I find it rather outrageous that anyone could react with anger, disdain or hostility over the announcement of an engagement of any two people. An impending marriage should be viewed as a happy occasion and met with best wishes from all. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case these days even with the British and Commonwealth Royal Family. Again, I find it distasteful that anyone, from any country, would take such an occasion to be negative but I was even more disturbed to find such attitudes exhibited, not only by British and Commonwealth subjects, but even those who are actually in the employ of the Crown! Two cases stand out as particularly outrageous because of their origins.
A bishop of the Church of England, Pete Broadbent of Willesden, compared the young couple to “shallow celebrities”, bemoaned the potential cost of a royal wedding to the British public and sneered that the House of Windsor was full of “broken marriages and philanderers”. He said that when a date for the wedding was announced he would take a republican holiday to France. To rub further salt into the wound he predicted the marriage would fail after seven years. What a “Christian” attitude for a bishop to take! This makes my blood boil and I am not comforted in the least by the comment from Lambeth Palace that the bishop is “entitled to his views”. My response to that would be, “the Hell he is!” This man (I use the term lightly) is a bishop of the Church of England, the established church of his country. I wonder if he has forgotten that it was a philandering royal with a string of “broken marriages” to his credit that is responsible for there being a Church of England in the first place.
This reveals how far the Church of England has fallen from the pedestal of its foundation. From its inception the Anglican church was based on Christianity and non-resistance to the royal power. Today we see that not only has Christianity been fairly well eradicated from the Church of England but alarming progress has been made in eradicating monarchism from it as well. For a church founded by a king, based on non-resistance to royal power and which still maintains Her Majesty the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church of England I can think of no better evidence of the fact that the Anglican communion will very soon be reduced to dust and the Church of England disestablished and left to die a lonely death. Quite apart from the religious issues this treasonous tirade by an Anglican bishop serves as quite stunning evidence of how completely the Church of England has abandoned its own roots, turned against its core principles and effectively cut its own throat. When this disgrace of a bishop goes to France for his republican holiday he would do well to recall the horrific bloodlust that came with republicanism and the French Revolution, a Reign of Terror that the British kingdoms were spared from.
The bishop has since apologized for his remarks (made on Facebook) both for their content and the public forum in which they were made but it is noticeable that he did not apologize for the content -something public figures have become quite good at in recent days; uttering meaningless apologies for offending without actually admitting they were wrong about anything. He wished the couple success in their marriage and said he would be praying for them. Oh, spare me your public piety Pharisee! The fact that an Anglican bishop would even think of saying such a thing is outrageous and says a lot about his church and his own character as does the dismissal of the issue by Lambeth Palace which evidently has also lost track of why they hold a place of privilege to begin with and which side of their bread is buttered.
So much for the clergy, what about the political class? A member of the Mad Monarchist Brain Trust drew my attention to the treasonous remarks of Greater Manchester senior councillor Mike Connolly who referred to Prince William and his bride-to-be as “multi-millionaire parasites” in comments posted on his Facebook account. Following a public outcry he issued an apology for his words but nonetheless retracted none of the sentiment behind it, expressing his hopes that the Royal Family would pay for the upcoming wedding rather than the British public. His only given reasoning for this was that the “local people and hardworking families” he knew had to pay for their own weddings and so the royals should do the same. Of course, by that same logic royals should be able to travel as they wish, speak out on any issue with any opinion they wish, lobby the government and exercise all of the other rights and privileges enjoyed by “local people” but denied to members of the Royal Family. Somehow I doubt Mr Connolly would hold this same opinion if a member of the Royal Family came to help organize opposition to his reelection and campaign for his challenger.
More striking to me than this, though, is that this man who refers to the royals as “multi-millionaire parasites” is himself, as a politician, a parasite on the body of the British taxpaying public. This basic truth seems lost on the entire republican population. They also are willingly ignorant of the fact that the private income surrendered by the Queen in return for a public allowance is far greater than the amount the Queen receives from the British taxpayer. This, of course, is an old argument and not one monarchists are likely to gain much ground with so long as the prevailing media in Britain and around the world continues its stubborn refusal to state the facts about royal finances and the Crown Estates. However, all of that seems to me to be a less frightening fact of life than the basic lack of national pride, the free allowance of such ardent opposition to the fundamental basis of British life and government which these individuals reflect. The fact that anyone serving in public office in Great Britain would voice such vile opposition to the very foundation of their country and their government says a great deal about the state to which the western world today has fallen.
