# Warmest Congratulations and Best Wishes to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II!



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 8, 2015)

Her Majesty the Queen has just equaled and is set to surpass on September 10, D.v., the 63+ year record of her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria. 

Congratulations to her as she becomes the longest reigning British monarch and to all her subjects, especially on this board. 

God save the Queen (and all her peoples)!

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW (Sep 8, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> God save the Queen (and all her peoples)!



In thankful recognition of the goodness of God to us, though her Majesty reigns mostly in title only, nevertheless her very office as a constitutional monarch, as a Protestant institution established on historic Protestant principles, has done much for the preservation of our society in the midst of godless and immoral influences. Even the longevity of her reign has had a stabilising effect in the kind providence of God.

God save the queen!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 8, 2015)

These are important milestones for us all.

With respect to British history, this year is also the 800th anniversary of Magna Charta and the 750th of Simon de Montfort's Parliament (the notion being later adopted by Edward I). Just to note in church history, this is also the 800th year of Lateran IV, the medieval council that enshrined transubstantiation and set the plate for the Reformation (still to come when Reformation forerunner Jan Hus was burned at the stake for his witness to the truth, 600 years ago at the Council of Constance).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 9, 2015)

God save the queen and amen!


----------



## bookslover (Sep 9, 2015)

Take that, Vicky!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 9, 2015)




----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 9, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> ...the medieval council that enshrined transubstantiation and *set the plate* for the Reformation....



Priceless!


----------



## kodos (Sep 9, 2015)

> In thankful recognition of the goodness of God to us, though her Majesty reigns mostly in title only, nevertheless her very office as a constitutional monarch, as a Protestant institution established on historic Protestant principles, has done much for the preservation of our society in the midst of godless and immoral influences.


Can someone explain to me her stance on so-called gay "marriage"? I believe a couple of years ago she signed the bill into law that approves of such things. Even if she is merely a figurehead, and is "constrained" to do so, I would imagine that a stand for the Word of God would require her to do at the very least what that clerk in Kentucky has done, and make sure that her name is nowhere to be found on such a piece of legislation.

And isn't she considered: 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'?

As a Presbyterian, I truly shudder at "Supreme Governor of the Church of England", but I do appreciate that the Sovereign of England is charged to be a Defender of the Faith.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 9, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


>



I bet he, and even more so his buddy Jefferson, would have strong reactions to an American voluntarily offering up a "God save the queen.."


----------



## jfschultz (Sep 9, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Her Majesty the Queen has just equaled and is set to surpass on September 10, D.v., the 63+ year record of her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria.
> 
> Congratulations to her as she becomes the longest reigning British monarch and to all her subjects, especially on this board.
> 
> ...



Actually that milestone happened a bit after 4:00 PM London time today (11:00 AM EDT).


----------



## jambo (Sep 9, 2015)

As one of her majesty's loyal subjects many thanks for all your good wishes. 

In answer to Rom, the Queen as monarch is head of the Church of England. This was one big issue for the Covenanters who could accept the king as head of state but not had of the church giving rise to the slogan "no king but Christ." Her successor, Prince Charles, doesn't want to be known as head of the faith, but as head of faith making it an all-inclusive fath embracing all shades of beliefs amongst the nation.

Big changes after her reign ends an I don't see Charles as being as popular as his mum.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 9, 2015)

I remember there being talk that Charles would immediately abdicate and make Prince William king. Has that changed or was that never a reality?


----------



## Jack K (Sep 9, 2015)

jfschultz said:


> Actually that milestone happened a bit after 4:00 PM London time today (11:00 AM EDT).



We are in London and visited the Tower this afternoon. The beefeater leading our tour gave a brief shout-out to the queen.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 9, 2015)

Warm congratulations to the Queen's fellow record-breaker, Wayne Rooney.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 9, 2015)

jambo said:


> Big changes after her reign ends an I don't see Charles as being as popular as his mum.



I honestly cannot imagine what the world will be like without Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Is anyone here old enough to remember her not being the British monarch?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 9, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> I bet he, and even more so his buddy Jefferson, would have strong reactions to an American voluntarily offering up a "God save the queen.."



Yes, Mr. Jefferson (and Mr. Madison, lesser so), were devotees of the French, with the former strongly approving the French Revolution. Over against these Democratic-Republicans, the Federalists (think particularly of J. Adams and J.Q. Adams) found themselves much more sympathetic to the British. 

Charles Hodge, as an example of one of our Presbyterian forefathers, was a Federalist, then a Whig, then a Republican, all the while being pro-British in his policies and support. Hodge had little regard, as did almost all Christians at the time, for Jefferson and his ilk. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jambo (Sep 9, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I remember there being talk that Charles would immediately abdicate and make Prince William king. Has that changed or was that never a reality?



