobe, homophobe … what other strings do you have to your bow?

            No, on second thoughts I don’t want to know. Looking into a cesspool is bad enough even when you can only see – and smell – what bubbles up to the surface. Probing deeper can only result in an even more malodorous experience.

          • Happy Jack says if you have such an aversion to malodorous experiences then you must leave France as soon as possible or avoid all public spaces. And, do not explore French history since the 18th century. Best hang onto your pretences; just know what they are. Far better to be deluded and know it, than crazy and not.

          • Cressida de Nova

            It is true the English are not a civilised people. Prince Charles’ declared that he wanted to be his mistress’ tampon .The queen’s contemptuous behaviour to Christ’ s representative on earth ,His Holiness Pope Francis, by presenting him with home grown cabbages, made the monarchy a laughing stock around the world. Two low points from which recovery is not possible.
            More than 50% of the British when surveyed wish to live somewhere else. Not the case for the French.These cold unhappy English people have no joie de vie and have no love of God. Their religion was founded by a king who was a promiscuous serial killer.

            None of these commenters who are bullying you are Christians, regardless of how they classify themselves. No Christian allows bullying of this kind without intervening. Blood sports are not a Christian way of life.

            The French will always be envied for their civilised culture and emphasis on beauty .Children who are from bicultural backgrounds always always regard themselves as French rather than English. There is a reason for this. Vive La France !

          • William Lewis

            My religion was founded by an uncivilised, Palestinian Jew who associated with lepers, prostitutes and tax collectors and donated His blood for the “sport” of the religious authorities. He certainly wasn’t envied for His civilised culture.

          • Linus

            Would you call it bullying? I treat it more as you might treat a pesky mosquito buzzing around your head at night, desperate for a bite and a suck. That’s the only way it can survive. It’s in its nature to torment. It is, after all, just an insect.

            My mother was English. A beautiful, intelligent and dignified woman who exemplified what the English can become when you take them out of the mud they’re born into and plant them in a more fertile soil. Of course she was just 18 when she met my father and the brutishness of English life hadn’t yet coarsened her beyond repair.

            The war probably helped. Rationing forced the English to eat sensibly for the only time in their history, so at 18 my mother was a slim, blonde, blue-eyed beauty and, once transplanted to France, remained that way all her days. My aunts on the other hand, just as blooming as their sister when they were in their teens, soon thickened on a post-war English diet into obese and unhappy harpies.

            I remember their all-too-frequent visits, accompanied by husbands who smelled of camphor and dental plaque and said nothing but “phaw! phaw! phaw! can’t get a decent brendy in Frogland and dem fine gell that sister of yours!!!”, which of course made the aunts even more ill-tempered.

            Maman wore Chanel and Balenciaga and was always a dream of beauty. The aunts wore something useful from the Army and Navy Stores and looked like perfect frights. It was embarrassing being seen in public with them, so my sisters and I would run ahead during our evening promenades en famille, while my mother would stoically link arms with whichever aunt happened to be encumbering us with her presence, and attempt to steer her through the crowds like a tug boat steers an oil tanker through icy Arctic seas. Heads would turn. Eyes would stare. Gloved hands would rise to cover tittering mouths. “C’est la deuxième vague du Débarquement !” they would whisper. “Sauf que cette fois-ci, c’est le raz-de-marée !”

            Ah yes, I know all about England and the English. That cursed blood runs in my veins too, although happily it seems to be recessive enough never to have reared its ugly head and turned me into Billy Bunter. I have a sister who struggles (quite successfully I might add, but still it’s a struggle) with her weight, which is something we’ve always put down to “sang impur”, but otherwise our French heritage keeps us in perfect health.

            So really, I do understand what motivates the viciousness I encounter on this site. Envy has always been the besetting sin of the English. They want what everyone else has and will stop at no calumny or insult in order to make themselves feel better at not having it.

          • À boire ou je tue le chien !

            Linus … nobody is “desperate for a bite and a suck” of you ! Goodness, do get a grip.

            And your little biography pinpoints the root of your sexual confusion. With assistance it should be possible to resolve your early childhood confusion.

          • Linus

            Ah, legally actionable hate speech at last. I knew it would come. It always does sooner or later.

            And I quote …

            “Under the Act website operators can be pursued by those who claim they have been defamed as a result of comments on their site even if they are not the author of those comments. The new Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations sets out the process operators have to adhere to in order to escape liability for comments complained of.

            Upon notification, authors of the comments would have five days to issue a written response outlining whether they consent to the removal of the comments from the site. A failure to respond would place website operators under the obligation to delete the comments within 48 hours of that five day deadline expiring if they are to avoid exposure to liability.”

            I believe that telling a gay man his sexual orientation is a “sexual deviance”, which the BPA and other professional accreditation bodies absolutely refute, is considered to be slander under UK law.

            Does this site intend to let such comments stand?

          • “Ah, legally actionable hate speech at last. I knew it would come. It always does sooner or later.”

            You had better inform the weblog owner of your complaint via his email address and ask him to remove Jack’s comments.

            Before doing so you might want to consider the meaning of the word “deviant”. You are an active homosexual so your sexual inclinations deviate from the usual i.e. 98% of the population. Yes? Jack would also say they deviate from the God given purpose of the gift of sexuality – that homosexuality is a wrongly directed (perverse) use of this gift. Jack cites the Bible and Catholic Church as his authority and not the BPA.

          • Linus

            The Catholic Church has no authority, neither in Britain nor in France. Its doctrine does not stand above civil law.

            Let’s see what the owners of this blog make of your libelous statements, shall we?

          • >”Let’s see what the owners of this blog make of your libelous statements, shall we?

            Eh bien, nous allons attendre le résultat. Espérons que Jack ne aura pas une grenouille jn sa gorge.

          • William Lewis

            “Does this site intend to let such comments stand?”

            Oh dear. I had briefly thought that you were interested in argument but it seems that your only concerns are grandstanding and silencing opposing views. Pathetic.

          • Linus

            Defamation is defamation. Or should I accept even the grossest and vilest of gratuitous insults for the sake of argument?

            Only bullies hide behind the right to free speech in order to insult and denigrate their opponents. And by supporting such bullies, it is YOU who render yourself ridiculous.

