Dear Miss Barnhardt,
I am writing as someone who, having recently been told about your website, has been reading through some of your older articles. In a piece of writing from 2022 pertaining to the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II (to be found at: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/10/06/incredibly-sad-blunt-words-on-queen-elizabeth-ii/), you at one point wrote: ‘Any historians that would like to chime in on this question, please email me.’ As a keen historian (who happens to be British), I have taken the time to respond to several points made in your article which caught my interest – I hope this will still be of some interest to you, over three years later!
Firstly, I would like to thank you for writing about the British Crown truthfully and objectively – it really does make a pleasant change from the coverage the royal family gets in England, half of which is obsequiously servile, the other half being the shrill cries of ‘republicans’ determined to bulldoze the last remnants – however hollow and empty – of the country’s history.
I have taken the liberty of pasting some quotations from your essay bold italics, commenting upon each separately.
- First, Queen Elizabeth, and all British monarchs since Henry VIII openly, proudly claim to be the “pope” of the Anglican schismatic sect.
There is one very notable exception to this rule: Henry VIII’s eldest daughter, Mary Tudor (by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon). Following the death of Henry’s sickly son and successor, Edward VI (born of his third and ‘favourite’ wife, Jane Seymour), Henry’s eldest daughter became queen as Mary I. As a girl, Mary had been reared as a future queen, even being sent to be educated at Ludlow Castle, where previous princes of Wales (the title bestowed upon the eldest sons of the King of England since 1301) had been sent for their princely instruction. However, following Henry’s ‘divorce’ from Catherine of Aragon, not only was poor Mary forbidden from seeing her devoutly Catholic mother, she subsequently forced to serve as a nanny to her infant half-sister, Elizabeth, who was the offspring of the adulterous ‘marriage’ between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (wife no.2). Mary’s Catholic devotion was consistent and outward, despite the persecution of Catholics in England begun by her father and continued by her half-brother, Edward VI; for instance, at the height of Edward’s vicious persecution of Catholics, Mary rode into the city of London (where her mother, Catherine of Aragon, had always been exceptionally well-loved) with over a hundred retainers, each symbolically wearing rosary beads. As queen, Mary I (r.1553-1558) restored England to the Catholic faith it had held for almost a thousand years prior to Henry VIII’s ‘Reformation’, despite provoking the wrath of many noble families in England who were furious to see much of their land (which had originally belonged to the Church, but had been confiscated by Henry VIII and gifted to them in reward for their loyalty) given back to the Church! Mary’s defiant behaviour against all odds can be contrasted with that of her half-sister, Elizabeth, who pretended to be a Catholic for the duration of Mary’s reign (in order to trick Mary into making her the next queen, on the pretext that she would keep England Catholic) but began killing Catholics in England as soon as she became Queen Elizabeth I. The utter irony of the situation is that generations of Protestant historians from the reign of Elizabeth I onwards have ominously dubbed Mary I ‘Bloody Mary’ (due to her burning of heretics), whilst nicknaming her murderous half-sister ‘Good Queen Bess’! Elizabeth I was a notorious devil-worshipper who hired magicians in her court and openly admitted to caring more about preserving her grip on power than saving her soul and, for that matter, the souls of her subjects. For more information on the topic, see: https://www.exclassics.com/protref/prot8.htm – funnily enough, William Cobbett (the English historian and economist who wrote this letter) was actually an Anglican clergyman, so he had no reason whatsoever to fabricate lies regarding ‘Bloody Mary’ and ‘Good Queen Bess’. Mary Tudor was a lioness of a woman – a 16th century match for Boudicea – whose sullied reputation needs restoring, particularly amongst Catholics. As Cobbett aptly observed in the 19th century: ‘Surely it is time to do some justice to this calumniated queen’!
[As a student in my final year of secondary education, my coursework for my final History ‘A Level’ examination has been a 4000-word comparison of whether the reign of Mary or Elizabeth was the more persecutory. Incidentally, my English Literature coursework explores the ways in which two novels lament the decline of Christianity in England; if you are at all interested in reading either essay, I would be more than happy to send the document over.]
