Sapphire Jubilee
Meditation and Reflection

The first British monarch to celebrate a Sapphire Jubilee – God Save The Queen!

65 years ago today, King George VI put his hand into the Hand of God, which was better than light and safer than a known way. And in that very instant, a princess up a tree in Kenya became Queen – Elizabeth II – who went on to reign into her Silver Jubilee, and her Golden Jubilee, and then her Diamond Jubilee, equalling and then surpassing the reign of her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria. Today, Queen Elizabeth II makes history as she becomes the first British monarch to celebrate the Sapphire Jubilee: 65 years since her accession to the Throne of the United Kingdom; 65 years as Queen of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; 65 years as the Head of the free association of the Commonwealth of Nations, 16 realms of which she is also Queen. And 65 years as Supreme Governor of the Church of England – the longest temporal headship in the history of England’s church.

There will no bunting in the Mall, no nationwide beacons, no street parties, no fireworks and no Party at the Palace. And there’s to be no State coach, no windy trip down the Thames, and no globe-trotting tour of the world for her peoples to pay homage. The Queen intends to spend the day quietly at Sandringham, reflecting on the memory of her father, and doubtless also that of her mother, and sister, and her best friend and cousin Margaret Rhodes, who died just a few months ago.

The Queen has always looked stunning in sapphire blue. Perhaps it’s her eyes, or the pale beauty of her face. Even at 90, she radiates vitality and light: the world’s oldest monarch, the embodiment of covenant, liturgy and law, seems to possess a spirit of eternal youth. She does not represent, like Israel’s first king, a rejection of God, but rather she radiates righteousness, legitimated in her role by a prophetic anointing – ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon her..’ – only to be evermore harassed, like Israel’s royal dynasty, by prophets who claim to overrule human counsels and establishment councils with the word of God.

“My whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service,” she promised in 1947 on her 21st birthday. We celebrate, too, the 70th anniversary of that solemn pledge, by which she covenanted with her peoples to live a life dedicated to flourishing together. God is the source of all created goods, but it is righteous governance which builds a human community and draws out the beauty of that order. Queen Elizabeth II has devoted 70 years of her life and 65 years of her reign to the pursuit of justice, peace and prosperity. Has there ever been a happier reign?

Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them,’ said Jesus. ‘But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.’ On this day of Sapphire Jubilee, let us give thanks that Queen Elizabeth II has become great by being a servant to her peoples and a slave to Christ – the Servant Queen. She governs in law and justice with mercy, and, to the utmost of her power, she maintains the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.

God save the Queen!

  • Anton

    Words spoken to another monarch…

    Because… you have humbled yourself… I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall go to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place.

    Long live The Queen.

  • PrincessofWails

    We are truly blessed with our Queen. May God bless & preserve her.

  • Inspector General

    65 magnificent years!

    One hopes she is there when her reward for all her sterling service is realised. To have her realm delivered back to her from the EU.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Her majesty is the most Godly and servant like that it can be recalled from history. There were more pious, but not more genuine. As Gilbert and Sullivan said, ‘she is the very model of a modern monarch’.
    Long may she reign.

  • len

    God save the Queen!. She has remained constant in a fast changing world.

  • CliveM

    If only as a nation we were as blessed by our political leadership as we have been by the leadership of our Head of State.

    65 years. God save the Queen.

  • David

    You have excelled yourself with this superb post Cranmer, well done !

    If only more of her subjects had her sense of duty, faithfulness and sheer rock steady common sense we would be a far better country.

    God Save the Queen !

    • Manfarang

      4–7 May 1975 are the dates of the Queen’s visit to Hong Kong. It seems now those subjects didn’t count for much.

      • Dominic Stockford

        They were badly treated by that Chris Patten man – but given that he was a Roman he didn’t care about giving away sovereignty to a foreign power.

        • Grouchy Jack

          Did he give Hong Kong to the Vatican? Missed that one, dickhead.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Differences of theology are one thing, foul and abusive language are another. Blocked. (Screen shot too, so no opportunity for you to deny it).

          • Grouchy Jack

            You scrote ….

          • dannybhoy

            Came from Rome I heard….. ;0)

          • Cressida de Nova

            LOL

        • Merchantman

          And he became an EU Commissar need one say more, now doubtless drawing a big fat pension.

        • Manfarang

          In fact Fat Pang as Chris Patten was called was in fact fairly popular in Hong Kong. More than 80% of the people there follow Chinese religious beliefs.

  • From Christianity’s point of view the Queen’s reign has been disastrous. Figures 1 to 4 on this ONS page tell of a dwindling faith largely reliant on elderly worshippers, an increase in non-belief and, worst of all, a young and thriving Islam.

    One might have expected a ‘slave to Christ’ to be concerned about the rise of Islam but no. The Queen said, in her own words, in 1982, ‘I believe that for those with a sense of tolerance the arrival and proximity of different races and religions have provided a much better chance for each to appreciate the value of the others’ and, in 2004, ‘diversity is indeed a strength and not a threat’.

    ‘Has there ever been a happier reign?’ For Christianity, there has never been a worse reign.

    • Anton

      For the nation and for institutional, politicised Christianity there has never been a worse reign, but how much of that is her fault given that real power lies in Parliament, and just how authentic is politicised Christianity, of which there is no trace in the New Testament?

      On the afternoon of the service of thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey for the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty’s accession, some of us attended a service of confession of the sins of the nation at nearby Westminster Chapel; and some of us wept.

      • @ Anton—The Queen’s fault lies in giving her personal approval to diversity and multiculturalism. She could have kept her opinion to herself—as she almost always does, publicly, on every topic—but she chose to heap praise on the greatest peacetime threat ever faced by the indigenous British, that of becoming a powerless minority. A bit like Edward III heaping praise on the Black Death, except that England after the Black Death was still recognizably England.

        I, too, could weep when I think of what the future holds for our children and grandchildren.

        • Anton

          What she’s said shows that you and I disagree with her, but she is culpable only if she is responsible for ‘diversity’, which she isn’t – Parliament is actually supreme, and any claim that she is sovereign because she is *the* sovereign is a convenient lie (as it has been since the mid-17th century).

          • @ Anton—The Queen is culpable because (a) Islamization happened on her watch and (b) she praises it. If she were nothing more than a half-decent Christian, never mind a ‘slave of Christ’, she would have found it impossible to reconcile the conflict between, on the one hand, her faith and her coronation oath to uphold Christianity and, on the other, her governments’ immigration and Islamization policies, and would have abdicated.

          • Anton

            You reckon she’s culpable for not abdicating; I understand that point of view without necessarily agreeing with it. While I share your view that multiculturalism is a catastrophic error, the sovereign is in the no-win position of having responsibility without power: he or she has to sign into legislation every piece of trash that passes through Parliament. If you want to blame her then you might as well blame our constitution. I’d say the real culpability lay at Westminster.

          • dannybhoy

            If our monarch was at least able to question the Bishops and then speak up in her capacity as Supreme Governor, one wonders if the Anglican Church would have become so riddled with unbelief, impotence and traitors to the Gospel.
            As it is Mrs. Proudie’s few sentences capture it perfectly. Hollowed out.
            I think that’s why when one watches State occasions nowadays it seems as though everyone is going ‘through the motions’ of something that no longer has meaning or significance.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The truth is that it DOES have meaning and significance, but those taking part don’t know what it is.

        • IanCad

          Chin Up!! JR. There’s a new generation coming on. One that’s witnessed the follies of diversity, sexual melding and the nanny state. Many of them have seen and don’t like it one bit; and it’s not just in the UK.
          Marion Le Pen made her voice heard in the French National Assembly just a few days ago. Tip of the iceberg, I’m hoping.
          Our dear Queen may yet see better days in our land.

          • dannybhoy

            I’m hoping too and it is not impossible that our great God may yet bring us to revival. Yet I fear social turbulence will come because behind all this is spiritual warfare and as in times past there will be war or strife on the earth.

          • Jon of GSG

            I agree. There seems to have been a sudden upsurge in prophecy about revival in the near future, some of it having recently come to pass (there has been quite a bit about how brexit was necessary first). My own experiences of something beginning to happen in my own little, unremarkable church implies it may be true too.
            http://www.richards-watch.org is worth a look from time to time.

          • dannybhoy

            In my own prayers for this country it’s Queen and royal family, Prime Minster and government, the AofC and the whole true Church in the UK.
            I do think Brexit is significant; a paradigm shift away from the EU which I think may be heading for very serious problems. I also believe that there are signs that God’s end-time programme may have commenced, but I am leery of reading too much into current events.
            Prayer is essential, and I’m not sure that our prayers have to be ‘right on’ but they do need to be real, not rote!