            And please, stop massacring my language with more poorly spelt and impolite bons mots such as your effort above. Confusion about the sex of the typical Englishwoman can perhaps be forgiven. After all, anything could be going on underneath her poorly made, ill fitting, ill assorted and woefully garish clothes. But une blague has always been unmistakably feminine, so there’s no excuse for getting it wrong. Better not to attempt the language if you’re going to make mistakes a 5 year old would be ashamed of.

            Et qui vous autorise à me tutoyer, enfin ? La vulgarité de ces pauvres Rosbifs mal éduqués est vraiment stupéfiante !

          • William Lewis

            “Defamation is defamation. Or should I accept even the grossest and vilest of gratuitous insults for the sake of argument?”

            You have no character to defame. You are anonymous. You could even be multiple people. You are a gratuitous racist who is happy to dish it out but cannot take it. Only bigoted bullies hide behind “the right” to silence people under the guise of being insulted.

            However, you are right that I should have paid closer attention to the gender of a joke. Mixing up genders is not a laughing matter.

          • William Lewis

            Come now Linus, don’t be so hard on your maternal lineage. At least you are able to express your existential angst in elegant English prose. That must be some consolation.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Another example of a bully claiming victimhood. Your loathing of all things English seems to be eating you up. If you post vile insults on here about England do not whine when it comes back. Oh, of course, you see it as the buzzing of a mosquito whilst firing off another round of insults.

          • Linus

            I only respond to what’s already been hurled at me.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Well… you should have married a French Catholic and then you would not have the needed to ask this question!
            Your bullying of Linus is something I cannot condone. I expect it from the others but you are supposed to know better…don’t make you father’s sacrifice worth nothing !

          • Cressie, you have the spirit of la Pucelle d’Orléans.
            Linus is not being bullied. He is being given lessons into his nation’s history. It surprises me French ‘men’ can find wives at all as their women know what pussies they are. There are exceptions, of course, but very few. Linus is not one of them.

          • dannybhoy

            “By the way, if you want to be taken seriously then “sky fairy” really doesn’t cut it.”
            Well said William. I am glad that our Linus returns again and again, but just as I wouldn’t insult him, I don’t want him to insult the Almighty.

          • William Lewis

            I’m not sure that his coming back is a good for him as it just seems to inflame his anti Christian/British/English hatred.

          • carl jacobs

            Linus’ posts are seven parts ad hominem and three parts tu quoque fallacy. When pressed, he collapses into incoherent sputtering rage. I wouldn’t expect him to avoid intentional insults – whether directed at God or man.

          • bluedog

            ‘Jack has heard the French want to erect a statue to honour the man who killed Hitler.’
            Tricky. That was Hitler.

          • Doh ……….. ;o)
            (Do no tell the French)

          • dannybhoy

            Linus, I am quite broadminded when it comes to criticism. but my brother Jack is both learned and serious. Making fun of his views does not sit easy with me.
            Please show some respect.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Goodness! Such bile…

        • dannybhoy


          Sorry
          I thought there were lots of you going under the name of Linus..
          Your compassionate sense of allowance for the elderly is so well hidden, one would be forgiven for assuming it to be non existent..
          So you’re actually on your own here then?
          A self avowed, Christian hating, God disbelieving, homosexual gentleman who keeps coming back here –perhaps because he finds it strangely warming that those same nasty deluded Christians actually care for him?
          Okay.
          Go on.
          As Frasier might say,
          “I’m listening!”

    • Coniston

      “Only a truly great man can stem the flow of history.” In the 1930s some thought that Nazi Germany was the future. Many more, in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s – and later – believed that Soviet communism was the future. Such people included many of the supposedly most intelligent people of the time. Today there are still a few aging academics who mourn the death of Stalin. To talk about ‘the flow of history’ is to assume that we know where ‘history’ is taking us (in the secular world). We do not.

      • Linus

        When 90% of the population identifies as secular, you can be pretty confident about the future, bar unforeseeable crises of course.

        Nazi Germany fell after invasion by an enemy army. Had that army not invaded, it’s likely Germany would still be in the grip of National Socialism, or something very much like it.

        So where’s the army that’s going to invade Britain and eradicate secularism?

        Soviet communism held sway for the greater part of a century. It didn’t fall overnight and when it did, it certainly wasn’t as a result of the efforts of one man.

        One man can’t effect radical change. Certainly not one with as checkered a past and as tarnished a credibility as the prince of Wales. He’s also getting on and if his mother lives as long as her mother, he may never be king. As the “last best hope” for the reChristianization of Britain, he doesn’t strike fear into the hearts of wicked and godless Atheists. Believe me, he really does not…

        • Coniston

          An army is not (in the near future) likely to invade Britain. The ‘army’ is already here, in our land. The long-term future is not likely to be secular – it has no defences against militant Islam. The future (eventually) will be largely Christian or totally Islamic.

          • carl jacobs

            The future is more likely to be pagan. That is man’s natural state, and that is where the culture will probably return when the shell of secularism crumbles.

          • Coniston

            I would agree that paganism is the default religion of mankind. But I doubt if it will win in a conflict with Islam – pagans are not even ‘peoples of the book’. They will be exterminated.

          • Linus

            Islam is a child’s bogey man. A role the English seem to need to be filled by someone, anyone, as long as they’re identifiably foreign and therefore detestable.

            It used to be the French. Then it was the Germans. Then the Soviets. Now it’s Islam. Of course you continue to hate all of your previous bogey men too. But now your worst venom is reserved for Muslims and their religion, which is no more bloody, savage and despotic than your own.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            No, it still is the French, rest assured…

          • William Lewis

            Not bogey men. They all threatened the British way of life and so needed to be terminated with extreme prejudice. From Napoleon to ISIS. Plus ca change…

          • CliveM

            How delicious, from the nation with the highest levels of racism, anti semitism and as previously mentioned homophobia in Western Europe a lecture on tollerance!

            Don’t know about a politeness by-pass, but you’ve certainly had an irony one.

          • carl jacobs

            Coniston

            There won’t be a dominant Islam. The emergence of Islam will prove impossible for secularism to confront. This will bring forth a pagan counter-reaction that will be both ugly and malignant.

          • William Lewis

            Agreed. Secularism is just the door for Islam to come in. The people will either turn to God or abandon Him. The only certainty is that the future will be God’s.

