UK King Charles gives out his remarks regarding Easter - While oddly praising Islam and Judaism

A message from The King to mark Easter​

Published 17 April 2025

There are three virtues that the world still needs — faith, hope and love. “And the greatest of these is love”.
One of the puzzles of our humanity is how we are capable of both great cruelty and great kindness. This paradox of human life runs through the Easter story and in the scenes that daily come before our eyes — at one moment, terrible images of human suffering and, in another, heroic acts in war-torn countries where humanitarians of every kind risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. A few weeks ago, I met many such people at a reception in Buckingham Palace and felt a profound sense of admiration for their resilience, courage and compassion.

On Maundy Thursday, Jesus knelt and washed the feet of many of those who would abandon Him. His humble action was a token of His love that knew no bounds or boundaries and is central to Christian belief.

The love He showed when he walked the Earth reflected the Jewish ethic of caring for the stranger and those in need, a deep human instinct echoed in Islam and other religious traditions, and in the hearts of all who seek the good of others.

The abiding message of Easter is that God so loved the world — the whole world — that He sent His son to live among us to show us how to love one another, and to lay down His own life for others in a love that proved stronger than death.

There are three virtues that the world still needs — faith, hope and love. “And the greatest of these is love”.

It is with these timeless truths in my mind, and my heart, that I wish you all a blessed and peaceful Easter.

Charles R

Official link
 
When Charles I tried that it resulted in a brutal civil war which resulted with the King being beheaded and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Great Britain which was an authoritarian state.
I rather doubt there are many nobles these days with the means to raise private armies.
 
Princess Diana was pregnant with a child by Dodi Al-fayed, the son of Mohamed Al-fayed, an egyptian businessman who owned Harrods. He was never allowed a British passport.

Rumours are that Diana was killed on the orders of Elizabeth II because she didn't want a brown baby in the royal family. Shame she got soft in her old age and didn't bump off Meg.
 
Knowing some other secrets then some British personalities hide in their closets besides the various conspiracy theories we already knew. https://archive.ph/Av6g2 And I didn't mention the rumors then she contemplated to convert to Islam. https://archive.ph/1108q

There were rumours that she had already converted and was preggers at the time of the crash. As Islam views every child of Muslim parents to be born Muslim, well, do the math. As if a brown heir to the throne wasn't bad enough, you've now got a Muslim one.
 
The pedo king is playing 5d chess. He knows if he infests his country with brown people nobody will want it..... And therefore he doesn't have to pay for a military. 0bd21b19-2a97-42c0-b482-e1db98ed28a5-profile_banner-480.webp
 
Not surprising the family that hung around and knighted a notorious pedo and possible friend of the Yorkshire Ripper is all in on the brutal desert pedo
 
How does that work? If the king dissolves Parliament, then Parliament ceases to exist. Any vote Starmer has will be viewed as illegal at best, an attempt to overthrow the king at worst.
Well, that was tried once before by the King (also a Charles), and it ended up with him being tried for treason against the nation of England and sentenced to death.
No earthly power can justly call me (who am your King) in question as a delinquent ... this day's proceeding cannot be warranted by God's laws; for, on the contrary, the authority of obedience unto Kings is clearly warranted, and strictly commanded in both the Old and New Testament ... for the law of this land, I am no less confident, that no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King, they all going in his name: and one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong ... the higher House is totally excluded; and for the House of Commons, it is too well known that the major part of them are detained or deterred from sitting ... the arms I took up were only to defend the fundamental laws of this kingdom against those who have supposed my power hath totally changed the ancient government.
"Fuck you, I'm the King" didn't exactly go over well with anyone at the time, and it would go over less well now.
 
Rumours are that Diana was killed on the orders of Elizabeth II because she didn't want a brown baby in the royal family. Shame she got soft in her old age and didn't bump off Meg.
It would have been Philip, not Elizabeth. She'd be more discreet about it, especially after living through the IRA blowing up members of her family. There's a non-zero chance she'd have done it herself. Philip was much less sentimental.

There were rumours that she had already converted and was preggers at the time of the crash. As Islam views every child of Muslim parents to be born Muslim, well, do the math. As if a brown heir to the throne wasn't bad enough, you've now got a Muslim one.
Diana and Charles were divorced by then. Any future children she had wouldn't have been in line to the throne, so there was no chance.
 
Diana and Charles were divorced by then. Any future children she had wouldn't have been in line to the throne, so there was no chance.

I never realised she had been divorced for a year before she died. I thought it was still ongoing at the time. So yeah, that puts the Muslim heir theory to bed somewhat. A divorcee can still be in line to the throne (provided they are of royal blood), but if (and a huge one at that) the alleged child had turned out to be Charles' it would still be in line through degrees of cosanguinity even though Di is no longer a royal. It all gets a bit King Ralph.
 
So yeah, that puts the Muslim heir theory to bed somewhat.
I have no doubt that someone would have agitated to include any half-paki she produced in the line of succession, just for the chance to virtue signal about "inclusion".
 
It would have been Philip, not Elizabeth. She'd be more discreet about it, especially after living through the IRA blowing up members of her family. There's a non-zero chance she'd have done it herself. Philip was much less sentimental.
Good ol' Philip and his racism. I do miss him. He would have done Meg in, after calling her a spear-chucker, of course.
 
W
I never realised she had been divorced for a year before she died. I thought it was still ongoing at the time. So yeah, that puts the Muslim heir theory to bed somewhat. A divorcee can still be in line to the throne (provided they are of royal blood), but if (and a huge one at that) the alleged child had turned out to be Charles' it would still be in line through degrees of cosanguinity even though Di is no longer a royal. It all gets a bit King Ralph.
Would it? Both Mary I and Elizabeth I were in line for the throne despite Henry VIII divorcing Catherine of Aragon and lopping off Anne Boleyn's head.
 
I have no doubt that someone would have agitated to include any half-paki she produced in the line of succession, just for the chance to virtue signal about "inclusion".

Oh without a doubt. They would have been falling over themselves to get Dodi Jnr in line for the throne even back then.

Would it? Both Mary I and Elizabeth I were in line for the throne despite Henry VIII divorcing Catherine of Aragon and lopping off Anne Boleyn's head.

They were both of royal descent though (via Henry VIII). Even though they're female it's all about the bloodline. They can sire males after all.

In the case of Diana, if it was Dodi's child it would have been a non-starter (bar any external interference), if it was Charles' it would have had a valid claim as an heir.
 
Oh without a doubt. They would have been falling over themselves to get Dodi Jnr in line for the throne even back then.



They were both of royal descent though (via Henry VIII). Even though they're female it's all about the bloodline. They can sire males after all.

In the case of Diana, if it was Dodi's child it would have been a non-starter (bar any external interference), if it was Charles' it would have had a valid claim as an heir.
Sorry. I misread the point you were making. I thought it was more about the children of a divorcee and not about the divorcee themselves.

Mea culpa.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo