• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

God Save The King

FollowingHim

FollowingHim

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
As Charles III ascends to the throne, the words of the National Anthem of the UK and New Zealand* take on a new meaning.

Charles is an inauspicious name. Charles I was pro-Catholic, married a Catholic wife, and steered the Anglican church towards catholicism. He also levied taxes without permission of parliament, and so for both religious and financial reasons was opposed by many people. The people rose up to try and pressure him to change his policies, but when Charles resisted with force the English Civil Wars began, which involved considerable and complicated religious strife between Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Puritans, and ecumenical Christians who wanted freedom for all (Oliver Cromwell being in the last category). This ultimately resulted in Charles' execution and the brief establishment of England as a Commonwealth. After Cromwell's death, in the hope of ensuring political stability Parliament invited his son Charles II to return to the throne, but with reduced powers.

Charles III has long promised to be coronated as the "defender of faith", rather than the "defender of THE faith", and is an open admirer of Islam if not a closet Muslim himself. So once again we have a King Charles, head of the Church of England, who may not be Anglican - and may not even be Christian. Secondly, Charles III is a vocal supporter of the climate cult and every other NWO agenda. His mother was apolitical, but Charles is likely to be unable to restrain the temptation to remain politically active to some degree - as a promoter of policies that are divisive and destructive. The political situation is unstable, the risk of civil war is as high as it was in the reign of Charles I, and the peacemaker Queen Elizabeth II is now replaced with the more divisive King Charles III.

But what are we called, as Christians, to do in circumstances such as these?
1 Timothy 2:1-3 said:
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Click to expand...
And our Anthem is a prayer - that has even more meaning when the King may need salvation not only from his physical enemies, but even from eternal damnation. It is not a praise of the king, as much as it is a sincere request to God that the King would be praiseworthy. That he would "ever give us cause" to sing this from our heart. If the king is behaving in a manner that makes us less inclined to ask God to save him - then that is when he needs our prayers even more.

Our ancestors, faced with problematic rulers, have not at first sought to depose them - but to improve them.
  • The English parliament did not initially seek to depose Charles I, but to persuade him to change his policies.
  • The American colonists did not initially seek independence from King George III, but only sought changes in taxation policies and parliamentary representation.
  • The Maori rebels in the New Zealand land wars continued to pray for the welfare of Queen Victoria as per the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for a very long time through the war - praying for the very monarch whose troops were fighting against them.
And although King Charles III is not a man I would personally choose to be our king, just as most of our national politicians are not people I would trust anywhere near the reins of power, it is my duty to pray for him and them.

God save our gracious King!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King.

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall!
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

Thy choicest gifts in store
On him be pleased to pour,
Long may he reign.
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the King.

* Yes, God Save The King is still the official national anthem of New Zealand. However, we also have a second national anthem, God Defend New Zealand, added in 1977 as an alternative option. Both are intended to be used alternately depending on the context, but in practice the second is now used exclusively to the point where most people wouldn't even realise the first was still official.
 
Last edited:
Here is King Charles' first speech as monarch, worth watching to see where things are going.
He not-so-subtly indicates that things will be changing, putting his mother's faith and approaches into the basket of "tradition" and indicating he will be progressing in some way into a different future (despite continuing to pay lip-service to that tradition). His comments on the Anglican church are most interesting for what they don't mention.

He knows how to speak as a king, how to try and unite people - but there is a taste of something different in there, which will become clearer after the funeral and at his official coronation.
 
FollowingHim said:
As Charles III ascends to the throne, the words of the National Anthem of the UK and New Zealand* take on a new meaning.

Charles is an inauspicious name. Charles I was pro-Catholic, married a Catholic wife, and steered the Anglican church towards catholicism. He also levied taxes without permission of parliament, and so for both religious and financial reasons was opposed by many people. The people rose up to try and pressure him to change his policies, but when Charles resisted with force the English Civil Wars began, which involved considerable and complicated religious strife between Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Puritans, and ecumenical Christians who wanted freedom for all (Oliver Cromwell being in the last category). This ultimately resulted in Charles' execution and the brief establishment of England as a Commonwealth. After Cromwell's death, in the hope of ensuring political stability Parliament invited his son Charles II to return to the throne, but with reduced powers.