        • dannybhoy

          I don’t expect him to change things. Just to speak up for what is good, what is in our best national interests is enough.
          No one else (apart from UKIP) is.
          They want to turn this into a European offshore housing estate, controlled and supplied by mainland Europe.

  • carl jacobs

    So, I’m failing to see the “Defender of the Faith” aspect in all this. I see a synchretistic reference:

    It seems to me that all faiths to some extent shine a light on the divine image in every human life.

    I see empathy and sympathy. But how does that rise to a “Defense of the Faith?” I see no apologetic. I see no assertion of the truth of Christianity to the exclusion of all other competing truth systems. Quite the opposite given the above quite. It goes without saying that I see no action beyond making a speech. So what is the defense that he is mounting?

    • Come now, Carl. He did qualify his statement with: “If that is so …” What he then said was entirely correct: ” … then surely to destroy another human being is to desecrate the image of the Divine, and to do so in the name of faith is nothing less than a blasphemy?”

      • dannybhoy

        Cut him some slack.
        His ma had nothing to say, even when we signed over our sovereignty…..

        • CliveM

          Now now Dannybhoy if she had gone against Parliament you would of had her lose her head!!

          • dannybhoy

            Nonsense.
            We can’t sweep aside centuries of allegiance to a sovereign monarch just like that,
            (Although sadly that is in fact what happened.)
            Consider for one moment the generations of British men and men of the Empire who swore an oath of allegience to either King or Queen, and sacrificed their lives in defence of Queen and country.
            What was all that about?

            All those millions marching off to war, shedding blood, losing limbs and experiencing destitution and poverty upon return..
            All to be rendered meaningless by the putting of a pen to a contract…
            Nah, sorry Clive, but I’m of old yeoman stock and my ruler royal or not, has to earn my loyalty.

          • CliveM

            So what your saying is, and this takes into account previous comments, the Monarch isn’t allowed to overrule parliament (no Devine right for DB) and off with their head if they do, except in those occasions when they should overrule the sovereignty of Parliament!!

            It’s all very confusing. A constitutional monarch must be a constitutional monarch, except when they mustn’t???!!!

          • dannybhoy

            Well a constitutional dummy would serve the same purpose then wouldn’t it?
            What I’m saying is that I want the royal family to continue, but to have the right to speak put on matters of national importance. That’s matters churchial, economic, defence, freedom or treachery against our historical state.
            Otherwise who really speaks up for us the people?
            Politicians? Don’t make me laugh! They’re into votes, not veracity,
            If they are overruled by the majority fair enough, but for Goodness sake have a say!

          • Linus

            Who speaks up for Christians? Who needs to speak up for them? They can speak up for themselves. And they do. Frequently. Constantly, in fact. Christian whining forms a constant backdrop to all our lives. They moan and they shriek and they complain and when the majority overrules them, they scream about “persecution” and “oppression”.

            Charles Mountbatten’s voice is just one more in the choir.

          • dannybhoy

            You make oi larf Linus.
            Larf and larf and larf.
            You get on that little soapbox of yours and off you rant..
            I’m beginning to suspect that we’re now the only people who listen….

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Do they do Politeness Bypass Surgery in French hospitals? Was it painful?

          • carl jacobs

            Madam.

            Winston Churchill would be proud of you.

          • Linus

            Our doctors heal people. Yours just give them breast augmentations and MRSA.

            France tops the annual list of best medical services in the world every year. Britain comes somewhere around 20th place. Italy beats you. SPAIN beats you. Even bankrupt Greece beats you!!!

            If you have any surgery scheduled in the near future, come to France on a day trip and “fall ill” once you disembark. You’ll be rushed to hospital and treated by competent professionals rather than Eastern European zero-hour contract nurse aids, no two of whom speak the same language and none of whom can say more than 5 words in yours.

          • Phil R

            Linus

            You have a point about the NHS

          • Linus

            The issue is indeed dead. The politician calling for the repeal of the equal marriage law knows that according to our constitution, it is not possible to repeal a right once it has been accorded. He’s just playing to the crowd so he can persuade a few National Front members and Manif Pour Tous nazis to vote for him.

            I was in Paris when the Manifs Pour Tous took place. I felt like a Jew must have felt in Berlin in 1933.

            First they rally to restrict our rights.

            Then they rally to elect fascist leaders.

            Then they stage a coup d’état and suspend the constitution.

            Then the concentration camp doors open…

          • Phil R

            It is not Le Pen it is Sarkozy calling for the repeal.

            Anyway who’s rights are being restricted at the present time?

            Gays or straight?

            I’ll give you a clue it is not the former!

          • Linus

            Le Pen has retired and his daughter now leads the National Front. Had I been referring her I would have written “she” not “he”.

            Sarkozy is indeed the politician in question and he’s calling for something he knows he can’t get. The question is closed and can only be reopened by modifying the constitution. In order to do this he’ll need a 2/3 supermajority, which in French politics means ALL parties must agree on the change, which the Socialists will never do. So equal marriage and adoption are here to stay.

            And as for the rights of straights, I’m not aware that the equal marriage laws prevent them from marrying or adopting. Their rights have been restricted in no way whatsoever. This was the opinion of the Conseil Constitutionnel when it rejected an appeal against the equal marriage law by a group of right wing députés who claimed prejudice against straight married couples, children, indeed just about everyone. Their appeal was rejected in no uncertain terms. Case closed.

          • Phil R

            Being reasonable and sensible is not a characteristic I would ascribe to the French!

            That is what makes them interesting.

            The sensible course perhaps is indeed to give up and accept it.

            The fact that they refuse to do so I find interesting and encouraging.

            I think we could do with some French politics over here. It would make a change from our grey men and women with no passion, no ideas and no principles

          • Royinsouthwest

            Our laws are not the laws of the Meads and the Persians. They can be changed. We used to have the right to carry weapons.

          • CliveM

            “Otherwise who speaks for us”

            That’s meant to be the commons and if you feel the country is being betrayed, that us were your complaint is.

          • dannybhoy

            See above my friend.

          • carl jacobs

            I thought the Monarchy served as a symbol of national unity, and therefore sought to stay above partisanship.

          • dannybhoy

            What is national unity.? Like the US our politics are in a mess essentially because politicians have convinced thenselves that they are so in control of the whole shebang they don’t need to involve the people.
            They hardly serve the interests of those that elect them anymore; they serve the interests of the party, the big players and those offering the bag of goodies once they leave government. It’s corrupt.
            Our monarchy has been neutered, and is intended for photo opportunities and the feel good factor only

          • CliveM

            It does. What DB is essentially saying is that we should be looking towards the unelected monarchy to rescue us from the elected Commons!!

            It’s not really a position that would be sustainable for a constitutional Monarch.

          • carl jacobs

            We can’t sweep aside centuries of allegiance to a sovereign monarch just like that

            Ummm… We can’t?

            Asks the Token American on the weblog 🙂

          • dannybhoy

            That was a very different situation Token. and any man or woman of integrity would agree with
            “No taxation without representation!”
            We still ain’t really got that; those that tax us are still the ones who don’t really represent us…

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Yes but that was very naughty of you…

          • dannybhoy

            You’re funny!

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I much prefer the Plantagenets…but Bourbons are acceptable with cocoa…

          • carl jacobs

            Bourbon is just another name for whiskey. It’s awful. A mixture of turpentine and gasoline.

          • dannybhoy

            All American liquor that I’ve tasted is pretty grim. A little bit oily and sweet,
            Have you tried the Irish whiskeys yet? I don’t run to Scots single malts, but I find the “budget brands” catch the back of my throat in a way the Irish don’t.
            Must be the blood… 😉

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Ah yes, dear Carol, but we have a chocolate biscuit here called a Bourbon…

          • bluedog

            Well, now that DNA testing seems to have proved that Catherine Swinford was unfaithful to John of Gaunt, the Windsors are looking slightly shakey. Perhaps, Lady Proudie, we should annoint you as our true Queen.

      • carl jacobs

        Jack

        Except the “if that is so” was meant to be read as “Since that is so.” The first sentence therefore becomes the justification for the second. There isn’t any actual conditional in the sentence.

        • And yet ….. there is some truth in the proposition that “all faiths to some extent shine a light on the divine image in every human life.”
          He should have gone on and affirmed his faith in one, true God, revealed in Jesus in Christ.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh, I can’t wait to hear your explanation about how the Eastern pantheistic religions shine a light on the divine image they deny exists.

            Who is the light, Jack? Without the light, there is only darkness.

          • Charles did say some truth” and to “some extent”.

            Happy Jack has always seen Eastern religions as more of a threat to Western Christianity than Islam.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            The point being that there is no light in false religion. It therefore cannot illuminate anything no matter the limited extent of illumination claimed.

          • Carl, there may be “rays of that truth” in other faiths.

          • Royinsouthwest

            If the moral teachings of another religion are broadly in agreement with the 10 Commandments then how can you claim that there is no light in it? St Paul thought there was some light in Greek philosophies.

          • carl jacobs

            But there isn’t broad agreement on the ten commandments. It falls at the first hurdle. You can’t worship God without knowing who He is. The overlap you perceive is the result of general revelation that us access let to every man. It does not originate in the vanity of false religion.

            Paul used the unknown God as an entry point. That doesn’t mean he credited the pagan ideas behind it with divine wisdom. How can the foolishness of men that results in paganism ever produce wisdom?

    • Martin

      Carl

      Sadly Charles was taught by those wishy washy Anglican clerics of the 50s & 60s who also wrecked the CoE.

  • Inspector General

    Well done the Prince of Wales, says this man. But Sir, tell us. Are you still the defender of all faiths, or have you in recent years qualified that claim. Will we in future see you continuing to jaw with the representatives of the perpetrators of much of the world’s persecution. Or are you wary of whom you give credence to by honouring them with your presence.

    In other words, are you still sitting on the fence, so to speak, or has the time come for you to jump firmly onto the side of all that is good and honourable – all that is God’s….

  • Inspector General

    By the way, those who detract from our constitutional monarchy should reflect on who our head of state would otherwise be. It’s going to be a politician obviously and a very senior one at that.

    One puts it to you all, that had it not been for our glorious queen, we would have had to endure the likes of Presidents Heath, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair.

    Need one say more…

    Well, yes one can. Consider President Cameron or President Clegg or President Millibean. Remember this, the present crowd who grace our parliament are as thick as thieves and will no doubt scheme it so they all have a go. Oh yes they will…

    Urrgh !!

    • dannybhoy

      Well said that man.
      Clean underpants for you..!

    • carl jacobs

      The Queen is head of state in name only. She has no power. She is in fact a fit symbol prepared to represent the modern deistic view of God – feted and powerless. What then is the functional difference between a President and a Prime Minister?

      • Inspector General

        There is power there, exercised discreetly. Remember, the Prime Minister reports to her weekly, not the other way round.

        • carl jacobs

          So there is power, but it can’t be seen and it is never apparently exercised. I see.

          • That’s it Carl. We do things differently in Britain.

          • carl jacobs

            So by analogy should I also say that there is good food in Britain, but it is never prepared and never eaten?

          • If you ever had dinner at Jack’s house you would experience a culinary delight.

          • Royinsouthwest

            That sounds rather like the arguments some atheists use against the existence of God.

        • dannybhoy

          We don’t really know that Inspector.
          It’s slightly comforting to believe it, but we don’t know.
          Now had our Queen come out at the time Lee Rigby was brutally introduced to disapproval Islamic style, and had said

          “Lee was one of my soldiers. He swore an oath to serve me.
          Orf with their heads!”
          That would have been comforting….

      • William Lewis

        A prime minister is the first minister of the legislature and subject to the monarch. A president is both first minister and head of state and, as such, is prone to delusions of regal importance.

        Sorry Inspector. Trod on your toes a bit there.

        • dannybhoy

          Lol!
          Exactly.

        • carl jacobs

          The Prime Minister functions as the Executive. The head of state is a ceremonial position. So where do these delusions of grandeur come from? The grandeur comes from power and power flows from the Executive. Reagan once said he wished the US had a king so that the President wouldn’t have to deal with all these ceremonial responsibilities.

          • CliveM

            The strength lies in her non partisan position. She can unite in a way an elected president can’t. And never doubt the power of symbol !