          • Jon of GSG

            Spot on. It does strike me as odd (though only since its it’s occurred to me) how few churches explicitly pray for revival on a regular basis, as if it were too vulgar or – I don’t know – naïve a thing to pray for. We do happen to be about to start up just such a regular prayer thing at my church though, so that is nice…

          • dannybhoy

            I have been mulling over (when you’re getting on you devote more time to the practice). the issue of evangelism. More specifically the seeming demise of informing people you have witnessed to, that without the covering of Christ’s salvation they/we remain under God’s judgement; and God says we have all missed the mark..
            I mull because it seems that modern Christianity has gone all ‘loveydovey’ and non judgmental, almost presenting Christianity as an alternative lifestyle rather than the only way to salvation and eternal life..

          • @ IanCad—The same new generation which is rejecting religious belief. Young people have perhaps observed how the churches encourage Third World immigration and diversity, to the detriment of our way of life, and are voting with their feet.

          • Dominic Stockford

            There’s one popping up in Denmark now as well.

      • Royinsouthwest

        I agree with your first sentence but a critic could point out that the Old Testament is full of politicised Judaism.

        • Anton

          Yes of course it is. Christianity is not Judaism.

    • Holger

      How about the reign of Tiberius? Better to be a Christian now than in those trying times.

      But how stupid of me! Not being allowed to discriminate against gays is every bit as painful, cruel and unbearable as being torn limb from limb by lions, isn’t it?

      • Inspector General

        Give it a rest, Linus. There’s a good chap.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Its time for him to leave, he’s become a bore….

          • Grouchy Jack

            Yeah, and your sectarian hatred is no better.

          • Anton

            I see no hatred in his posts. Would you care to give an example?

          • carl jacobs

            So … I’m not actually sure why you could accuse him of “sectarian hatred” and not me. Serious question for you, Grumps. No need to answer. This is just for your contemplation.

            How much was your comment influenced by the fact the he was a RC priest?

          • You at least show respect for Catholics, try, in your way, to understand our beliefs, don’t make unnecessarily offensive comments and don’t harp on about the past, Carl. As a so called “cradle Catholic”, who spent 5 years in seminary and then seven years as a priest, he should know the heart of Catholicism better.

            Btw, he’s Mr M’s take on the Superbowl:

            It seems to me a sparse sequence of very short plays, followed by interminable babbling, with a lot of interruptions in the middle. Then you get more babbling, and some more babbling, before you get more appeals of the decisions of the referees. And they never stop talking. They never ever stop! It drives me mad! It’s the greatest mystery to me how there could be people who prefer this endless stream of interruptions to baseball or (as you call it) soccer.

            “Oh, but those two and a quarter second are very intense, Mundabor!”. Yeah, right.

          • carl jacobs

            That was a GREAT Super Bowl, Jack. Historic is not too strong a word.

          • Agreed. Jack watched his recording last night (without knowing the score) and thoroughly enjoyed it, even all the babble-babble. He’s beginning to warm ever so slightly to the sport.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Both of his parents were converts so he may not fall into the category of a cradle Catholic.

          • True.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Don’t allow him to upset you Jack. He will never be at peace with what he has done. Remember Judas !

          • Martin

            Dominic

            Become?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Giggles, in an unseemly manner….

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        Well Tiberius was a homosexual paedophile with an insatiable appetite for young boys and had them shipped in by the boatload to his palace on Capri (Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, 43-45).

      • The Explorer

        You’re absolutely right. Forget trivia like the Fall, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Second Coming and the Last Judgment. Christianity’s essence is the persecution of gays. Christ Jesus came into the world to persecute homosexuals.

        Persecution of gays drove the Reformation. Disagreement about the best means of persecution is what divides Protestant from Catholic, and was the cause of the Great Schism between Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. It is the main difference today between Christianity and Islam: Islam reproachful that the Christian response is insufficiently robust.

        Astonishingly, homosexual persecution does not define any of the three main Christian creeds. In fact, it isn’t even mentioned. I don’t know how to account for this. Do you?

        • Holger

          The Fall, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Second Coming and the Last Judgment are all fictional events. Jesus didn’t come into the world to persecute homosexuals. He didn’t come into the world at all. He’s a fictional character who may possibly be based on some random desert prophet, but who’s more likely to be a composite personality made up of elements of various legends.

          What drove the Reformation was bigotry. Not specifically the anti-gay variety, but it certainly played its part. Bigotry is what divides Protestant from Catholic. It certainly caused the Great Schism between Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. It is quite definitely the main difference between Christianity and Islam: Islam contemptuous of the Christian method of pretending to love when they really hate.

          Persecution is the very lifeblood of Christianity, as it is of all religions. Gays aren’t your only victims of course, but we’re on your hit-list. Good thing for us we’ve learned a thing or two about looking after ourselves.

          • The Explorer

            “Bigotry is what divides Protestant from Catholic.” Surely, according to your criteria, it ought to unite them as something they have in common?

          • Holger

            If Protestant bigots hate Catholics and vice versa, why would they cooperate?

          • dannybhoy

            Where have you been Explorer? Good to see you back. All is well?

          • The Explorer

            Thank you. Been very ill. Return probably temporary.

          • Inspector General

            Take it easy, old friend. Our thoughts are with you…

          • The Explorer

            Thank you/

          • Best wishes.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

          • William Lewis

            Will be praying for you.

          • dannybhoy

            I am so sorry to hear that. I seem to remember you had heart problems?
            (forgive me if I got that wrong -it’s old age) You also have a website yourself don’t you? I wish you well and God’s blessings upon you and yours Explorer.
            I usually remember people who post fairly often, like Old Blowers. It’s a subject I have been thinking about, like writing an email for my wife to send to AC when I myself am no longer able to irritate people here.. :0)
            May sound unnecessary but this is a Christian blog and every person has dignity and significance. A notification email might be a nice way of letting people know..

          • bluedog

            Interesting idea. There a number of voices who have fallen silent and one wonders…

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely. I don’t mean to sound morbid -(especially as the Explorer has just returned to us!), but we are the collectively the Body of Christ, and we do share our thoughts here for mostly positive reasons. I like to think there is a certain amount of regard for each other..

          • The Explorer

            I had heart failure in 2014. 30% of those with heart failure die within a year of diagnosis: so I’m doing well, relatively speaking. I have damage to heart muscle from which I can’t recover, but heavy medication prevents, or slows down, further deterioration.

          • bluedog

            A remarkable recovery and wishing you all the very best.

          • God Bless and keep you Explorer.

          • Anton

            Glad you are in Christ.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Are you planning on not irritating people here soon ? 🙂

          • dannybhoy

            I have an uncanny knack which has taken years to perfect..

          • Cressida de Nova

            You have brought this on yourself. Women , saintly though they may be have a breaking point.

          • dannybhoy

            You’re at breaking point because I am irritating or because I didn’t go into raptures over your haikus..?

          • Cressida de Nova

            I was referring to your unfortunate wife saddled with a nasty old pirate like you. I am not surprised she is lacing your horlicks with arsenic. Mermaids deserve better.
            Haikus?
            Do you say sheeps too?

          • dannybhoy

            No I pronounce it the English way,
            “Ships.”
            You ought to get yourself married, woman. An intelligent, artistic woman with a wicked sense of humour needs a good man to make her life complete.

          • IanCad

            How very sorry to hear that Explorer. You’ve been around here for a long time.
            Prayers for your recovery. May God make His face to shine upon you.

          • dannybhoy

            My prayers too Explorer. Don’t let Linus./Holger or whoever get to you..

          • IanCad

            Wrog thred

          • Inspector General

            “Good evening sir. We’re from Scotland Yard. We’ve come to seize your hard drive. We don’t expect to find anything incriminating on it regarding child pornography, but its just a routine we carry out with all dyed in the wool queers”

          • Holger

            Quoting from experience are you, old bigot?

          • Inspector General

            “I think you’d better accompany us to the station, sir”

          • Anton

            I think you are also fictional. Is Holger your real name?

          • The Explorer

            ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is about the destruction of a ring.

            Holger: “No it isn’t, because the ring is fictional.”

            Irrelevant. The statement was about the theme of the book: which remains true whether or not the book is fact or fiction.

            I repeat. If the persecution of homosexuals is as intrinsic to Christianity as you maintain it is, why isn’t it mentioned in any of the creeds?

          • Holger

            So you believe in hobbits and elves, do you?

            Why am I not surprised?

            Christianity hates homosexuality to the degree that it tries to pretend that 1) it’s rare, being deemed worthy of only 7 mentions in the bible and 2) it’s a sin that is in some way worse than any other, given the especially contemptuous and abusive language that is used when referring to it.

            Having thus rendered homosexuality an absolute taboo, you seriously ask why it doesn’t appear in your creeds?

            Bad faith, thy name is Christian. Go ask the Catholic Church about its abusive and defamatory Catechism. Go ask just about any Protestant Church about the libel it preaches under the cover of freedom of religion.