I don't think that was ever a reality and I think that was more an idea the public have suggested and would probably have a popular support. A king abdicating may not have the impact of the 1935 abdication but such is the nature of the monarchy that its not going to happen.




Reformed Covenanter said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> > Big changes after her reign ends an I don't see Charles as being as popular as his mum.
> ...



Likewise. Such has been her presence that it would be hard to imagine the UK without a queen. It is also strange to think that after Elizabeth there will be at least 4 generations before there will be another queen.

In the house I grew up in in Edinburgh, there was only one house that stood between us and Holyrood Palace. I suppose you could say we were neighbours. Mind you I never once saw her at the chippie.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 9, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> a Federalist, then a Whig, then a Republican



You should be ashamed to call a man such names!


----------



## MW (Sep 9, 2015)

kodos said:


> And isn't she considered: 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'?



It is interesting to read the way the Scottish Presbyterians addressed Queen Anne in lieu of the Act of Union in 1707:



> May it please your Majesty, When we consider the many and great advantages that we enjoy under your Majesty's happy Government, we look upon ourselves as obliged, in the conclusion of this our meeting, to renew those sincere acknowledgments of them which we did with all humility lay before your Majesty when we came first together. We cannot, without the deepest sense of gratitude, call to mind the tender and affectionate care which your Majesty hath expressed towards us in this juncture; for, in your royal goodness, you have not only honoured us with a representative entirely and deservedly acceptable to us, whose prudent and obliging management upon this occasion hath justly increased our esteem of him and confidence in him; but your Majesty hath also been concerned to preserve Christian unity and harmony amongst us, by manifesting a pious care not to straiten us in any thing wherein your Majesty did judge our principles were concerned. We have such grateful impressions of this your Majesty's wise and tender management, as will not only influence ourselves to a firm and steady loyalty, but put us upon using our utmost endeavours, in our stations, to maintain and promote it amongst all in whom we have an interest, in which we crave liberty to assure your Majesty that we shall not be wanting; for we cannot but acknowledge that we are under the highest obligations, not only as subjects, but as Protestants, to be constant and fervent in our addresses to the Sovereign God, that He would richly bless, long preserve, and prosper your Majesty, whose zeal for maintaining of our holy religion, and restoring to their just rights those that have been unjustly oppressed for adhering to it, hath been, in the course of your glorious reign, manifested to the world, and which, to our great joy, hath signally appeared in your Majesty's most gracious answer to the late address of our brethren, the distressed and persecuted Protestants of France.
> 
> May the great God, in his infinite mercy, make your Majesty an illustrious instrument, not only to procure a firm peace to Europe, but to restore the ruined Zion of our Redeemer, in the dominions of that haughty monarch, who hath impiously gloried in his having razed it even to the foundation thereof; that the Almighty may be always your strength and defence; that he may always compass your royal person "with his favour as with a shield;" that he may long continue you to be a guardian to the Protestant churches, and liberties of Europe, a blessing to your loving people, and possess your Majesty at last of glory, honour, and immortality, is, and shall be, the fervent prayer of,
> 
> May it please your Majesty, your Majesty's most faithful, most obedient, and most humble subjects, the Ministers and Elders met in this National Assembly of the Church of Scotland.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 9, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I bet he, and even more so his buddy Jefferson, would have strong reactions to an American voluntarily offering up a "God save the queen.."
> ...





Hear! Hear! I've mused many a time upon Romans 13 and thought that, perhaps, the War for Independence was outright rebellion against a God ordained authority/magistrate. I'm not going as far as the Divine Right of Kings--or take that theory into the realm of a reductio, but I think it's safe to say that the "Founding Fathers" were not a monolith and more than a few moved from ungodly presuppositions. 

Furthermore, the way the American Church, at least much of the evangelical wing, has enveloped itself in the hem of the Stars and Stripes and become a step-child of the GOP is more than a bit saddening. I've a few close friends, believers through and through, who place these men on a pedestal. I always tell them that if they truly want to act as that generation did, then social media is all fine and dandy, but they'd best join some ultra-right group, lock and load and start acting crazy. Real crazy.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 10, 2015)

jambo said:


> As one of her majesty's loyal subjects many thanks for all your good wishes.
> 
> In answer to Rom, the Queen as monarch is head of the Church of England. This was one big issue for the Covenanters who could accept the king as head of state but not had of the church giving rise to the slogan "no king but Christ." Her successor, Prince Charles, doesn't want to be known as head of the faith, but as head of faith making it an all-inclusive fath embracing all shades of beliefs amongst the nation.
> 
> Big changes after her reign ends an I don't see Charles as being as popular as his mum.