Although you are correct in asserting that no monarch since Henry VIII has succeeded in converting England back to Catholicism for good (yet!), Charles II did personally convert on his deathbed (in 1685), and James II (r.1685-1688) converted whilst on the throne – for this he was overthrown in the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688; an utterly misnamed event in which a corrupt Parliament imported a foreign Protestant king, knowing full-well that no self-respecting Englishman would want to be ruled by a foreigner, therefore transferring the reins of power to – wait for it – Parliament (themselves)! Although the English have pretty much been ruled by foreigners since the Norman Conquest of 1066, since 1688 we have had a royal family of largely German stock (culminating in the current ‘House of Windsor’ to which you alluded), who seem to have always had very little affinity with nor affection for Britain’s native inhabitants.
[As a side note, the ridiculous renaming of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the House of Windsor (a transparent attempt to make the royal family seem less German at the height of WW1) prompted Kaiser Willhelm II of Germany (George V’s cousin) to joke that he was keen to see a production of Shakespeare’s wonderful comedy, ‘The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’.]
2.Queen Elizabeth was the “popess” of A SCHISMATIC MONSTROSITY founded in order to justify the adulterous sexual appetites of a syphilitic madman – Henry VIII.
This is true in part, however there were other reasons for the ‘Reformation’ (correction: ‘Deformation’) in England. Following the brutal dynastic wars (known as the ‘Wars of the Roses’) which plagued England throughout the 15th century, the winning faction was led by the obscure Welshman Henry Tudor, who took the throne in 1485 as Henry VII, Henry VIII’s father and predecessor. As the Tudors’ claim to the throne was unbelievably tenuous, Henry VIII was desperate for a male heir to ensure the continuance of his dynasty; as Catherine of Aragon, his older brother’s widow, experienced repeated failed pregnancies, not once giving birth to a healthy boy, King Henry’s attempted solution was to find a new wife. [It may well be divine provenance that, even after six marriages, Henry did not once father a healthy male heir]. Henry’s dogged determination to break with Rome, despite widespread rebellion (such as the Pilgrimage of Grace in deeply Catholic northern England), shows the extent of the man’s selfishness, certainly worsened by the madness to which you referred. Although the whole historical episode was a tragedy whose consequences in today’s world are difficult to articulate, England did at least bring forth some excellent martyrs (the most famous of which are probably Saints Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher).
As mentioned above, the lands and wealth of the Church were attractive prizes, both for the monarch and for avaricious noblemen. However, following Mary I’s efforts to convert England back to Catholicism for good, the new queen, Elizabeth I, changed tack. She realised that, as the product of the illegitimate marriage between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, her reign would never receive papal approval. As Elizabeth cared far more about staying on the throne than about the salvation of her soul, she decided to break her oath to Mary (in which she swore to preserve England’s Catholicism after Mary’s example) thus bringing about a second harvest of English martyrs. Elizabeth also recognised that, by making herself the head of the Church of England, any religious crimes (i.e. Catholic recusancy) could be labelled ‘treasonous’ and would warrant the death penalty.
3.The titles that British monarchs hold is “Defender of the Faith” – as in THEY, and NOT the successor of Peter, are the earthly head of the church and state religion.
Interestingly enough, ‘Defender of the Faith’ was a title bestowed upon Henry VIII … by the Pope! Although he is now remembered as the corpulent, greedy, adulterous whale he became in middle age, as a youngster Henry VIII seemed full of promise – he was a veritable Renaissance Man, whose intelligence, charm and stature were famed throughout Europe (there was even talk of electing him Holy Roman Emperor…). In 1521 Pope Leo X granted Henry VIII the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ in response to a book the young king had written against the heresies of Luther, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. Monarchs of England since the ‘Reformation’ have kept this title granted by the Catholic Church, appropriating and utterly distorting its true meaning.
4.Queen Elizabeth II, already being called “Elizabeth the Great”, presided as monarch over the most rapid and profound societal, cultural, religious and imperial collapse in human history, it seems to me. Any historians that would like to chime in on this question, please email me.
This is a plain fact which can be supported by a short conversation with any person who remembers what England was before 1960.