          • carl jacobs

            Do you have a tangible example of that power being exercised?

          • bluedog

            The PM has a weekly audience with the Queen. This gives her the opportunity to question the PM on proposed legislation, which she must sign. It would be surprising if the Queen had signed off on SSM without question. Hereditary influence without executive power may best describe the situation.

          • CliveM

            In the 1978 Home Rule referendum in Scotland , she made a speech expressing her concern about it. It was widely seen at the time an since as being influential with regards the final vote.

          • carl jacobs

            Clive

            I wasn’t referring to this kind of power. I grant that powerful respected people with a platform can move a nation. But would the Queen do so for a partisan issue?

            I was referring to the back channel exercise of influence on the formation of law. What evidence do you have that the Crown involved itself in such matters?

          • CliveM

            With regards the Home Rule vote, that was very partisan. Remember the Govt of the day called the referendum.

            With regards your second point, I’ll come back to that. But by it’s very nature it would be less likely to come to light.

          • Royinsouthwest

            King George VI called for a National Day of Prayer in 1940 when the British army was trapped at Dunkirk. Even Churchill thought that it would only be possible to evacuate 20,000 – 30,000 soldiers. After the National Day of Prayer an unusual combination of weather conditions made it possible to evacuate troops from the beaches as well as the harbour in Dunkirk. The German advance was hindered by a storm and then fog interfered with the Luftwaffe bombing raids on the troops and ships.

            The Miracle of Dunkirk
            http://www.christianstogether.net/Articles/200052/Christians_Together_in/Christian_Life/The_Miracle_of.aspx

          • William Lewis

            “The Prime Minister functions as the Executive. The head of state is a ceremonial position. So where do these delusions of grandeur come from? “

            It’s more than a ceremonial position. If the PM functions as the Executive then the Queen functions as the Chairman. She represents the shareholders (her subjects). In some sense she is also the state personified and the PM is required to kneel and account for himself before her. The delusions of grandeur can come from combining the two roles. Ronnie Reagan clearly has an inkling of this, but then he always understood the problems of government better than most. Our monarchy is desired throughout the world – not least in the US. 🙂

          • DanJ0

            The Executive is more than just the Prime Minister. It’s the Government, of which the Prime Minister is its head.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Why not grant Reagan’s wishes posthumously? I’m sure the Queen would be happy to appoint a governor general to take over the ceremonial responsibilities in the United States. It would be quite nice to have the US back in the Commonwealth.

      • Not much, one supposes … just the difference between the deistic President Obama and the Christian Queen Elizabeth II.

        • carl jacobs

          Hrmm. That would be the Christian Queen who signed off on gay marriage, correct? Was she allowed to reject that legislation?

          • Inspector General

            Ask yourself who protected the CoE from this degeneration with FOUR locks, whatever they are. Can’t quite remember…
            It wasn’t Cameron. The Queen is most surely the finest Christian we have !!!

          • carl jacobs

            So why didn’t she protect the nation?

          • Inspector General

            She protected the established church. It’s all or nothing for you American’s, one notes.

          • carl jacobs

            No, it simply shows that she had no power to overturn an act of Parliament. And how exactly do you know she protected the CoE?

          • Inspector General

            We don’t. But one notes you can read Cameron like a book. Even Obama’s people noted him a lightweight. The blighter bends with the wind, it’s so bloody obvious as to be embarrassing.

          • carl jacobs

            Then why didn’t she use her influence to get him to back down on gay marriage altogether?

          • Inspector General

            The Conservative big wheels couldn’t, why should the Queen have any better luck.

            Anyway, some Conservative today has announced that SSM has finished Cameron’s hopes for a majority next year. One concurs. Seems he has no idea why people actually vote Conservative if by doing so they’re getting what the liberals would otherwise have dished up.

          • Shadrach Fire

            Cameron threatened her Corgis.

          • Uncle Brian

            The last time a reigning monarch balked at doing something a prime minister told him to do was some time in the 1920s, I think, when George V didn’t want to have anything to do with the Soviet regime which had murdered his cousins the Romanovs. Getting on for a hundred years ago now.

          • CliveM

            An act doesn’t become law until she signs it.

          • carl jacobs

            But she has no option other than to sign, correct? If she ever refused to sign, she would create a crisis for the Monarchy. So in what sense is her signature actually required?

          • CliveM

            Without the signature the bill doesn’t become law. So for example, no one can be prosecuted under that bill, her signature may be inevitable, but it is required.

          • carl jacobs

            In other words, her signature is a formality. What would happen if she refused to sign?

          • CliveM

            The bill wouldn’t become law.

            The Prime Minister would probably resign, the Opposition would likely refuse to attempt an administration and their would be a General election fought on the right of the Commons to pass laws. They would win and the Queen would have to back down and would lose her right to veto.

          • carl jacobs

            So then the queen in fact has no right of veto right now. She is a figurehead with no actual power. Like I said at the beginning, she is the archetype for the modern view of God. We dress Him up in pomp and circumstance, but we govern our own lives as we see fit.

            The Queen is a living symbol of unity. Her purpose is to provide a basis of loyalty that is not partisan.

          • CliveM

            She has a right, which she must on no account excercise!!

            Her main function is symbolic not political, but their are circumstances were she would be able to wield political power and not have her role questioned. As per the example of a eliminate Cabinet I gave yesterday.

          • dannybhoy

            She tried to discreetly reject it, but ,,,,
            nobody took any notice.

          • CliveM

            Yes and no. Which about sums up our constitution!

          • Happy Jack says Her Majesty could have precipitated a Constitutional crisis by refusing to sign the Act of Parliament. The nation may well have backed her too. Ultimately, it would probably have resulted in the end of the Constitutional Monarchy. Who knows? A risk worth taking? Jack thinks so.

          • Martin

            HJ

            She had a choice, keep her coronation oath or risk the role of constitutional monarch. She chose to break her oath rather than take a risk. Is her view of duty just a sham?

          • Is treason still a capital offence, Martin? Happy Jack is not ready to face his maker before Christmas. He has a granddaughter.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Is calling a sovereign to account for their sin a crime?

      • dannybhoy

        Your system has become as corrupt as ours. As I understand it your current POTUS is busy ignoring or undermining your Constitution, and no one seems to be challenging him.
        Our Prime Minister can and has been thrown out if he loses the confidence of his buddies or the people.