Charles III has long promised to be coronated as the "defender of faith", rather than the "defender of THE faith", and is an open admirer of Islam if not a closet Muslim himself. So once again we have a King Charles, head of the Church of England, who may not be Anglican - and may not even be Christian. Secondly, Charles III is a vocal supporter of the climate cult and every other NWO agenda. His mother was apolitical, but Charles is likely to be unable to restrain the temptation to remain politically active to some degree - as a promoter of policies that are divisive and destructive. The political situation is unstable, the risk of civil war is as high as it was in the reign of Charles I, and the peacemaker Queen Elizabeth II is now replaced with the more divisive King Charles III.

But what are we called, as Christians, to do in circumstances such as these?

And our Anthem is a prayer - that has even more meaning when the King may need salvation not only from his physical enemies, but even from eternal damnation. It is not a praise of the king, as much as it is a sincere request to God that the King would be praiseworthy. That he would "ever give us cause" to sing this from our heart. If the king is behaving in a manner that makes us less inclined to ask God to save him - then that is when he needs our prayers even more.

Our ancestors, faced with problematic rulers, have not at first sought to depose them - but to improve them.
  • The English parliament did not initially seek to depose Charles I, but to persuade him to change his policies.
  • The American colonists did not initially seek independence from King George III, but only sought changes in taxation policies and parliamentary representation.
  • The Maori rebels in the New Zealand land wars continued to pray for the welfare of Queen Victoria as per the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for a very long time through the war - praying for the very monarch whose troops were fighting against them.
And although King Charles III is not a man I would personally choose to be our king, just as most of our national politicians are not people I would trust anywhere near the reins of power, it is my duty to pray for him and them.

God save our gracious King!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King.

Thy choicest gifts in store
On him be pleased to pour,
Long may he reign.
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the King.

* Yes, God Save The King is still the official national anthem of New Zealand. However, we also have a second national anthem, God Defend New Zealand, added in 1977 as an alternative option. Both are intended to be used alternately depending on the context, but in practice the second is now used exclusively to the point where most people wouldn't even realise the first was still official.
Click to expand...
Well said! I think we will see the break-up of the Commonwealth as countries like NZ, Australia, etc., want their own national identity (to fit into the new world order). It won't begin until after the funeral but will likely progress quickly once Charles is firmly established as King. Indeed, God save the King!
 
frederick said:
Well said! I think we will see the break-up of the Commonwealth as countries like NZ, Australia, etc., want their own national identity (to fit into the new world order). It won't begin until after the funeral but will likely progress quickly once Charles is firmly established as King. Indeed, God save the King!
Click to expand...
I have been thinking that also. However, the fact that New Zealand recently voted for Charles to be the head of the Commonwealth has caused me to rethink that. Charles is so much on the side of our current political leadership that they may actually prefer to keep him than to rock the boat. This is very unpredictable.
 
Democracy relies on the ability of the people or God to change the person of the ruler.
It has the advantage that radical change can occur quickly. A good ruler can be quickly elected - and just as quickly lost.
It has the disadvantage that all politicians try to maintain the illusion that they are better than the others - even perfect - and as a result have to both adopt extreme positions that will get people enthused enough to vote for them, and refuse to ever change their minds or admit fault because that would be an admission that they had been imperfect.

Monarchy relies on the ability of the people or God to change the mind of the ruler.
It has the disadvantage that radical change is more difficult to achieve. A bad king is locked in for life - and a good king is also.
But it has the advantage that the ruler, being secure in their position and not fearing the loss of an upcoming election, can adopt more nuanced viewpoints that are "boring" and do not inspire anyone to be greatly enthusiastic for or against him, and has the freedom to admit fault and change his mind without fear.

King Charles has the freedom to be converted to become an enthusiastic and genuine follower of God, turning against his entire NWO support base, while remaining in power at least in the UK (republican movements in the colonies notwithstanding), a freedom no democratic leader enjoys. It may be highly unlikely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible...
 
FollowingHim said:
Democracy relies on the ability of the people or God to change the person of the ruler.
...
King Charles has the freedom to be converted to become an enthusiastic and genuine follower of God, turning against his entire NWO support base, while remaining in power at least in the UK (republican movements in the colonies notwithstanding), a freedom no democratic leader enjoys. It may be highly unlikely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible...
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why we pray, God save the King. :)
 
The Revolting Man said:
Closet Muslim!?!?! I knew Diana most likely was but didn’t realize Chas was also suspect.
Click to expand...
www.danielpipes.org

Is Prince Charles a Convert to Islam?

