29 May 2009

OAKAPPLE DAY ...

... the Anniversary of the Restoration of our late Sovereign Lord King Charles II. The 1662 Calendar orders it to kept as a Red Letter Day. I suppose an obvious EF liturgical celebration would be a Mass for our present Monarch, Francis II. '... all things shall be well, When the King shall have his own again', as right-thinking people sing. Send him Victorious, Happy and Glorious, Soon to reign over us, God save the King.

On Monday, as Pam and I walked along the tow path to see the eights practising ready for the exertions of Eights Week (read Zuleika Dobson if you don't know what bumping races are), we noticed that the wild white roses were already out. But White Rose Day, when loyalists used to celebrate with copious bumpers the Birthday of our late Sovereign Lord King James III and the Proctors used to fear lest the the Whigs send another military detachment to slaughter a few more undergraduates, is not until June 10.

The times they are a-changing, to quote another Jacobite song.

VIVAT REX. Or, as Dr William King proclaimed in the five (or was it more?) paragraphs of the peroration of his Latin speech at the Opening of the Radcliffe Camera in 1749 ( the last major public act of defiance against the Hannoverian Usurpation) REDEAT MAGNUS ILLE GENIUS BRITTANNIAE.

8 comments:

Rubricarius said...

Our current Monarch's name is Elizabeth - God grant Her many years!

Nebuly said...

Surely, dear Father, adherence to the demands of the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the same Prayer book which orders Oak Apple Day precludes the succession of HRH Francis and ushered in the forebears of Our Most Gracious Queen and Governor?

No doubt you will remind us that the then Pope dispensed such breaches

However the Present Pontiff it would appear recognizes the current happy reign.

Pastor in Valle said...

Indeed: it is my understanding that after the death of King Henry IX, English Catholics were commanded to pray for the Hanoverian dynasty in the Canon (which practice continued into the reign of Victoria).

Rubricarius said...

Pastor in Valle,

Am I mistaken but I am sure I have read somewhere that there was an oratio pro re gravi (or its equivalent presribed to be sung for the Royal House? The prayer I saw mentioned King George, Queen Charlotte and the Royal Issue. Do you know anything about it?

Christopher said...

And for that matter, does anyone out there include the prayer for our dear monarch at sung Masses on Sundays?

Principled Legitimist said...

God save the king, and all that
‘Send him … Soon to reign…’-Amen to that, of course.

A number of points arise from this very welcome public display of loyalty to the true king.English people should never forget that whatever their tastes in monarchy, this is the original version of the prayer. The paid agents of the usurpation had to get the staff of the London theatres – the equivalent of the modern day blairite bbc – to sing a variant version specifying the name of their candidate to be inserted into this too popular song. And of course, ‘send him.… …long to reign’ does not make sense. (They needed to alter it to ‘grant’, but seem to have failed). The original is ‘Send him… …soon’.

‘Elizabeth - God grant Her many years!’

Absolutely. As many as you like. But that doesn’t make her the real monarch. Everyone says she is terribly nice and hard-working. That may be true, but it cannot move her up several thousand places in the legitimate line of succession. It also makes no difference if one is some kind of Dianista and looks forward to her shiny-headed offspring on the throne or if one prefers his plant-conversing pa. Personally I do. I like his views on most subjects and agree with him that modernist architects have probably done more to make a misery out of the lives of ordinary people than any other single cause. But that doesn’t make Prince Charles Philip of Greece the heir to the English or Scots thrones.
The English throne is transmitted by the rules of the royal prerogative. It can be interfered with only by statute. The ‘Act of Settlement’ purports to do this, but being signed by a usurper, and indeed passed by a body that was no parliament, cannot do this. Practically, the last serious legal source to acknowledge this was Maitland in the twenties. Presumably the monarchy would have to be restored before another true Parliament could be called.

Some mad american has written something floating around the net trying to prove that international law has intervened to alter the succession into the houses of Braunschweig-Loonyburg-hanover, Saxe-Coburg and now Greece und Denmark. It simply cannot, for the reason mentioned above. International law, in its eleventh century version, was used to justify the invasion of the bastard of Normandy who told the pope some lies and got the contemporary equivalent of a UN mandate to invade us. I am against it.

It seems the Catholics of the Roman obedience have been quicker to bow to the Braunschweig-Luneburg dynasty and its unappealing successors than Jacobite Anglicans, (because they were perceived to be foreign immigrants? Who wants to be called a traitor and a foreigner as well as a left-footer?). Perhaps the Vatican desired good diplomatic relations with the powers that were, but that doesn’t make kings legitimate in the eyes of God or their people. People forget. It was really only the hard fact that the legimate king was also king of Bavaria in 1914 that eroded popular support for the true monarchy. That’s all over with now, so I say, come ye out from among them. I am still (just about) an anglican and I am mad as hell.

The Principled Legitimist

Principled Legitimist said...

And...

‘Surely adherence to the demands of the Table of Kindred and Affinity precludes the succession of Francis and ushered in the forebears of Our Most Gracious Queen and Governor? No doubt you will remind us that the Pope dispensed such breaches.’

Marriages legally solemnized abroad, dispensed or not, are always recognized in this jurisdiction, even if they would not have been legal if attempted within it. It is certainly not Mary III and II’s marriage that brought Elzabeth of Greece to the usurping throne of Willem van Nassau (or is it ‘van Nassouen’? It could be van der Valk, I never really cared). If that marriage had been void, the line would have descended through the next of her three sisters, to the current hereditary queen dowager of Naples. There are plenty of legitimate candidates before one gets anywhere near the progeny of Georg ze vife-beater.

It is said Elizabeth of Greece (that is the wife of Philip of Greece, (‘Brenda’ as Private Eye has it). That is the style she is entitled to as long as the Saxe-Coburgs were still of princely rank when she married. If it had been possible for George V to have disclaimed his Saxe-Coburg princely rank she would be only Princess Philip. I argue one cannot cease to be a prince. You never cease to be your father’s son. Edward VIII was called ‘Prince Edward’ on the BBC at the time of the famous abdication broadcast, in the gap between ceasing to be king and being named duke of Windsor. Anyway.) This lady is said to be against the idea of abdications. She shouldn’t be, as her tenure of the post depends on the idea that King James VII abdicated before his son-in-law turned up with a foreign army to invade my country and coerce her Parliament.

Principled Legitimist said...

Lastly, two more things...

It sometimes seems the English, and indeed, at times, all of the British, actually like being invaded. We have had the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans (French Vikings), the Welsh, accompanied by more French people, and the Dutch. At least Cromwell gave THEM a run for their money. It was some kind of miracle that we stood up to Hitler in 1940. That was probably a fluke due to Churchill's dual nationality or something, because I think Chamberlain would have been up for it. And still the traitors of 1688 and those of their descendents continuing to profit from that treason have not yet been punished. [I suppose there would be trouble if I were to advocate hanging the duke of Devonshire, so I shall not. Well. Not today, anyhow] Their actions were designed to continue the republic in all but name. I like names. They’re more honest. Better the dynasty of Cromwell than the name of monarchy under false pretences.


And another thing. The other false, usurping monarchy is the Swedish one. There must be some genuine Vasas left somewhere. In other circumstances practically the only legitimate monarchies left are those descended from the Danish Royal House. They have one of those in Norway. The Swedes should reconsider. Monsieur Bernadotte, a king, indeed… They have a fake state-controlled church, too.

The Principled Legitimist has said enough, now, I think.