        • Our prime minister has lost the confidence of the people it’s justn his cronies keepingn him in power.

      • Inspector General

        …and the Queen can dismiss a government, and rule by decree if need be. Thought that might have happened over SSM. The armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen, so no trouble there then. She can send in the Brigade of Guards to sweep parliament clean of politicians and close the place down. The guards division will then seal off London.

        God Save The Queen !

        • dannybhoy

          Huzzah for Oliver!

          • Inspector General

            Now HE had no problem closing down parliament…

          • CliveM

            DB a closet republican, but otherwise ok!

          • dannybhoy

            Not so! A Republic has its own problems. I think we British are natural monarchists, but we need to respect those that rule. Look at how we have responded to William and Harry, we were quietly proud of how they have handled themselves from childhood to manhood. They show qualities we admire and respect.
            I think the monarchy’s future is assured all the time they identify with the people, show courage and fortitude and speak up when needed.
            That’s how it should work.

          • Or Ireland ……….

        • Hmmmm …. The Guards …. resistance to Same Sex Marriage? The Queen is a realist.

        • CliveM

          People forget, if the Cabinet was killed off, she would rule in conjunction with what remained of the Privy Council. In that situation she would be head of state and acting prime minister.

          • DanJ0

            She would invite the largest party in Parliament to form a Government as soon as possible, I expect. There would be sufficient experience on the back benches to do so, in what the media calls the party ‘grandees’. Whoever was included would probably call an election not long afterwards.

          • CliveM

            Yes she would undoubtedly look towards Parliament to select a Prime Minister as quickly as possible. Although this could take a few days. MP’s egos being what they are, there maybe more then one candidate!

      • Royinsouthwest

        A lot of republics have ceremonial presidents, Ireland for example.

    • Phil R

      I was wondering to myself what are odds that Charles will be the last British King?

      One only has to mention president Harman, or Clegg etc. Then you see that he is pretty secure

    • IanCad

      God forbid that it could be President Farage.

      • Phil R

        Now THAT would be fun.

        Cannot wait for the Christmas message.

        • Royinsouthwest

          I’ll drink to that!

  • IanCad

    Good for HRH.

    I particularly liked this passage:

    “Therefore, for me it is utterly inconceivable that a person of one faith could find it in themselves to persecute a person of another faith. Surely to do so brings nothing but dishonour on the faith of the persecutor”

    Words that are, to my mind, quite compatible with his role as the future Defender of the Faith.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Sorry to throw this one in but has anyone verified the identity of him who calls himself ‘Carl Jacobs’. To me there is something distinctly different about his writing style and the way he interjects with very minor comments on a frequent basis. Not like the old Carl at all.

    • Uncle Brian

      Sounds like the same old Carl to me. If you want to carry out a laboratory test, tell him you know for a fact that the whole truth about justification by faith and works is to be found in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. The tone of his answer should clear up any lingering doubt.

      • William Lewis

        lol

      • carl jacobs

        Heh.

        • Uncle Brian

          Thought so!

    • carl jacobs

      The subjects on which I choose to comment are driven by:

      1. My attachment to the subject.
      2. My knowledge of the subject.
      3. Whether I think I have anything useful to say.

      You shouldn’t expect much from me on a subject like British royalty. I don’t know much about it. I don’t have much interesting to say about it. I don’t have any great attachment to it. The same goes for UK aid. Or British politics. Or British nativity pageants. The subject matter of the weblog has been thin for me of late. That is neither good nor bad. It simply is.

      If you want to read ‘Old Carl’ then follow the blood trail to the remains of what used to be Linus’ position on France in WWII. That’s where I have focused most of my attention of late. As a rule, I don’t comment on the outcome of arguments. But every rule has an exception.

      • Phil R

        You see far too reasonable

        Can the real Carl Jacobs stand up please!

        • carl jacobs

          Sigh. OK.

          Unless Rome repudiates the anathema of the Gospel found in the Canons of Trent, there can never be unity with Rome.

          • What is the proper title of the leading division of English football?

          • carl jacobs

            Well, technically England doesn’t have football teams. It has soccer teams. With that qualification:

            English Premier League, of course

          • Yeah, he’s authentic ………..

          • CliveM

            Never doubted it. The tone was no one else!!

          • William Lewis

            Can anyone authenticate this version of Happy Jack that has just authenticated that version of Carl? He also seems too reasonable to me and hasn’t attempted to defend Trent at all.

          • Jack writes whatever the voices tell him to ….

          • William Lewis

            authenticated

          • Trent requires no defence.

          • Martin

            Carl

            Does the US play football or do they play a softy version of rugby where the players wear padding?

          • carl jacobs

            Martin

            Rugby, football, and soccer are each enjoyable in their own right. This is really about the continuing use of non-standard English in the UK.

          • CliveM

            Rugby/American football? Either one I’d be dead if I tried to play it these days !!

          • Martin

            Carl

            I don’t know about the UK, but here in England we set the standard for English & football requires that you use their feet to control the ball & not their hands.

          • Phil R

            Yes…!

            Welcome back Carl!

      • “The subjects on which I choose to comment are driven by:

        1. My attachment to the subject.”

        Check.

        “2. My knowledge of the subject.
        3. Whether I think I have anything useful to say.”

        Well, one out of three isn’t too bad for a colonial.

        • carl jacobs

          [Makes note in Jack’s secret dossier file under the category of “Things to avenge when I take over the world.”]

          Updated for de-Frenchification.

          • “Updated for de-Frenchification”.

            Correct Jack if he’s wrong, but didn’t the American rebels rely on the French?

            “In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), France fought alongside the United States, against Britain, in 1778. French money, munitions, soldiers and naval forces proved essential to America’s victory over the Crown ….. French aid proved vital in the victory of the Americans seeking independence from Britain. “
            (Wiki)

            This Francophobia you display, is it displaced guilt?

          • carl jacobs

            The French were seeking to hurt the British. Not help the Americans. And in the long run, the colonies were just too far away for the Crown to keep control against opposition.

            ….

            And anyways. What is this “francophobia” You referred to?

          • Nevertheless, your colonies succeeded in its unlawful revolt because of French assistance. That you helped bankrupt them in the process, partly mitigates the crime.