            When young people are asked to describe what Christians believe, one of the first things they say is that Christians hate gays. Whatever your creeds say, that’s the reality of the message you communicate to the world. Trying to make us disappear by refusing to acknowledge our identity and calling us sinners is the very definition of hatred and rejection. Dress it up all you like. Even children can see through your lies.

          • bluedog

            ‘Go ask just about any Protestant Church about the libel it preaches under the cover of freedom of religion.’

            Such as? Take the Anglican Communion which shares the Nicaean Creed with the Catholic Church, being a standard article of Trinitarian belief, where is the libel in that Creed? Isn’t freedom of religion analogous to freedom of speech?

            ‘When young people are asked to describe what Christians believe, one of the first things they say is that Christians hate gays.’ Highly unlikely, this sounds like a self-serving distortion you have invented. Even if it is the case, that in some survey in an unspecified location an unspecified group of ‘young people’ (define) has said something similar, such a comment would merely reflect anti-Christian libel propagated by homosexuals such as yourself.

          • The Explorer

            “So you believe in hobbits and elves, do you?” How does that follow from “whether the book is fact or fiction”?

            ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is about the destruction of a ring.
            Holger: “No it isn’t, because the ring is fictional.” Non sequitur.

            ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is a true story about the destruction of a ring.
            Holger: “No it isn’t, because the ring is fictional.” There you have a valid counter argument.

          • The Explorer

            “Christianity hates homosexuality to the degree that it tries to pretend that 1) it’s rare, ”

            Gays are reckoned to be around 3% of the population. How do you define ‘rare’?

            The Bible tends to focus on the concerns of the other 97%: heterosexual courtship and marriage, heterosexual fornication and adultery

          • Holger

            The spurious figure of 3% is based on those who are willing to come out publicly and state their orientation. Given the pressure so many gays face in their homophobic social milieu, many prefer to keep their sexuality a secret.

            A truer figure is estimated to be somewhere between 5 and 10% of the population. Which is significant enough when you think that similar numbers of Muslims cause Christians to have a collective fit of the vapours and shriek about how they’re being swamped.

            But whatever the exact percentages may be, whether I’m part of a large or a small minority, my concerns are still my concerns. They may not be important to you, but they are to me. So I will keep on talking about them whether you like it or not.

            The fact that every second post on this site is about gay topics tells me you’re every bit as obsessed by them as any gay person could be. If we were so unimportant, you’d ignore us. But you don’t, do you?

          • The Explorer

            Agreed that declarations of orientation are more difficult in some locations than in others. Easy in San Francisco, less so in Afghanistan.

            The comparison with Muslims is not valid. Gay numbers (whether self-declared or not) seem relatively constant. Whereas the percentage of Muslims is set to increase.

            One significant social ratio is that as Muslims increase gays decrease: in extreme cases because they are killed; in less extreme because it becomes wise to keep quiet about orientation.

          • Holger

            That’s right, rush about crying “the Muslims are coming … and watch out, they breed like rabbits!” That’ll put the wind up the gays and make them beg and grovel for your favour.

            When faced with a choice between a long slow death by cancer or a quick despatch by cholera, what would you choose?

          • The Explorer

            Frequenters of gay bars in Amsterdam apparently have to be more circumspect about arriving, leaving and where they’ve been than they had to be twenty years ago if they want to avoid the attentions of Muslim self-styled morality street police.

            I don’t see the cancer/cholera choice as a valid comparison between Christianity and Islam, or even within itself as a statement. Some cancers kill very quickly. If the cancer is long lasting, there’s the possibility of a cure being discovered before it becomes terminal. There’s the choice of ending your life yourself if things become unbearable. With cholera (minus modern treatment, I assume?) that choice is not available to you.

          • Holger

            Christianity is a slow disease that makes its gay victims suffer for prolonged periods, just like many cancers. Islam kills its gay victims quickly.

            The comparison of religion to disease is perfectly valid. Religion exhibits many characteristics of communicable disease. It can be passed down in families and lie dormant for generations before bursting forth to claim new victims.

            Woe betide the gay person who falls victim to religion. Lifelong suffering for no good purpose is the only outcome. Manipulation by the quacks who pretend to be emissaries of an imaginary yet vengeful, cruel and homophobic god is all they can expect. The goal is to punish them by placing them in a permanent quarantine.

            If you put your trust in priests and pastors and let them infect you with their insidious disease and then allow them to take pleasure in your suffering, you deserve everything you get.

          • The Explorer

            “Lifelong suffering for no good purpose.” True if there is no afterlife. If there is, then the parameters change.

          • Inspector General

            You extremists are too dangerous to ignore. Wish that you were…

          • Anton

            “is estimated”

            How?

          • Holger

            In several recent national IFOP polls in France, 6-7% of respondents identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

            The key is anonymity. In the Anglo-Saxon world most polls on the subject of sexuality are conducted face to face or on the phone. In France they are done online with legal assurances of respondent anonymity.

          • Anton

            And therein lies the problem. People feel freer not to tell the truth if they are anonymous. Look at the failure of pre-election opinion polls in recent times.

          • Holger

            So you believe that people lie about being gay in anonymous polls, but tell the truth when they can be identified?

            There’s no arguing with such a twisted view of reality. Nothing I can say will influence such a willful refusal to face facts.

            For anyone else reading this exchange however, pollsters agree that anonymity ensures more accurate results. When responders can be identified, they are influenced to respond in ways that are expected of them and may not give their true opinion.

            If we look at the polls preceding the last US presidential election, Trump polled lower than Clinton precisely because many were wary of being publicly identified as Trump supporters. When you’re scared about stating openly something about yourself that might attract condemnation or punishment, you either dissemble or lie in order to protect yourself.

            When polls are completely anonymous there is no need to lie. Some may still be untruthful – mythomania is not an uncommon affliction. But when there’s no incentive to lie, you’re far more likely to tell the truth.

          • Anton

            You haven’t dealt with my comment about opinion polls, and you ignore the fact that homosexuals have nothing to be scared of today. Entirely peaceable street preachers get dragged before the courts for merely stating what they believe God says about homosexuality. I’ve not noticed many homosexuals getting dragged before the courts for criticising heterosexuality…

          • dannybhoy

            “Christianity hates homosexuality to the degree that it tries to pretend that 1) it’s rare, being deemed worthy of only 7 mentions in the bible and 2) it’s a sin that is in some way worse than any other, given the especially contemptuous and abusive language that is used when referring to it.”
            You are becoming ridiculous in your assertion that Christianity hates homosexuality. First off, hate is a sin. Secondly your own emotional and psychological hurts have produced in you a ‘Messiah complex’ that has led you to believe you speak for all homosexuals.
            You don’t.
            You are making yourself look pathetic and obsessed with your own demons, which you try to project onto this blog because you know we are really your only audience.
            Now stop it.

          • The Explorer

            “it’s a sin that is in some way worse than any other.”

            Nonsense. In ‘1 Corinthians’ 6 it’s listed along with fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, swindlers, thieves, swindlers etc, but not cited for special mention: whereas a case of incest is.

            Satan fell through pride, which is more spiritually damaging than the sexual sins. The unforgivable sin is the rejection of God in full consciousness of what one is doing.

          • dannybhoy

            I don’t think that was me, it was the quote! :0)

          • Holger

            Like most spoiled children, you hate having to face the consequences of your own actions, don’t you?

            I’ll stop searing Christians’ consciences when they stop discriminating against me. When they stop lobbying for the abolition of my rights, I’ll have no further need to defend myself against them.

          • dannybhoy

            You have your rights whoever you are. You have civil partnerships, equality before the law etc. Your problem is that the Church won’t /can’t condone it. As you well know we don’t reject you as a fellow sinner, but we must try to be obedient to the Gospel and it is Him the Lord Jesus, the Son of God who hung on the cross for your sins as well as mine that you are arguing with.

          • CliveM

            “I’ll stop searing Christians’ consciences”

            Get over yourself Linus.

          • The Explorer

            “it’s a sin that is in some way worse than any other.”
            Nonsense. In ‘1 Corinthians’ 6 it’s listed along with fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, swindlers, thieves, swindlers etc, but not cited for special mention: whereas a case of incest is.

            Satan fell through pride, which is more spiritually damaging than the sexual sins. The unforgivable sin is the rejection of God in full consciousness of what one is doing.

          • Anton

            Persecution is the very lifeblood of Christianity

            Well said! Echoing Tertullian a long time ago: “The more we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow: the blood of Christians is seed.”