Your assertion is objectively true, because the collapse of the British Empire happened alongside the post-war religious and moral collapse, which happened alongside the gates of Europe being opened to the rest of the world – it truly makes one wonder whether all of this happening together could possibly have been a coincidence. In Britain specifically, the laws which initially allowed immigration from overseas British territories (such as Kenya, Rhodesia, etc.) had the specific purpose of allowing British settlers in those regions to return to their homeland prior to the empire’s imminent collapse. For an unknown reason (and I don’t believe that this possibly could have been an accident), there was never any stipulation preventing the native inhabitants of the overseas territories from moving to Britain as well… thus, an rain-lashed island in the North Atlantic smaller than the American state of Oregon was suddenly open to the inhabitants of a quarter of the world’s land mass, including India, Pakistan, the West Indies and huge portions of Africa. In 1958, when already over 100,000 immigrants had come to Britain, Lord Halisham reviewed the immigration situation and deliberately decided not to do anything about it despite the British public begging for something to be done. In 1968, a law was passed (with full royal assent from Queen Elizabeth II) which made it illegal for British landlords to refuse to provide housing for the rapidly increasing immigrant population in protest to the situation. That same year, Enoch Powell, the only MP with the courage, integrity and honesty to address the dire situation and stand up for the common people, was dismissed from the shadow cabinet by Conservative leader and future Prime Minister Edward Heath (who, it later transpired, was a serial paedophile, so was very probably blackmailed into doing so).
5.When Elizabeth took the throne, it was literally true that “the sun never set” on the British Empire…
Whilst Elizabeth II did happen to be monarch during the collapse of the Empire, the events which led to the empire’s dissolution occurred before her reign, and can be attributed to another ‘great Briton’: Sir Winston Churchill. In the 1930s, Churchill was in the midst of his ‘Wilderness Years’, a broke, failed politician whose disastrous Dardanelles Campaign of WW1 had left his reputation in tatters. Then, at a dinner on the 22nd of July 1936, Sir Robert Wale Cohen and several other prominent bankers and businessmen (known for their Zionist advocacy), offered to pay Churchill £50,000 if he turned his literary and oratory skills away from his targets at the time (India, defence spending, etc.) and directed his efforts towards a new enemy: Nazi Germany. This mysterious group which funded the future Prime Minister was known as ‘The Focus’. Although Hitler repeatedly offered terms of peace to Britain, expressing admiration and respect for the British Empire, Churchill (after his eventual appointment as Prime Minister) went out of his way to bankrupt Britain in his pursuit of an unnecessary war. In order to turn British public opinion (which was largely against fighting another huge war with Germany) to his favour, Churchill, furious that Hitler had placed an embargo on the Luftwaffe (preventing the dropping of bombs on any civilian areas in Britain), bombed Berlin for several consecutive nights, deliberately goading the Germans into lifting their embargo and subsequently bombing Britain (Churchill, unlike the poor Londoners and inhabitants of Coventry, had the benefit of receiving prior warning whenever British Intelligence anticipated a bombing raid – he thus left the capital and retired to the Oxfordshire countryside for the night, returning in the morning to inspect the urban wreckage, wearing his familiar bulldog expression). There was no talk whatsoever about crushing Naziism; the two reasons given to the British public in order to justify the war effort were, firstly, defending Poland, and secondly, defending the British Empire… as Poland was handed over to Stalin following the war, and the British Empire was left crumbling, it seems that Churchill may have had ulterior motives. A couple of years into the war, Britain’s fate was sealed; in December 1940, an American naval ship collected Britain’s gold reserves (worth £50,000,000 in 1940) which Churchill had siphoned off to help bribe the Americans into joining his futile war. As historian Michael Walsh observed: ‘From that moment on Britain’s independence and her empire were in the Washington pawn shop. Britain’s territories and trading arrangements were compromised by half-American Winston Churchill. The debt would burden the British people for decades to come. Britain’s bankruptcy and subsequent dependency on the U.S. ensured America’s entry into the war to protect its investment. Winston Churchill was jubilant.’
I would contend that Churchill, who for mysterious reasons was so desperate for an unnecessary war which would certainly bankrupt his country and her empire (not to mention the millions of soldiers and civilians killed in Europe) was infinitely more responsible for the demise of the British Empire than was Elizabeth II; the wheels had already been set in motion by the time of Elizabeth’s coronation in the ’50s. However, you are completely right to draw attention to her passively giving royal assent to the myriad horrific laws passed during her reign (particularly in the 1960s), as well as remaining silent whilst her subjects’ towns and cities were made unrecognisable. Winston Churchill, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II are all figures whose lives are celebrated in Britain (and, for all I know, elsewhere too) but whose true legacies to Britain, and to the world, have certainly been nothing to celebrate.
