Will be Queen Elizabeth II the longest ever reigning monarch in British history?

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Excuse me, let me clarify that we are not talking about the longest living monarch in the British Throne, that is two different events.

We are talking of the Monarch with more years ruling Britain , that is the topic of this thread.

Her Majesty Elizabeth, the II nd, is already the Monarch with more longevity among the ones that have ascended to the British Throne, but she is not yet the one with more years in that position.

The fact is that Queen Victoria became British Monarch being younger than the age Queen Elizabeth had when she did so.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: woogleuk

The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,

Dear woodleuk,

I appreciate your kind comment. I also think this thread is not intended at all to demonize the Monarchy or who holds right now the crown.

Now, the principal reason for which I think the Queen is still on the Throne is because she is after all a consecrated Monarch, She was invested Queen by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Abbey of Westminster in 1952, so she received the Crown by who supposedly must represent the pontiff and whose authority was originally part of the apostolic succession, in spite of the fact that what Henry VIIIth Tudor did was certainly a terrible sin to separate the Anglican Church from the rest of the Catholic world.

This important aspect of the origin of her power, it is good remember that officially she is the Supreme Governor or the Church of England, makes her or whoever try to succeed her a person that must live according with the commandments of God.

en.wikipedia.org...

With respect to the Church of Scotland the Monarch does not hold position of leadership, but anyway it has extraordinary influence and take part in important decisions. Who is in the throne appoints the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as his or her personal representative, with a ceremonial role.

en.wikipedia.org...

Unfortunately Charles, Prince of Wales, is a man that has committed and it is still committing systematically Adultery in his life. He had a mistress all the years he was married with Diana Spencer, who is right now his second wife, Camila Parker Bowles, that is by the way a married woman.

It is important to also recall that divorce is something that it is assumed in a very different way by God than what it is in this world.

The Marriage of Camila Parker Bowles was never nullified by the Catholic Church. Mrs Parker Bowles is Roman Catholic and so her relationship with the Prince, in the past and in the present, falls in the category of what it is considered as Capital sin.

Hence Charles Mountbatten is not qualified to be consecrated Monarch and of course absolutely unacceptable to be Principal of any Church.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: Connell

Your comment is debatable and rather offensive, it sounds misogynistic.

However my interest in debating that in this thread or any other is zero and it is also off topic.

a reply to: The angel of light

The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a pontiff and it was not an act of Apostolic Succession. The official religion of the UK is not Catholicism so your opinion of Charles as being suitable as a monarch based on Catholicism is null and void.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/pontiff

pontiff. c.1600, "high priest," from French pontif (early 16c.), from Latin pontifex, title of a Roman high priest (see pontifex). Used for "bishop" in Church Latin, but not recorded in that sense in English until 1670s, specifically "the bishop of Rome," the pope.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Dear Theasolutetruth,,

I am sorry but on this matter I am afraid that your opinion is interesting and respectable but it is not the absolute truth.

England was a country that was Catholic until the XVI century, so all the Bishops and that includes the Archbishop of Canterbury before and of that time were consecrated in their religious authority by the Pope himself, in that sense the legality of their roles and for extension the one of their successors come from an appointment granted originally by the Holy see.

Now, as I already commented in spite of what King Henry VIII th has done, An anointed bishop remains with its original investiture until death, in the same way that Priesthood is an authority that never is lost even if who has it renounce or is separated by the Church of his job.

In that sense all the religious acts that come from anointed Bishops are part of the Apostolic succession. It is called Apostolic since they are originally authorized from an Apostol of Christ.

Let me remember that None Apostol of Christ never put his feet on English soil, in spite of all the legends about the Holy Grail supposedly carried by Joseph of Arimathea. Therefore the only Apostolic succession that is possible in the British Islands is necessarily the one that is derived of the link that existed in the past with Rome, which of course was granted and can be traced back in History along all the Popes until St Peter, its first Bishop and Apostol of Christ.

Im sorry to contradict you, but you are wrong and my comment is not only pertinent, but extremely relevant to define the root cause of this issue.