            Apologies. ‘Francophobia’ is a post-modern, artificial construct. Distain for the French is perfectly healthy and natural.

          • carl jacobs

            I want you to think about what you are saying, Jack. You are saying that French assistance in a war can make the difference between victory and defeat. You are saying the Americans won the Revolutionary War because the French helped. The French helped win a war.

            Are you sure you want to say that, Jack?

          • Phil R

            They might have done..

            The largest army at Yorktown was the French army, the smallest was the British.

            Did they win because of the French?

            The British government played into the rebel’s hands with their stupidity and the rebels had the advantage of being able to surrender vast amounts of territory and survive, while the British never had the forces to control large areas of land.

          • CliveM

            Well by adding the Dutch and the Spanish we mitigate against his ‘French’ mistake!

          • À boire ou je tue le chien !

            Jack’s le cul entre deux chaises. French ‘support’ is vaut son pesant de cacahuètes. And yet …….

            Jack doit se allonger dans une pièce sombre ….

          • carl jacobs

            Nice try. It amounts to this.

            The British lost a war to the French. Oh, the shame and humiliation.

          • CliveM

            Well strictly speaking we lost a war to the French, Spanish, Dutch and Americans.

            Embarrassing but not a humiliation!!

          • carl jacobs

            The Dutch and the Spanish? Really? You are desperate enough to reach that far? I expected this kind of rationalization from Jack, but you are much better than this.

            … the Dutch and the Spanish…

          • CliveM

            You know the interesting thing is, yes we lost the 13 colonies, but we kept the civilised part ( Canada!) and the French got sweet f/a, a huge debt and a lot of dangerous Anglo-Saxon ideas.

            Look ok Spain and Holland didn’t contribute much, but hey national honour is at stake here!!

          • It was a war waged over most of the world – from the Mediterranean, to India, and the West Indies and north and central America.

          • CliveM

            Yes?

          • Britain did magnificently well with the resources available and would have settled with the Yanks but for the conniving French.

          • CliveM

            Well we’ve always been up for a fight!

          • Attempting to change the focus, Carl?

          • No, Carl.

            The American’s revolted and made use of the French. The rebellion of thirteen of the North American colonies of Great Britain resulted in France intervening on the side of the revolting American’s. It then became a war between Britain and France, Spain, and the Netherlands. Some hold that the expense of the war drove France into massive debt, thus contributing to the outbreak of the French Revolution. This marked the decline of Monarchs and Christian churches in Europe, bringing liberal-democracy and nationalism.

            You have much to answer for. And that’s without looking at post-WWII shenanigans.

        • dannybhoy

          Excellent Jack.
          Of course you know too that old feminist thing that “if men only talked about the things they really understood, there wouldn’t be much said…”

          • Happy Jack rarely contradicts a woman. Have you not read his rules for a successful marriage?

          • dannybhoy

            Yes I read them, but the signs of fear and coercion were plain to see, so I felt they weren’t worth the paper your wife forced you to write on…

  • len

    As we are now in the UK (and further afield) a multi faith , multi cultural,politically correct, non judgemental’,no absolutes’ in morality(or anything else) brainwashed pre conditioned society who has the courage to make a stand for the Gospel of Jesus Christ?. Indeed who understands the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its incredible offer of salvation ?.
    The Gospel has been reduced to to a money making scam by the American’ money preachers’ who feature on TV and this certainly has turned many away from the Gospel and there seems precious few in Europe who are prepared to stand up and be counted for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    • Phil R

      Len

      So God does not have a plan for human flourishing that is found in the Bible?

      And

      This flourishing does not include material needs?

      I was reading recently of a missionary to a rough slum area in Sao Paulo lament the way that they preach the Gospel, people are changed. They stop taking drugs, they stay together as families, they spend time with their children and value their education. They drink less and take more care of their health and so are better employees. His lament was that after this transformation has taken place, they have more money and move away. They become “middle class” if you like and he stated that even if they stayed they would not be any use to him as they were now so different in attitude and often in income, to the slum dwellers.

      This is not so noticeable in Britain because moving your family from benefits to paid work does not always result in more money.

      However, it is marriage that is the real financial issue. The way things are if a new Christian couple with a family decide to get married as being the right thing to do, the penalty is at least £9000 per year, sometimes even more.

      http://conservativewoman.co.uk/harry-benson-cameron-flunks-family-test-first-time/

      Strip away the welfare state and the financial effects on a family of being Christians would be obvious to all.

      • len

        Phil R, Not exactly sure what the point is that you are making here?.
        Since becoming a Christian my financial condition is considerably worse, I have suffered a break up in my family (which came through the church I was attending) and have suffered persecution from neighbours and others.
        I am not complaining about this just stating facts.
        Has God blessed me financially?.I have enough for my needs and that is all I desire. I live in a much smaller house with much less money than before I became a Christian but there are many Christians in dire need worldwide even losing their lives.
        Jesus did not promise wealth but persecution for all and any that followed Him.
        There is a false hope handed out by prosperity teachers that if you give money (the more the better )that God will lavish you with all your desires .This is a false Gospel.
        Jesus promises so much more that just material gain.We leave this world with no material possessions .

        • dannybhoy

          Len,
          so sorry to hear your circumstances. Life takes many twists and turns for each of us. That’s why I believe we all run our own race and we shouldn’t judge each other when we don’t know what each has been through. I do pray that you will see reconcilations at some point in time, and that the Lord will meet your financial needs. I have some very dear Christian friends who have known both relational breakdown and financial loss.

          • len

            Thanks for your comments dannybhoy, not everyone has a smooth path through life and the more knocks we take the more compassionate and understanding it can make us (hopefully)

          • dannybhoy

            Amen Len. As American Christians sometimes say “when life throws you lemons, God will help you make lemonade..!
            I believe that. I believe that there’s nothing that comes into our lives that God can’t bring good out of if we give it to Him..
            I pray that He will bless you and bring you comfort.

        • Phil R

          Len

          I think that many people who become Christians still look at life as if they make all the choices.

          Lets give an example. Imagine that you have to cross a large city by car. Mat people want to look at the map and choose the safest, quickest and least troublesome route across the city.

          They may get there, but they are making the decisions based on self interest and no doubt that is a boring life.