  • Jill

    I count myself blessed that Her Maj has been the monarch during my lifetime. I fear the next generation
    will not be so fortunate.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    One is loyal, of course, and recognise the Queen has many virtues and strengths, but if one contrasts the reign alongside that of Queen Victoria, there are a few discordant notes. The backwash of Empire has not been entirely a blessing, and diversity seems to encourage division rather than understanding, although we try (Lord, how we try). Morality seems to have been more or less mothballed, and many long-established institutions hollowed out from the insides, so that they appear the same as ever but are not. Both reigns boast technological advances of course, many of which benefit all our lives, and more people are living longer now than before (thought that also brings with it a whole raft of issues). However, one must not carp. The Queen has done her duty, and has been an inspiration to many, so one hopes she enjoys her Sapphire Jubilee, basking in the warm affection of so many of her subjects.

    • dannybhoy

      “Morality seems to have been more or less mothballed, and many long-established institutions hollowed out from the insides, so that they appear the same as ever but are not. ”
      A great sentence that Mrs. Proudie, and fits right in with the precious discussion.
      The Queen inspires with her commitment to serving the country with her moral rectitude and graciousness, and we value and respect her for that.
      Yet as you say ‘they appear the same as ever but are not.’
      The monarchy is becoming a subject for glossy mags and tourism, their previous role as goodwill ambassadors within that great institution the Commonwealth, has been much reduced.
      It’s sad.
      Then with our turning away and betrayal of the Commonwealth nations came a growing timidity and abandonment of our moral fortitude, our pride in our national history, and the celebration of chav culture, of gold and glittery things worn on base achievements and shabby business dealings.
      It’s sad.
      And hollowed out from the insides so that they appear the same as ever, but are not…

    • wisestreligion

      Alas, my good lady, morality has somersaulted. Today it is immoral to call the sin of Sodom a sin, because such practice has been redesignated the highest, most progressive virtue. For a man to care for and protect his household is now Patriarchal Sexism. To defend the Queen’s realm and her British Subjects from foreign invaders is Racism and Islamophobia. Even the Queen’s Chaplain is removed for the sin of defending the faith.

      • Jon of GSG

        ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.’
        Sorry. Way off topic, and maybe a too oft-made point, but to my mind not oft enough. (Ezekiel 16 NIV)

  • IanCad

    A beautiful tribute YG.

  • 1642+5thMonarchy

    I believe this subdued criticism of the Queen is uncalled-for. Sure, personally I would like her to have taken a stand somewhere, perhaps over ghey marriage, but I can appreciate her position and don’t know what she did/said in private to various politcians.. She’s in an impossible position. If she called out the politicians they would impose a Republic, it would be the end of the CoE (sometimes it is said they stand or fall together) and I’m sure the pressures on her from advisers and politicians have been immense.

    All through these often dark days her personal integrity has shone forth, she’s spoken up clearly for the Christian faith, and has borne her duties so well that she is far more respected than any elected politician. She has perhaps played the long game, waiting on the Lord to change things, and now we see her Sovereignty being returned from Brussels, perhaps a vindication of her strategy. Cleverness involves knowing when to fight and when not to because the odds are impossible.

    I give thanks for her, hope she will reign many more years, and shudder at the alternatives.

    • CliveM

      I agree. There maybe days to carp, but today isn’t one.

    • Dominic Stockford

      I’m with you on this one. She’s certainly not a Charles I, who was to be opposed in almost everything he did, yet claimed to do it in God’s name.

    • Martin

      Sorry, I don’t see the future of the monarchy or the CoE as her problem, she should have rejected the legislation, that is what her vows called for.

      • Holger

        Emphatically no, she did not vow to maintain the Protestant religion as it was when she became queen.

        She vowed to maintain it as established by law. She doesn’t make the law, but even if she did, nothing in her vow would prevent her from changing the law, or agreeing to change it according to Parliament’s wishes.

        You know this and yet you continue to bear false witness against the queen, accusing her of dereliction of duty when she has been demonstrably true to her vow for 65 years.

        What kind of Christian are you? Judgmental when you’re told not to judge. Proud (in refusing to admit that you’re wrong) when you’re called to be humble. Rigid, unyielding, unloving and so very, very unlike Jesus.

        If your imaginary god does exist after all and there’s limited room in heaven, who will god be admitting: you or the queen? Will there a place for someone who publicly proclaims his sovereignty in love without judgment and who, although a queen, always bears herself with grace and humility? Or will he prefer a judgmental, stubborn, proud and unyielding dogmatist who roundly condemns all who will not bow to his rigid idea of right and wrong?

        I hope for your sake as much as mine that the Christian god as described in the bible doesn’t exist. If he does, I’ll be seeing you in hell. And that may well be the worst punishment the place has to offer.

        • Martin

          Holger

          She didn’t “maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law”?

          It applies to the law at that time, and those things which are unchanging.

          Christians are, however to judge & you don’t seem to have the wit to prove me wrong.

          Heaven, of course, is the abode of spirits, so speaking of ‘room’ is (ahem) immaterial. As to who gains admittance, the Bible no where says that is based o our good deeds.

          You really ought to do some theological study before you come here to cross swords.

  • not a machine

    I give thanks again for her majesties reign , I managed to see a large version of new David Bailey photograph on my pc, and I thought it was one of most wonderful portraits that has been taken ,my second being a very early one in full regalia .May God continue to guide her Majesty and Prince Phillip

  • bluedog

    The Servant Queen indeed, Your Grace, a life and a reign of selfless and ungrudging devotion for which we give hearty thanks. It is easy to be critical as some have been in this thread of the Queen’s seeming acquiescence to multiculturalism, diversity and the rise of Islam, but as a constitutional monarch, what alternative does she have? Everything about HM Queen, her Christianity, her role as a wife and mother, points to naturally conservative instincts and beliefs. One suspects that like so many of her generation in post-Imperial Britain, she genuinely believed that Islam could blend into the fabric of western societies without presenting an existential threat. We need to remember that when the policies that lead to this debacle were being framed, men like Churchill and Eden with vast experience of Imperial Britain, were her guides. We can reasonably assume that no western politician today, based on what we now know, would advocate repeating the mistake.

    If the great institutions, traditions and ceremonies of State seem to have been hollowed out, they are there for the taking, ready to be given new meaning by a younger generation. Brexit may be the catalyst to rejuvenation.

    • Inspector General

      Bluedog. One finds that in conversation with types that are not over keen on a constitutional monarch, mentioning the ghastly reality otherwise of a President Kinnock, President Foot, or President Mandelson soon brings them back on side….

      • bluedog

        Did you not read, Inspector, that after Trump was announced as POTUS, Obama’s VP Joe Biden was heard to exclaim, ‘God Save the Queen’? It seems others may occasionally ask themselves if they’ve got it right.

        • Inspector General

          Did he really? Do you think american types admire our monarchy so..

          • bluedog

            Maybe, maybe not. One recalls that Carl, possibly in an unguarded moment, posted along the lines that monarchy is the natural state of man.

          • carl jacobs

            I probably said it was the divine form of gov’t.

          • bluedog

            ‘…monarchy is the natural state of man.’ Your exact words, part of a lengthy comment on limited government a couple of years ago.

          • carl jacobs

            OK but so is paganism.

          • bluedog

            Translation: Jubilation T Cornpone! How did I get to say a thing like that on a blog stiff with Limey monarchists? Better throw them off the scent and lead them up a blind alley.

          • carl jacobs

            The point being that what is natural isn’t necessarily what’s best.

          • bluedog

            Scary, isn’t it? I just pick up stuff like that on a random basis. But what’s not to like about Stubby Kaye, who also played a part in the world’s finest Western, Cat Ballou.

            Well done for providing a further distraction.

            Reverting to the earlier matter, the unsolved mystery of the American Republic is the decision to incorporate the roles of head of state and chief executive into a single person. This from a nation that owes its origins to the rejection of a constitutional monarch. If George III had been an absolute monarch one could understand his demonisation by US ‘patriots’. But if you have republican leanings, to dump a monarchy that had been emasculated firstly by the English Civil War and secondly by the Glorious Revolution is perverse in itself. The mistake is compounded by the creation of a presidency that is an elected monarchy. Sacking one monarch and replacing him, or even her (we find Queens very effective), every four years rips your country apart. Relating these thoughts to your comment ‘…what is natural isn’t necessarily what’s best.’, one can only agree, with the corollary that sadly some nations succeed in making what maybe natural, worse. One can only be thankful that the American Revolution preceded the French Revolution. One shudders to think how the USA would have turned out if the US Constitution drew heavily on French precedents.

          • ….. and yet wasn’t God reluctant to grant Israel a Monarch when they beseeched Him?

          • Anton

            That’s because God was meant to be their monarch. Certainly he set their laws.

          • carl jacobs

            Because Israel already had a king. Who did Israel reject when it demanded Saul?

          • No, Jack meant when they first requested a King instead of Judges, so they could be like other nations.
            1 Samuel 8-10

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, that’s what I was referring to.

          • carl jacobs

            Its more or less a reality show in the US.

        • carl jacobs

          He was referring to Hillary.

          • bluedog

            Oh.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Not Obama?

      • Royinsouthwest

        It is said that Tony Blair wanted to be president but not of the United Kingdom. He wanted to be President of the European Union. Perhaps he will achieve that ambition if the Remainers get their way!

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          If the Remainers get their way there will be civil war.

          • Deimos

            Actually I voted out to try and give my descendants the chaos of change without the need for war. We’ve been treading water since the cold war ended, a constant parade of consumer inventions but no man on Mars. Wonderful smart phones but no new Concord, we need chaos to advance but might it be possible to avoid the shooting this time ?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I entirely agree, but if the other side will now allow peaceful change there is only one escalating alternative.

          • Anton

            Check for typo!

  • Mike Stallard

    Her Majesty has made one of the most difficult times for our country – the cold war, the loss of Empire and the transformation with immigrants from all over the world – look easy.

  • Martin

    Has Gavin Ashenden been forgotten so soon? The Queen has failed on gay marriage and abortion, for fear for the future of the monarchy I imagine.

    • Holger

      If the queen is a failure, what does that make you?

      • Martin

        Holger

        Not a fool.

    • Dominic Stockford

      While I understand what you are saying, I do think that 1642+5thMonarchy has posted, below, an apt and adequate ‘defence’ of her position. To which I would add the question: “If she had forced the issue, the monarchy then been disestablished [as would have inevitably happened], and we were run entirely by Parliament and some elected fool as a ‘President’, do you think things would be better or worse?”

      • Martin

        Dominic

        I don’t think that is an adequate excuse, even if it were a certainty.

        • Anton

          May I refer you to my comments below to Johnny, that the problem is the constitution, which gives her responsibility without power? She has to sign into law every piece of trash that men of evil put through parliament. If you are going to criticise her – and I can see why – then please in all fairness address the constitutional issue at the same time.

          • You mean what the Roundheads wanted from Charles I?

          • Anton

            All that the Roundheads wanted on the eve of the Civil War was freedom of worship and consultation of parliament over taxation. They found that Charles was willing to die for the principle of absolute monarchy. They obliged him. Good riddance.

          • Are you ‘aving a laugh?

            “All that the Roundheads wanted on the eve of the Civil War was freedom of worship and consultation of parliament over taxation.”

            Those leading the ideology of the coups d’état wanted rid of all the powers of the Monarchy (temporal and spiritual), the replacement of an Episcopalian church with congressationalism, the suppression of Catholics and Popery, and “Christian” (their version) laws, based on Old Testament morality as reflected in the Mosaic Law, passed by a religiously focussed Parliament. The New Jerusalem was at hand and Christ’s return and the Kingdom was to come.
            Of course the Puritan intelligentsia exposed and whipped up grievances at all economic and social levels of society against Charles I, the Church of England and Catholicism, and some were very legitimate too, but this is what was driving them. There was no desire for negotiation. Charles was gone – one way or the other. And, yes, he was a stubborn man who wanted his Divine Rights as King respected. That’s why he was such a pushover in falling into the snares of the Puritan strategy.

            What a scary prospect.

            Read the Nineteen Articles and do be honest about the history of your cult, its ambitions and methods.

          • Anton

            This is ignorant revisionism. If Charles had granted the entirely reasonable wish of the Puritans for less ornate worship services and had not punished their pamphleteers calling for it by flogging and cutting their ears off; and if he had kept his word to Parliament about consulting it over taxation, then the Civil War would never have happened. during that war the Puritans were radicalised. You think they were radicalised in a bad way and I think in a good, but that is not the point at issue, which is that what happened in 1649 and the 1650s never entered Puritan heads in 1642. Check your history books and then explain why the Puritans didn’t execute Charles in January 1647 but entered into protracted negotiation with him. Why not, Jack?

            The 19 Propositions were obviously a set of negotiating points designed to show Charles that Parliament was serious, set in the context that Charles had already tried to invade Parliament and been forced to flee London as a result. Those of the propositions that were did not recur in the later Heads of Proposals or the Army’s Remonstrance, did they?

          • You fantasise away about your cult’s past and place all the blame on King Charles. The Puritans had no right to dictate to him about forms of worship in the Church of England or in the land. The so called negotiation points were a declaration of war and left him no choice but to Raise his Standard.

          • Anton

            He didn’t, did He?

            By taking the view that Charles had every right to prescribe the form of divine worship in his kingdom, you have no right to complain that Catholicism was outlawed either.

            I note that you have failed to explain why, if your view is correct, the Puritans negotiated for 2 years with King Charles rather than execute him promptly, and why the more extreme of the 19 Propositions did not recur in the Heads of Proposals or the Army’s Remonstrance.

          • The explanation is obvious. The country at large wasn’t as extreme as the Puritan agitators and Charles had his supporters. It takes time to whip up sufficient hatred to commit regicide and execute the Head of the Church. What went on was hardly “negotiations” and, given Charles’ nature, he played into their hands.

          • Anton

            And if Charles had agreed to the Heads of Proposals, which were far gentler than the 19 Propositions?

            You are right that what went on was hardly negotiation, because Charles was stringing them along while he treacherously negotiated with the Scots behind their back.

          • Yes, more moderate than the Newcastle Propositions and less than the Levellers in the Army wanted. However, Charles wasn’t stupid and knew what lay ahead.
            Under these “moderate” Heads of Proposals, Royalists would have to wait five years before running for or holding an office; the Book of Common Prayer would be “allowed” to be read but not be “mandatory”; Parliamentary Constituencies would to be reorganised; the Episcopacy would be retained in name in church government but the power of the bishops would be curtailed; and Parliament would control the appointment of all state officials and officers in the army and navy for 10 years.
            As Jack said, Cromwell and his Puritan intelligentsia new where they were heading and so did King Charles.

          • Anton

            And why should BCP services be mandatory? Can’t Christians conduct their own worship? The power of the bishops badly needed curtailing but they would still be permitted a major say in church government.

            Parliament had just won a war at great cost in blood and Charles had proved himself deceitful for two decades. What do you expect?

            Charles actually said that he preferred the proposals of the Army to the Heads – that is the very Army that you say were the hardest-core Puritans.

          • Not a matter for a Puritan Parliament to dictate to an Apostolic and Episcopalian Church.

          • Anton

            So it’s an apostolic church now, is it? I seem to recall various words of yours as a Catholic denying the legitimacy of the Church of England.

            As you seem to think that it’s not OK for Parliament to dictate the form of worship but it is OK for a king to, you won’t mind that Charles refused Catholicism.

            How about a little consistency?

          • At that time it was an Apostolic Church as the succession was intact and the ordination ceremonies correct in both form and matter. Anglo-Catholics still regard it as such.
            Yes, Jack does “mind” that Monarch’s since Henry VIII have rejected Catholicism. Technically, he would regard them as heretics with no Divine Right to rule. It’s never “right” for a civil government to dictate the terms of worship on the Church established by Christ. It’s why it’s all gone pear shaped.

          • Anton

            If Charles is in your eyes a heretic with no divine right to rule, as you have just stated in so many words, why then are you adamant that he did have the right to do whatever he pleased in the 1630s, including breaking his word to Parliament repeatedly over taxation, a civil issue?

          • Because, England and the Anglican Church accepted him as their lawful King and as Head of the English Church. He was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
            Being Catholic, Jack would not have recognised nor accepted this, but he certainly wouldn’t bear arms against his King unless, perhaps, their was a legitimate heir who’s position he’d usurped and a lack of stable governance.
            Now, please cite where Jack has said Charles had the “right” to do as he pleased, including breaking his word to Parliament? A Christian King has to abide has to by a moral code and listen to both spiritual and temporal advisers, and balance various interests in his realm with his own. However, a poor King is not legitimate grounds for removing his crown and his head.

          • Anton

            You have never spoken a word against Charles breaking his word consistently to Parliament over major matters even though all historians agree it happened and I have repeatedly brought it to your attention. You have always said that Parliamentary side should have backed off. What am I to infer from that other than that you believe Charles was free – which means he had the right – to do whatever he liked?

            Tell me, if the king is under the law, and if he is bound by his own word, then who but Parliament might hold him to these?

          • Martin

            Anton

            But the constitutional issue is addressed, The stand needs to be taken, whatever the consequences.

    • In what way exactly has Her Majesty failed to keep her Coronation oath?

      The Church of England has approved abortion, divorce and remarriage, and civil same sex marriages, not to mention the ordination of women. Agreed, these are inconsistent with the Laws of God and the profession of the Gospel. However, not everybody agrees and, in its wisdom, the Church of England supported these developments and Parliament passed the legislation. You don’t know Her Majesty did not do “the utmost in her power” to resist these changes.

      Perhaps a Puritan Dictator should have been installed, cut her head off, established a theocracy and waged a war against a Godless nation.