By the way Mrs Camila Parker Bowles was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, so what ever attains to her private life is also business of the Holy See. Her marriage was not only officiated as sacrament but also consummated, and there is a son and a daughter that are alive proof of that situation.

The Anglican Church does not accept at all Marriage after divorce, that is a huge violation of the concept of Sacrament. The Marriage of Prince Charles and Camila Parker certainly exist, but as a civil union since her first husband is still alive and they are officially divorced. Let me also remember that Adultery is a sin that is never individual, it requires at least two to be consummated.


Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
England was a country that was Catholic until the XVI century,

It still is mostly catholic....

The Anglican Church does not accept at all Marriage after divorce,

Still wrong, www.churchofengland.org...

You seem very confused, and try to interpret things your own silly way.

a reply to: hellobruce

Excuse me, but I am not going to fall in a series of speculations around what kind of marriage we are taking about. I also don't care about acts that are supported in personal decisions of priests, the Christian doctrine is clear in that respect, and what ever "changes" that contradict it represents corruption boosted by traffic of influences.

Now, Let me refer to the facts that are Historic, they are so eloquent to speak alone by themselves:

The wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker-Bowles was a civil ceremony , on 9 April 2005.

The civil wedding ceremony took place in the Guildhall, Windsor. Prince William and Tom Parker Bowles (Camilla’s son) served as witnesses to the civil wedding ceremony, which was conducted by the Royal Borough’s Superintendant Registrar, Clair Williams.

The Prince was the first member of the royal family to marry in a civil ceremony in England. Dr. Stephen Chetney, a Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford questioned whether Charles and Camilla could marry in a civil ceremony, as the Royal Family was specifically excluded from the law which instituted civil marriages in England (Marriage Act 1836).

I am aware that since 2002 the Anglican Church decided to release their restrictions to marry divorcees, at the discretion of the Priest.

That is not surprising at all for me, after all who is in way to be the head of a Church is person in such so compromising condition, but you forget that who establishes that commandment that you call silly is not any Pope, neither any King of England, is Jesus Christ in person.

Let me remind you that Jesus Christ is not under the Authority of the King of England or any other Monarch or temporal authority, so his commandments can't be void or distorted by any political authority of that kind, essentially to insist in that is to fall in Apostasy or Sacrilege of the worst kind.

Now, at the time of the wedding it is clear that none Anglican religious authority gave their approval as Marriage to the Union of Charles and Camila, that is the reason for which the wedding was not a religious one. The most that the Prince could got was a blessing that happened after the wedding and that was never intended as to substitute the marriage rite, was a generous merciful act of the Archbishop to meliorate the negative impact of the bold action of the couple in the life of the Church of England, since anyway it was clearly against their doctrine.

if now 10 years later Charles Mountbatten has moved his influences to try to change the commandments of the church that is not changing the situation at all with respect to God, in fact is a clear act of Heresy and Blasphemy.

In St. Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

St. Mark 10:2-12:

2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." ]

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
I refer to the facts that are Historic,

The Facts are that they are legally married, despite what a papist wants to think.

a reply to: hellobruce

None Priest have absolute authority to distort the scope of a sacrament, he must respond of his decisions to God himself.

The Marriage of Camilla Rosemary Shand and Brigadier Andrew Parker Bowles of 1973 has not been nullified , there is a divorce granted instead. So it is still valid, and by the way there is no reason to think the contrary is possible, since she married being adult and conscious of her own acts.

Charles also went to the Altar of St Paul Cathedral to marry Lady Diana Spence when he was 33 years old, so he was well aware of what he was doing. Diana was just 19 years at that moment, but it was he who systematically started the adultery against his own marriage and he one of the Parker Bowles.

This maybe sounds radical, but a priest also in certain so grave circumstances, if he used wrongly his authority, could go to purgatory and even Hell.

