I just wanted to share a thought that I will be using in my homily for next weekend! I guess because of quarantine I have time to write it out more clearly than normal.
Patreon
Facebook
Website
Contact Us:
quizzicalpapist@gmail.com
@fr_quizzical
Hey, y'all I went down a rabbit hole recently looking at a YouTube video and researching the history of British Royal lines and it actually bore fruit. Um, it informed my homily for the second Sunday of Easter, and I wanted to share something I wrote and reference to it. That's actually going to go into my homily for this weekend. So hopefully you enjoy, and God bless, happy Easter, have a good quarantine. Continue to keep the faith.
Speaker 2:Listening to coffee.
Speaker 1:I recently came across a fascinating story. There's about the research of a filmmaker named Tony Robinson and his claim that today's Royal family is not really the Royal family and that the actual line actually leads to a man named Michael Hastings who lives in a normal house on a normal street in the Outback of Australia. I know genealogies are not best described over audio media, but here's the claim laid out as simply as possible. When it comes to royalty, the descent is regulated by very strict criteria. Two of the main ones being blood in legitimacy, a crass and particularly Anglican way of putting it. Kings cannot be bastards historians throughout the years have questioned with Varian Gusto, the legitimacy of King Edward, the fourth, who reigned from 1461 to 1470, according to some historians, Edward was actually the son of an Archer and not his Royal father. Therefore making him incapable of becoming the King of England. Some have even uncovered what they think are documents that support this claim. But obviously when it comes to particular bedroom happenings 500 years in the past, things can get a bit hazy. And the majority of historians have seen the illegitimacy of Edward as propaganda of contemporary foes. And that most likely he was actually King que Elizabeth wiping sweat from her brow. For the point of the story though, let's say Robinson is right. Edward was not King. This means that neither was Henry the eighth or Elizabeth, the first or the Georges or Victoria right down to Elizabeth. The second then who is, this is what Robinson went on a quest to find. And his research. He thought it evident that instead of the line, moving to the tutor house, it stayed with the Plantagenet and made its way twisting and turning through history from a beatified woman, bless in Margaret pole to a degenerate gambler who squandered his family estate at the horse track all the way down to a man named Michael who moved from England toss jar. Yeah. And the 1960s, Michael works at a farm researching rice. He has children and grandchildren. His house has a chain link fence in front of it, but there are no Royal guards at the front. He married him, Australian woman and voted most recently in favor of republicanism, a very non Royal thing to do as the rightful heir of the British throne. After gathering all of his claims and research, Robinson made his way to Australia only telling Michael he had been researching his family line and wanted to include an interview with him in a documentary. Michael had no thought of what the conclusions were. He had never even thought of it himself. So Tony laid out the tree, told the story and looked at Michael and the face and said, Michael, you're the rightful King of England. Michael left. He grinned. And while he thought it interesting, he just went on with his ordinary life. Is it true? I guess it depends on the love life of a queen in the 15th century, but it got me thinking, what does inheritance mean when it comes to the gospel? When it comes to the church, Jesus himself laid out the Christian idea of legitimacy. He asks, who is my mother and who are my brothers. He then pointed to his disciples and finished. Whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother one may look at Jesus's life and rightly say, look, he never married. He has no air. The line stops with him, but Jesus did have a blood line. But that line comes from his side and is passed through a chalice. The family of the church does not come through DNA. It passes through shared faith and love of Christ and the history tree of Kings. It is unlikely that an adopted son or daughter would inherit the throne yet. That is the only way we inherit the kingdom. We all are adopted and it seems even more profound because our blood relations are not chosen, but an adopted son and daughter Otter, they are, they are pointed at and called forth and placed within the home. We are chosen what a great mystery that whether you were born in privilege or squalor,
Speaker 3:Whether you live in a castle or a Shanti, you are most certainly a King, a queen. That is, if you take part in the chalice and the blood of Christ, who calls you his own,
Speaker 4:Uh,