      • dannybhoy

        “Perhaps a Puritan Dictator should have been installed, cut her head of, established a theocracy and waged a war against a Godless nation.”
        I never cease to be amazed by folk who can’t let go of the past. Like this anthem which was written by Roy Williamson of the folk group the Corries, and presented in 1967, and refers to the victory of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce, over England’s Edward II at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314.

        “O flower of Scotland
        When will we see your like again
        That fought and died for
        Your wee bit hill and glen
        And stood against him
        Proud Edward’s army
        And sent him homeward
        Tae think again

        The hills are bare now
        And autumn leaves lie thick and still
        O’er land that is lost now
        Which those so dearly held
        And stood against him
        Proud Edward’s army
        And sent him homeward
        Tae think again

        Those days are passed now
        And in the past they must remain
        But we can still rise now
        And be the nation again
        That stood against him
        Proud Edward’s army
        And sent him homeward
        Tae think again”

        Here’s I and the wife cheering on Scotland on Saturday against the Irish, knowing full well there are miserable, sour and resentful little Scots folk wandering around the sodden glens, hating the guts of the English..
        Very sad.

        • Pubcrawler

          Well, it’s nice that they have at least one victory to look back on with pride, however long ago. And to think, there are those who mock the English for harking on about an event as distant as 1966…

          (Or 1945, or 1918, or 1815, or 1805, or 1588, or 1415, or 1346…)

          • dannybhoy

            Well this is true, but seeing as I lost interest in football in the early ’80s, I don’t care.
            Scotland’s rugby team has really come on, especially under Laidlaw’s captaincy, and all credit to them. We support Wales more than England because they play with such passion.. It’s how it is.

          • Pubcrawler

            To clarify: I was commenting on the song, not the rugby.

          • dannybhoy

            And that.

          • Anton

            I’d put Danny’s point like this: when England get knocked out of an international tournament but Scotland continue further, the English back them, whereas when Scotland get knocked out and England continue further the Scots back whoever England are playing.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, you’re quite right Anton.
            it’s an appreciation of personal skill, stamina and unity as exemplified by those fellas. When we first started watching rugby on tv Scotland were like miners; one step forward, out come the wee spades and dig in… The Italians were permanent custodians if the wooden spoon. But look at them now! It’s just great for the team and great for the sport when progress is made..

          • Pubcrawler

            I was just making a lighthearted(ish) observation about the apparent Scottish obsession with an event of 1215.

            “when England get knocked out of an international tournament but Scotland continue further”

            Sorry, what?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            1513?

          • Pubcrawler

            Ah yes, thank you. That list was just rattled off the top of my head. I could also have mentioned 1333, but less is made of that and 1513, which is why they slipped my mind..

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            One of Scotland’s heaviest defeats at the hands of England. Cost them a king too. Backstabbing England as usual.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Some nice points there, and no laws against making them…

      • IanCad

        And there you have it Jack. The state church conforms to will of parliament and that is preferable to the reverse. When churches rule supreme horrors follow in short order. The CofE has trundled along, always giving way – here a little, there a little – until by conforming to the sentiment of the masses it loses its very sense of purpose.
        Not sure how this is going to end, but in a post-Christian era, most likely not very well.

        • Martin

          Ian

          What would be preferable would be godly men in church and parliament. But now the possibility of that seems wiped out.

          • dannybhoy

            Amen, but we should pray for men like Gavin Ashenden….

          • Martin

            Danny

            We should pray for all, even Mr Speaker.

          • dannybhoy

            You’re quite right Martin, but some folks are easier to pray for than others..
            Having a balance between the seriousness of evangelism and the reality of our humanness is quite difficult. I have no proof to offer but I don’t think humour and laughter and leg pulling were unknown amongst Jesus and the disciples.

      • Martin

        HJ

        Actually you have a point, the CoE is so muddle headed and so prepared to go along with what society wants that is could easily be said to be the greatest impediment to preaching the gospel in this realm. Perhaps Cranmer’s mode is simply to ‘mute’ what he doesn’t like.

        One thing is certain, however, she did not do all in her power, she didn’t refuse royal assent on any of them.

        • Yes, she could have abdicated.

          • Martin

            HJ

            I think abdication would have been the cowards way.

          • Anton

            It is within her power to dissolve Parliament…

          • Martin

            Anton

            I think Parliament could do with a bit of dissolving.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            She would have seen that as a breaking of her Coronation Oath.

          • Then she did all she could bar refusing Royal Assent which, by convention, British Constitutional Monarchs just don’t do. Think, if she dared refuse the authority of Parliament, some may have called for her head.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            That’s my view, but it would have been curtains for the monarchy.

      • Anton

        It was Charles who declared war on his own people, at Nottingham on 22nd August 1642.

        • The Puritan Nineteen Propositions were the precipitating factor. Apart from removing the King’s power to govern – control of the army and foreign policy – these included:
          Parliament’s control the education of the King’s children;
          Parliament’s approval of the marriage of the King’s children;
          the vote of Catholic Lords be taken away,
          the children of Catholics must receive a Protestant education;
          a Puritan reformation of the Church government must be made;
          the King’s pardon could be vetoed by Parliament; and
          the King must alley with the Protestant Dutch in order to defend them against the Pope and his followers.

          The Nineteen Propositions are accepted as the turning point between attempted conciliation between the King and Parliament and war. In August 1642 the government split into two factions: the Cavaliers (Royalists) and the Roundheads (Parliamentarians).

          • Hi happy Jack,

            it is somewhat strange that Irishman and Catholic Richard Harris ended up playing Cromwell in the film of the same name, which also had the guy who played Obi Wan Kenobi, who was also Irish (at least his surname was- Guinness you can’t get more Irish than that) as king Charles I !

          • Dominic Stockford

            He seems very keen to defend a Protestant King, oddly so for a Roman.

          • Hi

            Or maybe he was a professional in his job?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Harris played the great man very well and fairly.

          • Hi

            He was a good thespian!

          • Hi

            This song helped me to understand the civil war:

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IXUBkko4utg

          • Anton

            What nonsense that this was the precipitating factor. If anything was, it was Charles’ invasion of the Houses of Parliament with soldiers in January 1642, seeking to arrest five MPs. For that, London rose against the king and he fled. Most of the 19 Propositions were patently negotiating points in the hope that Charles would at last pay heed to his word over taxes and religious freedom. Still no Puritan looked to a republic in 1642; the issues for their side remained Charles’ high-handedness to Parliament and his refusal to allow them to worship in their own way.

          • Jack’s not interested. You make a sectarian point, Jack will provide an alternative narrative. The Puritans weren’t interested in negotiations. Their end goal was a theocracy. Their worship was congregationalism, directly opposed to Apostolic and Episcopalian Anglicanism, which they sought to impose.

          • Anton

            For someone who lauds the mediaeval Catholic feudal system to use ‘theocracy’ as perjorative is hypocrisy.

            I was pointing out that you were wrong in claiming that the 19 Propositions were the key factor; the single greatest escalation was Charles’ invasion of Parliament to try to arrest five members. That led to popular dissent of such magnitude that he fled London, months earlier.

            Your claim that the Puritans weren’t interested in negotiations is ridiculous. This is not a religious point. They entered into protracted negotiations with Charles after defeating him militarily yet declining to put him to death. He was handed to Parliamentarians in January 1647 and talked on good terms with Parliament’s leaders. The Army refused to disband only because Parliament refused it back pay. Then Charles was found to have negotiated, from the Isle of Wight, with the Scots while stalling for time in his negotiations with Parliament. That led to the Battle of Preston and another defeat for Charles. Even then Parliament negotiated with him. Only when he began stalling those negotiations did Cromwell have him executed. How then can you say that the Puritans weren’t interested in negotiations? Charles, incidentally, never wavered in those negotiations from the aim of absolute power. Parliament’s proposals were libertarian.

            I have explained here from scripture before that, once the apostolos who founded a congregation had passed on, it was led by an internal council of presbyteroi/episkopoi (elders/overseers), one word denoting their seniority and the other their function. Any shift from that pattern described in scripture is done by what authority greater than that of scripture’s Author?

            As for the Apostolic succession, you are welcome to it.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Complete nonsense. For an amazing account of the causes and course of events that led to the outbreak for the First Civil War read Charles Adamson’s ‘The Noble Revolt’.

            The causes were deep and centred on Charles attempt to govern without Parliament and his use of arbitrary taxation. His disastrous attempt to impose the Prayer Book on Scotland caused two abortive wars and a Scots invasion. The Irish Catholic revolt and massacres of Protestants led to attempts to raise a new army but he had to recall parliament to fund it and Parliament refused to do so unless he handed over its command to it because Parliament feared he would really use it against them. The struggle over command of this new army is what touched off the war, especially when Parliament discovered Charles was planning to bring foreign forces into England to impose arbitrary rule.

          • Let’s just conclude by saying we’d have fought on different sides in the Civil War and see the issues very differently. Don’t white-wash the Puritans.