A bishop of the Church of England, Pete Broadbent of Willesden, compared the young couple to “shallow celebrities”, bemoaned the potential cost of a royal wedding to the British public and sneered that the House of Windsor was full of “broken marriages and philanderers”. He said that when a date for the wedding was announced he would take a republican holiday to France. To rub further salt into the wound he predicted the marriage would fail after seven years. What a “Christian” attitude for a bishop to take! This makes my blood boil and I am not comforted in the least by the comment from Lambeth Palace that the bishop is “entitled to his views”. My response to that would be, “the Hell he is!” This man (I use the term lightly) is a bishop of the Church of England, the established church of his country. I wonder if he has forgotten that it was a philandering royal with a string of “broken marriages” to his credit that is responsible for there being a Church of England in the first place.
This reveals how far the Church of England has fallen from the pedestal of its foundation. From its inception the Anglican church was based on Christianity and non-resistance to the royal power. Today we see that not only has Christianity been fairly well eradicated from the Church of England but alarming progress has been made in eradicating monarchism from it as well. For a church founded by a king, based on non-resistance to royal power and which still maintains Her Majesty the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church of England I can think of no better evidence of the fact that the Anglican communion will very soon be reduced to dust and the Church of England disestablished and left to die a lonely death. Quite apart from the religious issues this treasonous tirade by an Anglican bishop serves as quite stunning evidence of how completely the Church of England has abandoned its own roots, turned against its core principles and effectively cut its own throat. When this disgrace of a bishop goes to France for his republican holiday he would do well to recall the horrific bloodlust that came with republicanism and the French Revolution, a Reign of Terror that the British kingdoms were spared from.
The bishop has since apologized for his remarks (made on Facebook) both for their content and the public forum in which they were made but it is noticeable that he did not apologize for the content -something public figures have become quite good at in recent days; uttering meaningless apologies for offending without actually admitting they were wrong about anything. He wished the couple success in their marriage and said he would be praying for them. Oh, spare me your public piety Pharisee! The fact that an Anglican bishop would even think of saying such a thing is outrageous and says a lot about his church and his own character as does the dismissal of the issue by Lambeth Palace which evidently has also lost track of why they hold a place of privilege to begin with and which side of their bread is buttered.
So much for the clergy, what about the political class? A member of the Mad Monarchist Brain Trust drew my attention to the treasonous remarks of Greater Manchester senior councillor Mike Connolly who referred to Prince William and his bride-to-be as “multi-millionaire parasites” in comments posted on his Facebook account. Following a public outcry he issued an apology for his words but nonetheless retracted none of the sentiment behind it, expressing his hopes that the Royal Family would pay for the upcoming wedding rather than the British public. His only given reasoning for this was that the “local people and hardworking families” he knew had to pay for their own weddings and so the royals should do the same. Of course, by that same logic royals should be able to travel as they wish, speak out on any issue with any opinion they wish, lobby the government and exercise all of the other rights and privileges enjoyed by “local people” but denied to members of the Royal Family. Somehow I doubt Mr Connolly would hold this same opinion if a member of the Royal Family came to help organize opposition to his reelection and campaign for his challenger.
More striking to me than this, though, is that this man who refers to the royals as “multi-millionaire parasites” is himself, as a politician, a parasite on the body of the British taxpaying public. This basic truth seems lost on the entire republican population. They also are willingly ignorant of the fact that the private income surrendered by the Queen in return for a public allowance is far greater than the amount the Queen receives from the British taxpayer. This, of course, is an old argument and not one monarchists are likely to gain much ground with so long as the prevailing media in Britain and around the world continues its stubborn refusal to state the facts about royal finances and the Crown Estates. However, all of that seems to me to be a less frightening fact of life than the basic lack of national pride, the free allowance of such ardent opposition to the fundamental basis of British life and government which these individuals reflect. The fact that anyone serving in public office in Great Britain would voice such vile opposition to the very foundation of their country and their government says a great deal about the state to which the western world today has fallen.
There is a quote from C.S. Lewis, "Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.".
ReplyDeleteOur modern era is so invested in the narrative of Democracy being the ideal, and bringing Freedom, prosperity, and unity that the Royal Family is looked at in condescension and disdain, especially by the educated elites of our world, because they represent a thowback to the much more enlightened and highly developed Democracy... the Egalitarian world in which we imagine we are creating.