          We don’t have a map of the city. We have Jesus sitting next to us and telling us where to go at each turn, offering us no plan of how we will get there and we need to trust that he knows where he is going.

          We can either relax in that knowledge, or we can get stressed that he does not know the best route, worry that maybe we will never arrive and so we will not enjoy the journey. Or we can ignore Jesus and take our own route, plan it all in advance and go along our road, because we think know best.

          Put like this perhaps we agree that the sensible choice is the first option, but it is the hardest one to take, but in the end it really is the only one that gives us peace of mind.

          • len

            When we look at what Jesus said to people asking about how to get saved you might actually think He was trying to put people off by what He said to them !. He never promised an ‘easy ride’ quite the reverse!.
            If all people want is to get rich or to secure a place in heaven through the Gospel then they will soon fall away when trouble strikes.
            The parable of the sower explains this.
            And believe me God will test a persons faith I know this by direct experience.

          • CliveM

            Len

            I think you are right. My brother in law was a member of a church who believed In the prosperity Gospel. Also that everything would be cured if only you had faith. When things didn’t work this way he had no real understanding to fall back on and lost his faith.
            Jesus didn’t promise wealth or even health. What he promised was much greater.

          • Phil R

            Clive

            The prosperity Gospel is about having faith.

            It is not a “deal” you make with God. Take Len’s comment on the parable of the sower. You can read it as God is not in control because he allowed the weeds. However, at then end of time the weeds were destroyed.

          • len

            The prosperity gospel is about feeding the’ flesh’ not the Spirit.
            Jesus asked ” would you give up every thing to follow me?
            Judas followed Jesus for ‘what he could get out of it’ financially and materially.

          • Phil R

            So who is responsible if you are rich?

            If it is just me then the money is mine and I owe God nothing because he did not help me earn it.

          • len

            Agreed ..Jesus was testing peoples motives for following Him and were they prepared to give up their worldly desires to follow Him , for example ‘the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head’………

          • Phil R

            Jesus was not trying to put people off. He knew that they would suffer persecution and he knew those that would remain (mostly) faithful. He was stating a fact.

            Easy ride? Like you I have been rich and poor and I know that happiness is not correlated with the size of your bank account.

            The point I made was that one day some young fishermen were mending their nets and “decided” in an instant to follow a guy walking along the lake shore.

            Did Jesus have any doubts that they would follow? None whatsoever. Were their lives immensely richer from this experience? You decide.

            “Deciding” to give up their “safe jobs”and follow Jesus that day meant that their lives on this earth would never be boring.

            I’ll give an example. A friend of mine was making a good living in finance in a small town just outside of Bristol. We moved to China and later after a visit and hearing about a church we visited in Hong Kong he left and flew 8000 miles with no job, just to be part of this church. He got a job in Hong Kong and his family followed. He has since worked for various Christian Organizations all over the world including been thrown out of Zimbabwe within a few hours for uncovering corruption in the Church. He is now a trained minister and regularly flies off at moments notice to offer Ministry to people who have suffered war or natural disaster.

            In my view, a richer life.

          • len

            1 Peter1: 7″
            These trials are only to TEST your faith, to show that it is strong
            and pure. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold — and your
            faith is far more precious to God than mere gold. So if your faith
            remains strong after being tried by fiery trials, it will bring you much
            praise and glory and honour on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to
            the whole world.

            Many others were tested Abraham , Job, even the lord Jesus Christ…..

          • Phil R

            So we are back to our old argument Len.

            You are saying that you need to prove yourself worthy by your actions.

            By your way you are saving yourself and if this were true you don’t need Jesus or the cross.

      • Uncle Brian

        Phil, what was the missionary lamenting? His work had been successful. The families were more stable, the kids were better looked after, the parents had better jobs, and now that they had learnt to take better care of their money they were able to move out of a shantytown ruled by drug gangs into proper houses or flats. Sounds like an improvement to me. The missionary did a good job, and the material results are there to prove it. What is there to lament?

        • Phil R

          It was an improvement. They knew the Evil forces that were at work in the slums. Their eyes had been opened so to speak their lives changed and new hope offered for their families.

          They took it and ran as fast as they could.

          So would I

          • It all goes to show the Christian Gospel is not a social gospel. That spiritual hunger runs deeper than physical hunger. The latter is more easily met than the former.

      • dannybhoy

        I seem to remember reading something years ago regarding how the Gospel changed lives, healed relationships and made people “aspirational” (I prefer that to “middle class”). They then become more affluent and disconnected from their parents or great grandparents, and find it difficult to relate..
        Anyone else heard of this?

        • Phil R

          What is wrong. In my view nothing. The missionary wanted them to change but still be part of the slum community. They had other ideas!

  • Busy Mum

    “It is utterly inconceivable that a person of one faith could find it in themselves to persecute a person of another faith”

    What an extraordinary thing for a Christian prince to say when the persecutors of Jesus Christ Himself were persons of so great ‘faith’ that they felt it necessary to resort to murder in its defence.

    This statement, equating different ‘faiths’, is totally in line with HRH’s wish to defend faith, rather than defend THE faith.

    • dannybhoy

      B M
      But isn’t he perhaps unconsciously talking from a Christian perspective? We are taught to respect other faiths even though we won’t agree with them.

      • Busy Mum

        Maybe – but a fully conscious Prince would be far more effective!

        • dannybhoy

          Lol
          You’re a cruel woman!

  • CliveM

    When we talk about Defender of the Faith, we do remember the origin of it and understand that it has nothing to do with the reformed faith?

    • There you go ………..

      The title was originally granted on 11 October, 1521, by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII. It was bestowed because of Henry’s book “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum” (Defence of the Seven Sacraments), which defended the sacramental nature of marriage and the supremacy of the Pope.

      His wife Catherine of Aragon was also a Defender of the Faith in her own right.

      • CliveM

        Eh?

      • CliveM

        Yes I know!

        I wish you wouldn’t keep amending your posts after I make a comment! It completely changes context.!!

        • Jack sometimes has to post and edit because his Discus freezes.

          • CliveM

            Oh ok, apologies!

          • dannybhoy

            You can get treatment for that, Jack.

          • Really? And what might this treatment entail?

          • dannybhoy

            Antifreeze.