          • Anton

            Here’s how I’d summarise the run-up.

            To get money, Charles had signed a ‘petition of right’ acknowledging that parliamentary consent was required for taxes, and some other restrictions on his power. He soon broke his word, and in 1629 he dissolved parliament. After that he came up with unscrupulous and unpopular ways to raise money, while parliamentarians exploited the resulting grievances countrywide. Meanwhile, in his other nation, Scotland, Charles had by 1637 alienated both the aristocracy and the kirk in his attempts to enact his neo-Catholic view of church. A movement called the Covenanters sprang up, willing to take up arms and demanding the return of Presbyterianism in Scotland. In 1640 Charles summoned the English parliament to raise money for an army large enough to march north and deal with the Covenanters. But the Puritan majority in parliament was in religious sympathy with the Covenanters, and insisted that Charles first honour the Petition of Right and desist from arbitrary taxations and punishments for non-payment. Charles dissolved this short parliament. The Scots then invaded the English borderlands to emphasise their point, and Charles summoned England’s parliament again to help him implement the peace treaty. But Parliament prioritised its grievances against Charles and promptly trumped up charges of treason against the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, whose religious policies lay behind the persecution of Puritans; and against Charles’ most trusted advisor, Thomas Wentworth. Parliament also made clear that it would dissolve by its own decision. Crown and Parliament encroached further upon each other’s prerogatives as mistrust grew.

            To deal with the Covenanters, Charles sought to raise a force in Ireland (where Wentworth had been his governor). As incentive, Charles dangled some religious freedoms before Ireland’s Catholic population. But the idea of a Catholic army on British soil was anathema to protestant parliamentarians, who mistrusted Charles and his queen, a French Catholic princess. Charles’ plan fell apart for lack of funds, but Ireland now rose up in fear of a Covenanter-Puritan protestant invasion that might forcibly disarm Catholic folk there. Many protestant settlers in Ulster were massacred, and Irish Catholics demanded religious freedom. Charles now asked the English parliament to fund an army to subdue Ireland. Parliament was willing only if the force was not under Charles’ control. It again presented him with a list of grievances for redress (the ‘Grand Remonstrance’), and demanded parliamentary veto over Charles’ choice of ministers. Mistrust became total when Charles entered parliament with troops seeking to arrest five MPs whom he claimed had treasonously encouraged the Covenanters’ invasion of northern England. For this violation of parliamentary privilege London rose against Charles, who fled the capital early in 1642.

          • Jack isn’t going to read through all that.
            God Save the King.

          • Anton

            If Jack doesn’t want to be taken seriously, that is his privilege.

  • dannybhoy

    True or not? Not all Scots of course, but enough to annoy those of us who acknowledge the past but prefer to live in the present and celebrate enlightened progress.

    • CliveM

      Try living with them for 40 years!!

      • dannybhoy

        I don’t like getting annoyed (trying to give it up), but for Jack as a learned man who knows so much about his faith to goad and insult Dominic – and our Protestant faith, is unworthy of anyone claiming to know the Truth and follow our Lord.
        I’m not saying it’s all one-sided, but Jack is the voice of Catholicism on this blog, and these attacks do not reflect well on him or his faith.

        • Didn’t notice you chastising Dominic for this:

          “She’s certainly not a Charles I, who was to be opposed in almost everything he did, yet claimed to do it in God’s name.”

          • dannybhoy

            Jack seriously, what does it matter? Isn’t it enough that you are respected here as an advocate and defender of your Catholic faith? I respect you and all devout Catholics even though we will never agree. That’s why I try not to join in attacks on Catholicism. I was just disappointed that you would start having a go at Dominic. You’re better than that.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Yeah, we Jack’s just don’t like the man. Simple. It’s not Christian, but there it is. We will try harder.

          • dannybhoy

            Well for Goodness sakes, smile in that orangey, Quakery, way you normally have…

          • Cressida de Nova

            Cressida does not like him either.What Catholic would like him under the circumstances. I know priests who have left the priesthood but they do not behave with such rancour and hate. You don’t have to like everyone.You are forbidden to hate…not quite the same thing,Jack!

          • Dominic Stockford

            I shall carry on hating the false teaching of Rome, (looking below), as should any wise person. But will keep certain people blocked – those who play the person, not the ball.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Hypocrisy is alive and well on this blog Jack. D boy is a good example of it.He only defends those he likes.

        • CliveM

          Ok DB I’m going to come clean. Personally this Proddy v Teigh thing irritates me. Perhaps DB was a bit OTT, but I see this as a two way problem. If people are continually going to blame all historical ills on the RCC, then they should expect a response.

          There is a continual sniping by both sides and I’m not going place the blame for this on any one person.

          I think people need to reflect on how this is viewed by those outside the body of Christ. Sarky has already highlighted his view.

          Personally any rational reading of history on this subject, will conclude both sides have a lot to ask forgiveness for.

          • dannybhoy

            Amen.
            “Personally any rational reading of history on this subject, will conclude both sides have a lot to ask forgiveness for.”
            No one has all the answers, because it’s a relationship not a formula!
            “Perhaps DB was a bit OTT”
            No understand, Senor Clive, but pleased very much you are now coming clean…

          • CliveM

            Oops I meant HJ! Will amend. Apologies.

          • Anton

            Your last sentence would be true if protestantism was a single hierarchy, as Rome is; but it isn’t. I’m in a congregation which has shared in no bloodshed, even historically, and my choice is not accidental.

          • CliveM

            I think people will understand the point I’m making.

          • Anton

            Your point has raised others that are of concern to me, though. You presumably believe that the congregation I am in is on one side (as do I), yet I believe that it has nothing to ask forgiveness for in relation to the Reformation.

          • CliveM

            I sure your congregation doesn’t. However when a person defends the reformation and condemns the RCC reaction against it, that person needs to acknowledge that the violence wasn’t all one way. Both sides murdered, tortured and attempted to impose their beliefs. So rather then either side pointing fingers, they would be better reflecting on the failures of both sides.

            Attempting to score points on this is simply embarrassing.

            For clarification this is targeted at you, but is a general point.

          • Anton

            For clarification you can check that multiple times on this blog I have said that I am against all politicised Christianity “whether protestant, Catholic or Orthodox”.

          • CliveM

            Apologies I really should have checked I missed the word NOT !!!!!! Will amend.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Oh no you should target him and his hideous acolyte 1642. They are the chief offenders.

          • Anton

            Pleased to uptick you for that.

          • Pubcrawler

            “how could one dislike a man who runs a brewery?”

            Well, I know one in particular (not the one commenting here) who is a complete arse. But on the whole they’re OK, and one has been a good friend for many years.

          • What about Scotland and the fact the rebellion there led indirectly to the English Civil Wars as they left Charles I strapped for cash? And Cromwell’s murderous acts against Catholics in Ireland? The Puritans were the drivers of intolerance in the name of tolerance.

          • Anton

            Charles I was strapped for cash already, because he had refused to consult the English parliament about taxation and was consequently obliged to invent new taxes that broke centuries of precedent. In Scotland he had by 1637 alienated both the aristocracy and the kirk. Only a fool does that. Charles was a vain absolutist and both kingdoms vomited him out. In Scotland this of course had nothing to do with the Puritans.

            As for Cromwell’s Irish campaign in 1649, it was waged pre-emptively to prevent an invasion of England. (I am stating a fact and not going into the rights and wrongs of it.) Cromwell adopted harsher tactics because his army was moving in countryside uniformly hostile to him, which had not been the case in England where every community was divided. This campaign was brutal but it was primarily political rather than religious, for it would not have happened in the absence of a perceived risk of invasion from Ireland, and set in charge of the royalist forces against Cromwell was a protestant, the Duke of Ormonde.

          • Ireland wanted similar concessions granted to Scotland – except they were a Catholic nation. Invasion? Sure!

          • Anton

            What do you mean by “concessions granted to Scotland” – by whom? Scotland was a sovereign nation and was not invaded during these wars until *after* the Irish campaign.

            The situation in Ireland was confused but by 1649 it came down to King or Parliament with all other differences set aside (albeit temporarily). I suggest you check your history books.

        • Dominic Stockford

          I’ve blocked HJ again, and GJ, and won’t be bothering unblocking. Ever. I have better things to do with my mind – which I come here to sharpen, not to have distracted.

          • dannybhoy

            I’m all for bridge building, and have no desire to take sides. There may be some ‘previous’ between you, but I certainly don’t want to know about it. I will do my best to stay neutral..

  • grandpa1940
  • God save the Queen!

    God save our gracious Queen!
    Long live our noble Queen!
    God save the Queen!
    Send her victorious,
    Happy and glorious,
    Long to reign over us:
    God save the Queen!

    O Lord our God arise,
    Scatter her enemies,
    And make them fall:
    Confound their politics,
    Frustrate their knavish tricks,
    On Thee our hopes we fix:
    God save us all.