Of coruse yoru right, its horrible that a Christian Minister woudl dare to castigate a Unon of anyone, much less his own Prince in a Churhc based aroudn Monarhcy, but it illustrates ho "Modern" and "Advanced" the Church of England is. Politicians of course hate Monarhcy as they cap their own power.
But st the heart of all this, and at the heart of Liberalism, and hence Republicanism, is a selfishness, an appeal to our baser, more cruel selves. We want to geer and sneer and hate the Monarhcy, just as we wat to feel self important and self righeous, and the hole of modern culture elevates this desire to feel powrful, this hedonism, this selfishness, and so we ate Monarhcy.
Lewis also said our reaction to Monarhcy is a test, did he not? Really its about if we will be willign to recognise an outside authority, or if wall we can do is focus on our own pride and desires, and this is the engine that drives our modern world.
Britain, once great, has given up on God and its own Traditions to feel modern and revived in a vain hope that this will lend to it greatness anew as adapted for todays world,and it will lead tot he same ruin it always has because the ideas aren't really new at all.
This is how Cultures die, after all.
Whatever one's politics, an engagement is no time to be nasty. These types have no sense of decency it seems.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad (to say the least) Lambeth Palace has such a weak response to the Bishop for his unbecoming statement.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't the Queen have some say about this wayward Bishop for his statement?
A contemporary Anglican / Episcopalian bishop is nothing more than, at best, an expensive irrelevance.
ReplyDeleteGod bless the Monarchy and the young couple.
-- Mack Hall
Mack, I second your statement. I mean, considering that some 300 Anglican priests in the UK do not even believe in the Resurrection (which thus means they are excluded from being called Christian at all, since it was something of the point of the whole affair), you do well to say that the CoE has basically severed its own Christian core.
ReplyDeleteI should like to point out, as well, that Parliament has been recommending people for ecclesiastical office since 1688, and as such, we have something of an inversion of the standard idea of theocracy. Now, instead of the religion ruling the government, the government rules the religion. Thus, the religion changes almost at the whim of the government. Her Majesty has nothing to do with this - she is hamstrung by consitutional precedent on the matter, and is so swamped by all her duties that she really can't pay attention. I would imagine that she is rather furious as well.
It is interesting to note as well that both of these comments were made on Facebook. I guess the idea of thinking before you say something is one area both these miscreants have something to learn on.
Still, the monarchy will go on, even when these funless Scrooges have been consigned as a footnote in history. God Save the Queen!
Just in - David Flint reports that said Bishop has been dismissed by the Bishop of London. Also included is the date (29-4-2011) and the location (Westminster Abbey) of the wedding.
ReplyDeleteI realise that Zarove's "the hole of modern culture" is a typo, but it is an incredibly apt one. The "culture" with which the modern directors of elite opinion (or "Gramsci's bastards," as I prefer to think of them) seek to replace our inherited traditions, culture and institutions (including Church and Monarchy, and anything else which adds grace to life and nourishes the human soul), is indeed a deep, dark, noisome pit, and the utterances of Messrs Broadbent and Connolly are merely some of its more gaseous emanations.
ReplyDelete- Edward M. Bridle.
Thanks for the update Mr Wells. I noticed there that the Royal Family and the Middletons will be paying for the ceremony themselevs -I wonder how long that news has been known but ignored around the world. As to the bishop, I hope "dismissed" is the right word but the first report I read sounded a little softer, that the Bishop of London asked this republican idiot to take a 'time out' until he hears otherwise.
ReplyDeleteMr Bridle, part of my own blog is to demonstrate that not all of modern culture is devoid of merit. You can find it in the sidebar here or by clicking on my name (I hope you don't mind a bit of plugging, MM).
ReplyDeleteCertainly though, one has to sort the wheat from the chaff, but there is much out there to like. Generally though, it isn't what gets the attention. Hence, my blog.
It's so ironic. Prince William has spent most of his years in silly ignorance (how else can one explain him once wearing swastika) and not behaving in a fashion worthy of a royal. Yet, the media only chooses to attack him viciously now that he does something truly noble--won a wife. How pathetically petty Leftist propaganda is!
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in your overall sentiment, Prince William has made his share of blunders (taking an RAF helicopter to visit his girlfriend etc) but just for the record it was Prince Harry who wore the Nazi costume rather than William.
ReplyDelete