Fortunately, Charles wouldn't be king long enough to do much permanent damage. He'll be 67 in November, and mom seems pretty healthy yet.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 10, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I bet he, and even more so his buddy Jefferson, would have strong reactions to an American voluntarily offering up a "God save the queen.."
> ...



I certainly don't want to get into a war over history with a professional historian, but I'd point out that Hodge was born in 1797, while Jefferson's presidency was from 1801-1809, making Hodge a mere 12 years old when Jefferson's tenure ended. I hardly think Hodge's opinions of Jefferson, if he had any, matter.

Actually, Jefferson was wildly popular with Christians who were often persecuted or marginalized - especially the Baptists in New England. As governor of Virginia, he put an end to the religious establishment of the Church of England, etc. 

I'm surprised you didn't mention Hamilton, who was probably the most pro-British public figure in American history. 

While it is true that (at first) Jefferson was wildly enamored by the French, and I think that to the end he saw the French Revolution as being a more consistent rejection of all things aristocratic, nonetheless, in the midst of the horrors of the Reign of Terror his rhetoric toned down dramatically. And by the time he was President he was first and foremost an American, suspicious of all Old World powers - to include France. Though the War of 1812 legitimized his long-standing suspicions that England was always looking for a way to subjugate America to the Crown. 

So, much like the old Virginian Republicans of the likes of Jefferson, Madison, etc... I believe the spirit of monarchy is one and the same as the spirit of prelatism... and I, along with the truest proponents of the American spirit, am opposed to both.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 10, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Hodge had little regard, as did almost all Christians at the time, for Jefferson and his ilk.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Now as an historian you could write a book about such to help dispel the idea of the sainthood of Jefferson.

God save The Queen all us people, be her subjects or not.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 10, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> I certainly don't want to get into a war over history with a professional historian, but I'd point out that Hodge was born in 1797, while Jefferson's presidency was from 1801-1809, making Hodge a mere 12 years old when Jefferson's tenure ended. I hardly think Hodge's opinions of Jefferson, if he had any, matter.



I am glad that you don't want to get into a war. I would have dreaded to see what you had to say if you did! 

Princeton as a whole (and Old School Presbyterianism) tended to be anti-Jeffersonian and of a Federalist/Whig bent. I could quote you private correspondence of Hodge on the matter (especially on Andrew Jackson); how old Hodge was when Jefferson was president is no more relevant than it is for you and me, who can examine the historical sources and talk about it as we are doing here.

I cited Hodge, not Hamilton, because you were citing civil figures and I wanted to mention what the most prominent Presbyterian theologian in 19th c. America thought (representative of many others). I did not seek to counter your civil figures with others. I did cite the Adamses because Hodge was especially fond of them. 

I realize that some marginalized groups loved Jefferson but most churchmen believed Jefferson to be an enemy of the faith and someone who would, by his policies, undermine Christianity. Whether he did or not is something that we can debate; I am simply noting what many thought in the 19th c. I only cited all of this because you brought it up, as if mentioning Jefferson was some sort of trump card that nullified my words of congratulations to all our British and commonwealth friends and expression of best wishes for their monarch. 

Your rhetoric implies that I am a monarchist and that you and I are in across the board disagreement as Americans. This is not the case and you can look at me on other posts on this subject to see me defending the War for Independence and other features of the American republic (the War of 1812 included). I would refer you to a number of things respecting the "mitre and sceptre" controversy in the 1760s, including the view of Samuel Davies. I think that the argument that monarchy entails prelacy is an interesting, but not especially compelling, one; at any rate, I have no problem recognizing this achievement of QE II. I can appreciate, as I often do here, for example, particular strengths of our covenanter brethren, without being one. 

Britain has a monarchy, and, all things considered, a rather decent one for some years now. That's all I was seeking to recognize. I was not bowing, let me note, to her. She is not my sovereign, but I am thankful for her years. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 10, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I only cited all of this because you brought it up, as if mentioning Jefferson was some sort of trump card that nullified my words of congratulations to all our British and commonwealth friends and expression of best wishes for their monarch.



I didn't bring up Jefferson as a "trump card." However, I do believe that his unique role in our nation's founding and early years entitles him to a very significant voice as to what it means to be an American in general, and the dangers of a monarchy in particular. It is a sad reality that Jeffersonian Republicanism has died.


----------



## timmopussycat (Sep 10, 2015)

In the depths of the Watergate scandal, I seem to recall reading an American newspaper saying something like: "Come back Liz, all is forgiven!" and only half in jest.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 11, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> In the depths of the Watergate scandal, I seem to recall reading an American newspaper saying something like: "Come back Liz, all is forgiven!" and only half in jest.


----------