    From EU and Merkel
    Great Britain defend her,
    Foes let them fall;
    From foreign slavery,
    Junker and his knavery,
    And EU Reverie,
    God save us all.

    God bless our native land!
    May heaven’s protecting hand
    Still guard our shore:
    May peace her power extend,
    Foe be transformed to friend,
    And Britain’s rights depend
    On war no more.

    O Lord, our monarch bless
    With strength and righteousness:
    Long may she reign:
    Her heart inspire and move
    With wisdom from above;
    And in a nation’s love
    Her throne maintain

    May just and righteous laws
    Uphold the public cause,
    And bless our isle:
    Home of the brave and free,
    Thou land of liberty,
    We pray that still on thee
    Kind heaven may smile.

    Not in this land alone,
    But be God’s mercies known
    From shore to shore:
    Lord make the nations see
    That men should brothers be,
    And form one family
    The wide world over

    One realm of races four
    Blest more and ever more
    God save our land!
    Home of the brave and free
    Set in the silver sea
    True nurse of chivalry

    Our loved Dominions bless
    With peace and happiness
    From shore to shore;
    And let our Commonwealth be
    Loyal, united, free,
    True to herself and Thee
    For evermore.

    Thy choicest gifts in store,
    On her be pleased to pour;
    Long may she reign:
    May she defend our laws,
    And ever give us cause,
    To sing with heart and voice,
    God save the Queen!

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Bravo, Hannah!

      During the 1745 Jacobite rebellion, when Field Marshal George Wade’s army was assembling at Newcastle, there was an additional verse written, though it rapidly faded into obscurity until brought to light again in a song book:

      Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
      May by thy mighty aid,
      Victory bring.
      May he sedition hush,
      and like a torrent rush,
      Rebellious Scots to crush,
      God save the King.

      • Hi

        I didn’t want to upset our Scottish brethren ….

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          Don’t worry Hannah, the SNP ones of them are self-starting in that regard.

          • Anton

            Some of us think that Scottish independence would provide a salutary dousing with cold water of these people.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Not sure Anton. An independent Scotland would be a basket case and they would still blame Engand, meanwhile the sensible Scots would be screwed. I know some Scots business people who say thy would move south if it were to happen.

          • Anton

            The sensible Scots need to assert their case better over the daft ones. I’ve grow tired of the latter dominating the dialogue with England. I don’t remotely judge the Scottish nation by the daft ones, but emotionally I’ve had nearly enough of the grumbling, and pragmatically I can’t see anything that would bring the daft ones to their senses other than having to take responsibility for themselves. Down the present road lies concession after concession at England’s expense. Across the Atlantic I see the Quebecois tail wag the Canadian dog, and I wish to draw our line in the sand long before it gets to that stage.

            I’d greatly welcome a comment by our wise Scotsman Clive.

          • Holger

            “I wish to draw our line in the sand…”

            Draw your line wherever you like! As it’s the line of a random nobody with no more influence over public policy than No. 10´s cat (indeed probably significantly less), it matters to nobody where you draw it. If you think it does, you clearly have a poor grip on reality (surprise, surprise!)

            In any case, as Britain clearly wants a return to the era of national rivalry in Europe rather than national cooperation, sensible policy for the EU would be to encourage Scottish separatism, perhaps by dangling the prospect of unopposed EU membership before the SNP’s nose as an incentive. Ending the union would weaken England, which would find itself encircled by its greatest competitor and rival.

            Spain with its perennial Catalan and Basque problems might object, but passions over Gibraltar run high in Madrid, so I have a feeling very little persuasion would be needed to get the Spaniards on board. The EU obliged Spain to cooperate with the UK. Once it no longer has to, support for any measure that weakens the occupier of what they still view as Spanish territory can’t fail to win the day.

            Once Scotland goes, what then? Irish reunification? An independent Welsh republic? Will England itself hold together, or will bits like Cornwall and “Oop Narth” fall off? A return to the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, perhaps? Or does US overseas territory status beckon, with a disestablished church and monarchy in order to ensure compliance with the US constitution?

            Will America put the Gland back in England? If Trump has anything to do with it, I’d say the chances are high. Although, as his mother was a Scot, perhaps the eastern seat of the Special Relationship will move from London to Edinburgh.

            All this could well happen. You’re in uncharted waters now and all sorts of reefs and skerries could rip your keel to shreds at any moment. As a rival to the EU, your neighbours are perfectly entitled to work in concert to undermine your interests. This is what happens when nation strives against nation. This is what the EU was founded to avoid.

          • Anton

            How nice to hear your dulcet tones once more… the EU in its present form is toast regardless of what goes on in the UK, and the wiser of its citizens say Good Riddance to Brussels. At today’s levels of debt and immigration we are all in uncharted waters. The postwar peace was kept by an alliance against a common enemy. NATO, not the EU.

          • Holger

            OK Mystic Meg, but what about this?

            Deuteronomy 18:10: “There shall not be found among you . . . anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens.”

            Your crystal ball is offensive to your imaginary god. You’d better hope he’ll pretend overlook your flouting of his extremely clear pretend command. Otherwise your pretend punishment will be severe indeed.

            Careful. You could be spending eternity with Martin and me in pretend hell.

          • Anton

            The commands in Deuteronomy are against witchcraft practices; otherwise there would be a ban on routine matters such as weather forecasting.

          • Holger

            The ban in Deuteronomy is against divination. The dictionary definition of divination is any art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge, usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers.

            So what supernatural power gives you the ability to foretell future events then?

            Your superior intellect?

            Must we also add pride to the list of your unrepentant sins?

          • Anton

            What you think of me is your business. I am simply doing what political pundits do. Time will tell if I do better than you did at calling the Brexit result.

          • Holger

            Time will also tell if you do as well as I did when calling the Irish referendum result. That guess was based on polling data, which turned out to be rather accurate. The Brexit polls were not, but perhaps that was to be expected given the more controversial nature of the referendum topic.

            Which fact should give any Christian pause for thought. A mere question of politics was more controversial than the rejection of a basic element of Christian morality.

            I believe Brexit to be a retrograde step. But if the British want to shoot themselves in the foot, who am I to object? The outcome of leaving the EU is completely uncertain, so crowing about it and predicting glory is premature at best. But predict away: your predictions have no effect on reality, although if this imaginary god of yours really does exist, they may have an effect on your salvation.

            What interests me is the evident collapse of Christian morality, which signals a much more fundamental change in social attitudes than Brexit does. Western peoples no longer believe that homosexuality should be penalized. They view it as acceptable to the point of recognizing gay relationships on an equal footing with traditional marriage. They no longer believe that marriage is any kind of sacrament, nor that it is binding for life. The defeat of Christianity implicit in these changes cannot be masked by the transitory victory of a purely political cause.

            The foundations of your religion’s control over society have been kicked out from underneath you. By all means gloat over whatever other victories come your way. But whatever they are, they won’t buy back your defeats.

          • Anton

            The sociosexual revolution of the 1960s and its consequences are precisely why God is raising Islam as judgement. When it comes, “the just shall live by faith”.

            I believe Brexit to be a retrograde step. But if the British want to shoot themselves in the foot, who am I to object?

            You spent a remarkable amount of time and energy right here doing that!

          • CliveM

            ‘wise Scotsman’ ok you flatterer!

            One (of several) reasons I left Scotland was I was getting sick and tired of all the nationalistic nonsense in the run up to the referendum. However it has to be said that (like the Remainers in Brexit) too much of the Unionist argument goes along the lines of “”Scotland is a basket case, you cant survive alone”! No vision, simply a negative “you’re no good “.

            Hardly inspiring.

            However Sturgeon is in a bind at the moment. Another failed referendum and that would take independence of the agenda for a generation. However if she waits until after Brexit, the cost of Scotland remaining in the EU, whilst its biggest market , England, remained out of it, will become increasingly clear.

            Think, Scotland would have to trade with England on the same terms as the rest of the EU. Subject to tariffs. Trade to the EU, will have to go through England, possibly subject to tariffs. The border possibly closed and a low tax economy right beside her, attracting the best of the talent.

            All the whining is about causing resentment. The SNP have an almost Putin like grip on the media. The STV do the SNP’s bidding and frankly should be at risk of losing their broadcasting license.

            Is independence inevitable, no. But there is a threat and yes I agree a line should be drawn. The SNP are failing in govt, they’ve already been given all the tools they need. Let the fail.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Very good, but it appears that you have a lot of spare time on your hands. Would you like to wash my car?

      • Hi Dominic

        “Very good but it appears that you have a lot of spare time on your hands. Would you like to wash my car?”

        Thanks for your kind remarks , but I politely decline the offer of washing your car. I hope I have misunderstood, but you seem to be taking a slight dig at me here?

        • Dominic Stockford

          Merely teasing – it must have taken hours to write all that!