In a 1997 Middle East Quarterly article titled "Prince Charles of Arabia," Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman looked at evidence that Britain's crown prince might be a secret convert to Islam. They shifted through his public statements (defending
www.danielpipes.org www.danielpipes.org

However I am learning not to be too quick to judge others. I had long dismissed Kenneth Copeland as a probable charlatan - and then last year he provided a private jet to assist in arranging the evacuation of Christians from Afghanistan. Had he not acquired ridiculous-looking wealth and bought that private jet, it could not have been used for the Kingdom last year. So we need to be slow to judge.

Charles is suspicious, and could be Muslim - or could be simply genuinely appreciative of multiple cultures, and a more sensible deep thinker than he appears. Take this speech, which comes across as very pro-Muslim - but then consider just the words alone without the automatic negative emotion they evoke. Maybe he speaks positively of Islam because he's a closet Muslim - or maybe he truly does mean just what he actually says. And some of what he says in it is actually good:
Modern materialism is unbalanced and increasingly damaging in its long-term consequences. Yet nearly all the great religions of the world have held an integral view of the sanctity of the world. The Christian message with, for example, its deeply mystical and symbolic doctrine of the Incarnation, has been traditionally a message of the unity of the worlds of spirit and matter, and of God's manifestation in this world and in mankind.

But during the past three centuries, in the Western world at least, a dangerous division has occurred in the way we perceive the world around us. Science has tried to assume a monopoly - even a tyranny - over our understanding. Religion and science have become separated, so that now, as Wordsworth said, "Little we see in nature that is ours". Science has attempted to take over the natural world from God; it has fragmented the cosmos and relegated the sacred to a separate and secondary compartment of our understanding, divorced from practical, day to day existence.

We are only now beginning to gauge the disastrous results.
Click to expand...
The next few months will be interesting.
 
I heard Joel Salatin speak very positively of Charles and the time he spent with him on his farms in the UK. Joel Salatin is a good man.

He might on the other hand get tricked by someone like Charles, as they both promote natural and regenerative farming. I wonder if Charles might be the "dark side" of regenerative farming, contrasted by people like Joel as the "light side".

Joel Salatin is a Christian, Libertarian, Environmentalist, Capitalist (in that order), while Charles might be a Globalist, Collectivist, New World Order, Socialist. What they do on the land might be similar, but one benefits the world far more.
 
It is a prayer, and we sung it in church on Sunday as such. It is even in the old Baptist hymnbook here - the men who formulated that (remembering they're not Anglican so had a choice) saw it as a prayer worthy of inclusion.

Not exactly the words I'd choose were I writing such a prayer, but still a prayer.
 
FollowingHim said:
It is a prayer, and we sung it in church on Sunday as such. It is even in the old Baptist hymnbook here - the men who formulated that (remembering they're not Anglican so had a choice) saw it as a prayer worthy of inclusion.

Not exactly the words I'd choose were I writing such a prayer, but still a prayer.
Click to expand...
Like you said, it always has been a prayer. Generally, it would have been understood as praying that God would guide the monarch, protect him from enemies (foreign and domestic), and give him good health.

In the case of a monarch that is probably unregenerate, it is also a prayer for God to save him by granting him true faith in the Christ.

Assuming Charles to probably be unregenerate, I'm sure he isn't the first English monarch to be in that position.

Different topic

I think we had "God save the queen" in our hymnal when I was growing up, since our denomination also had a lot of churches in Canada.
 
Charles III inspires me to pray for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Psalm 109:8
 
Last night was the coronation of King Charles. You can watch it back on Youtube if you're interested. We kept the older children up late and watched it as a family, history in the making.
Both Samuel and I were hugely impressed with how Christian the service was. Charles chose every single thing that happened in that service, and in my opinion it could not have been more Christian.
This does give me a lot more hope for him and the monarchy. I feel a lot more at ease having watched it.
 
Sooo...has anyone read "The Antichrist and a Cup of Tea" by Tim Cohen? There are a few You Tube interviews as well that cover the details of the book. Me thinks the coronation may be the start of "the countdown". I'll post the interview I watched initially.
 
The jury is still out for me, im not sure if is is a puppet, or a master player in the coming system.

www.weforum.org

Great Reset | HRH Prince of Wales | We have no alternative

The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971, and...
www.weforum.org www.weforum.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top