Now, as already showed you the commandment that has been violated by this Prince comes from Jesus Christ himself, there is no Pope involved on this point of view, so it is ridiculous to talk on terms of Anti-Papist rhetoric.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
The Marriage of Camila has not been nullified ,

Why would it be, she and Chuck are happily married, so is Camilla's divorced husband!

so it is still valid,

Well, of course it is valid, she and chuck are still married.

there is no Pope involved on this point of view,

What has the pope got to do with the UK? You are very confused.

a reply to: The angel of light

Again who is really confused are you, the Sacrament of marriage we are talking about belongs to God and Jesus Christ is the authority that is saying to us that this civil union after a marriage is a sin, because the Prince is living with a woman that is divorced.

The quotes of my previous reply comes from the words of Jesus in the Holy scriptures, from St Luke 16 and St Mark 10 , so even the Archbishop of Canterbury must obey them, otherwise he himself might be falling in Apostasy.

Jesus Christ teachings are the ones that are clearly saying to us that this is a sinful action and no Church in this world can change it, including the Church of England.

It is God who is letting this Queen to Live an extremely long realm precisely to prevent a major collapse not only of the Monarchic Institution but also of the Christian Faith in England in case this Prince accede to the Throne.

Her Majesty the Queen is several times more sensate than her son and understands better than you what is the point here. That is also the reason for which she didn't attend the civil wedding of Charles 10 years ago.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
the Sacrament of marriage we are talking about belongs to God and Jesus Christ is the authority that is saying to us that this civil union after a marriage is a sin, because the Prince is living with a woman that is divorced.

Wrong, God is fine with it. In fact he is very happy for them.

Who cares?
Personally I think it's a ridiculous idea to think that they are better than us cause of their bloodline.

Every time the "Royals" visit Canada we spend millions of dollars to entertain them and people wait in mass groups for hours just to catch a glimpse of them, and for what?

The news reports about them for days when they are here and it's like we're forced to know about every time they fart.
I remember last time they were here just before the new baby was born, the news went on about it as if that's all anyone cared about. They did a poll asking if people liked to hear about them and it was something like 90% could care less.

Anyway, all I have to really say is I couldn't give a flying F# about any of them, just as I'm sure they couldn't give one about me.

I just don't get all the fawning hype over them.

I find it sad we continue to let people like this live under their unelected titles and plutocracy.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
And 3 of them female, two named Elis(z)abeth and all stoic.

Not wishing to derail this thread by an observation that of all the monarchs in England and the UK, the three queens Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II, trounce all the males IMHO, the few short-lived female failures not withstanding. Does this prove that women can do things better than men when given the chance?

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Connell

Your comment is debatable and rather offensive, it sounds misogynistic.

However my interest in debating that in this thread or any other is zero and it is also off topic.

I'm not sure, as a woman, why you think that is so misogynistic?

Male and female have differing and complementary roles, yin and yang as it were. We each fulfill and complete the other. It means nothing to create if you cannot also maintain and nurture, and it means nothing to maintain and nurture is you cannot also create. That is not to say that the masculine and feminine are each completely devoid of the gifts of the other, but neither can completely replace the other either.

Why do you think part of the marriage ceremony is two become one? We are to complete one another in all ways.

a reply to: hellobruce

Really Hellobruce?

So why Charles is still on waiting for more than 59 years as a Prince of Wales? even his Grand Uncle Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1936 for his adventure with the two times divorced Mrs Wallis Simpson had more al most a year in the British Throne, that is more than what this Prince can say.

en.wikipedia.org...

It does not seem that God is in a hurry to put him to rule Britain, to the contrary it seems he does not want to let that day arrive.

Are we going to see again a year with three Monarchs in the Throne?

1936 : a year with three British Monarchs

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: paraphi

Perhaps, certainly less penchant for 'mines bigger than yours' wars, macho posturing and egotism.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sounds like you misread my original comment which is that IMO of there is such a thing as ''god'' it is an omnipotent and infinite energy that is above being compared to human /animal standards of masculine/feminine defined roles. That is my opinion, three members have commented negatively on it so far and I didn't ask them to, it was part of a reply to another poster and is off topic.

People on ATS really ought to stop twisting words into something they aren't and looking for arguments, it is beyond tedious.

a reply to: Jameeyy

Though it is tame compared to the levels of sycophancy demanded from other religions in other lands.