- …And the only thing keeping Argentina from invading and taking the Falklands is the fact that Argentina is such a broke, incompetent kakistocracy that they can’t. But the Royal Navy today could NOT defend the Falklands, and everyone knows it.
The extent of the Royal Navy’s decline is a wonder which is actually quite incredible – in 1939, on the eve of WW2, the First Lord of the Admiralty commanded no less than 1,400 ships. Compare this with the number of ships the Royal Navy has at its disposal today … 62! …Many of which are barely seaworthy! Additionally, the number of young recruits for all branches of the military has sharply declined; how many young Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen would actually volunteer to fight for a country which so evidently despises them?
7.Queen Elizabeth also signed off as “popess” (“Defender of the Faith”, remember?) on the monstrosity of female “clergy” and “bishops”, and on sodomite unions in her allegedly Christian sect.
The outrages of the ‘Church of England’ in recent years have been numerous and entropic; however, as a church which was founded as a political instrument, it seems perfectly natural that it should spinelessly adhere to the newest political trends. What else is to be expected? After all, Elizabeth I, who was probably more influential than Henry VIII in creating the Anglican church in its current form, was completely aware that her church was bogus – on her deathbed in 1603, when the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury came to administer the last rites, she reportedly exclaimed: ‘Get out, for you are nothing but a hedge priest!’ She is also said to have made a deal with the devil whereby, in return for a long reign, she was perfectly happy for her soul to be eternally damned.
For historical information on the non-existent grounds for the legitimacy of the Anglican Church, see: https://fsspx.uk/en/more-shenanigans-nags-head-55292 , ‘More Shenanigans at the Nag’s Head’.
This being said, the inevitable collapse of the Church of England does seem to be yielding some desirable effects; rumour has it that more and more young people in the country (as elsewhere) are turning to Traditional Catholicism.
8.Can you imagine having a $20 billion fortune at your disposal, knowing that your eldest son would be heir to the throne and so-called “defender of the faith”, and completely, totally failing to instill any sort of Christian morality in him, never mind your other three children?
More worrying than his disregard for Christianity in any form is his bizarre sympathy for Islam – perhaps he is rueful that, rather than simply adding Camilla to his harem, he had to undergo the inconvenient ordeal of divorcing Diana before marrying a second time. An interesting fact: the former royal chaplain, Gavin Ashenden, left his position and converted to Catholicism, having expressed concern regarding Charles’ theology and morality.
9.Charles has said that he will defend “faith” in whatever sense. So he is defender of faith in satan under the name “allah”, and defender of faith in demons masquerading as Hindu deities, and defender of faith in “mother earth”, and defender of faith in oneself as “god”.
In the time which has elapsed since you wrote this article, Charles has done much worse than this. His apparent affinity with Islam has led him – as head of the Church of England – to wish his subjects a happy ramadan and eid, rather than make any mention whatsoever of Easter or Lent. As king so far, he has hosted a post-ramadan meal in Windsor Castle, as well as using the (almost millennium-old) royal residence as a venue for an ‘LGBT+ History Month Lecture’.
10.The British Monarchy no longer exists in the sense that every Anglo and Anglophile will swear up and down that the British monarch “HAS NO REAL POWER OF GOVERNANCE,” that the British crown is a “PURELY CEREMONIAL FIGUREHEAD POSITION THAT FUNCTIONS MERELY AS A MASCOT OF UNITY. But NOBODY actually BELIEVES that the Queen/King has any REAL authority.”
Since the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694, the Crown has been practically impotent. In 1815, Nathan Meyer Rothschild boldly boasted: “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.” Time and time again, for over 300 years now, the flower of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish youth has been sent to die to protect the interests of international finance, having been deceived into believing they were fighting to defend their country and empire. Countless young lads from these islands have been used as cannon-fodder by powers that elude us, just as many young American men have been disposed of in a similar manner. It very much looks as though the same will be happening again in the near future.
I apologise for such a lengthy response – I only hope this message makes its way to you and that I haven’t written it all in vain! I also hope that this has provided some historical context and that you enjoyed reading it half as much as I enjoyed writing it; History is a real passion of mine, and a desire to discover historical truths, no matter how opposed to the received narrative they might be, is a quality which most people so desperately lack.
Thank you for providing me with a wealth of material to read at leisure, which has helped bring my attention to many contemporary issues, particularly in your native America.
With very best wishes,
L
