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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

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”.
Click to expand...
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
 
Click to expand...
Richard the Lionheart would have his fucking head on a pike at this moment.

Shameful that an English monarch would sink this low.
 
Last edited:
For all the blackpillers, if we managed to reconquer the Iberian Peninsula from the near full control by Muslim pedophiles, we can definitely win against the traitors in our governments who are trying to destroy everything from within.The pendulum swing will bite these traitors and brown invaders in their ass, it's just a matter of when it'll happen

1745098675563.gif
 
Last edited:
Good news England!, if you were to plug everyone in the Royal line before Charles to a generator you would solve the energy crisis in a week!, that's how hard they are spinning in their graves over his servilism to islam.
 
Made In Wales said:
When his Mum died, this country did as well.
Click to expand...
Britain died long before the queen. her entire reign was just her watching the empire be dismantled and the culture fall apart. she might've been a better PR person for the destruction of the British people, but she is just a culpable for the current state of England as Charles is.
 
Justice Tony said:
I still don't get it. Isn't the monarch supposed to be above politics?
Click to expand...
He should be, but isn't.

I know that Queen Elizabeth II had very little time for the WEF and believed that the monarchy should not be political.

Even when Margaret Thatcher had a spat with her, she still supported the Government and didn't demand her resignation. Charles, by contrast, would have created a constitutional crisis and dissolved Parliament just to get his way.
 
Just when I thought I couldn't be more disappointed with the bongs they find another way.
 
Made In Wales said:
As if I care two shits what that WEF supporting jug-eared twat has to say.

When his Mum died, this country did as well.
Click to expand...
The Queen didn't do shit to stop the degradation of her nation though? She presided over all of this happening and did nothing, even when she was so old that it wouldn't have affected her if she finally grew a spine. I don't get why Brits love that chick so much; the only thing she seemed to have going for her was the ability to keep her mouth shut on controversial topics.

Made In Wales said:
Charles, by contrast, would have created a constitutional crisis and dissolved Parliament just to get his way.
Click to expand...
Ironically, if the Queen had done that, maybe the current disaster could have been averted. I do not understand why you respect her so much for being useless.
Sneed Lurker said:
For all the blackpillers, if we managed to reconquer the Iberian Peninsula from the near full control by Muslim pedophiles, we can definitely win against the traitors in our governments who are trying to destroy everything from within.The pendulum swing will bite these traitors and brown invaders in their ass, it's just a matter of when it'll happen

View attachment 7248600
Click to expand...
Oh boy, only gotta wait 500 years for Brits to grow a spine. Any day now, lads!
 
I maintain that the last British dynasty to have any balls at all were the Stuarts, and the last truly 'cool' one was probably the House of York (technically a cadet branch of the Plantagenets). Therefore Richard III - incidentally also the last King of England to die on the field of battle and while on the verge of killing his rival no less, like a true chad should - was the last English king who was indisputably neither a cuck (whether to Parliament, the banks, Muslims, etc.) nor a fag.
 
Justice Tony said:
I'm talking about the absentionist SF. Duh.
Click to expand...
The only IRA that mattered became the official army of the Republic. Everyone since has been marxist pretenders, who only wanted to sell drugs and murder people while agitating to turn the island into a brownoid paradise.
 
Fount of BadSpeak said:
The Queen didn't do shit to stop the degradation of her nation though? She presided over all of this happening and did nothing, even when she was so old that it wouldn't have affected her if she finally grew a spine. I don't get why Brits love that chick so much; the only thing she seemed to have going for her was the ability to keep her mouth shut on controversial topics.


Ironically, if the Queen had done that, maybe the current disaster could have been averted. I do not understand why you respect her so much for being useless.

Oh boy, only gotta wait 500 years for Brits to grow a spine. Any day now, lads!
Click to expand...
The problem that Parliament has had since Cromwell is balancing power:

If the Monarch has all the power, Parliament is impotent.

If Parliament has all the power, the Monarch is impotent.

Therefore, the trade-off is 50/50 - Parliament will rule and run the country but only with the say-so of the Monarch.

However, if the Monarch disagrees with Parliament, this then creates a Constitutional Crisis which the Privy Council would then need to sort out. Similarly if Parliament disagrees with the Monarch, this too has to be sorted out quickly (if only to stop the Tabloid Hacks from orgasming themselves into a stupor).

Should King Charles III, therefore demand the dissolution of Parliament tomorrow, Starmer will fire back with 'if you do that, there will be an immediate vote on the future of the Monarchy.' In other words, 'you know your place and I will know mine'.

The trade-off of powers is best shown when the PM asks for the dissolution of Parliament (which only he/she is obliged to ask for) and the Monarch grants this request (again, only he/she can do this).

What we should be asking is why is Parliament continuing to listen to DEMOS, Common Purpose, Fabians and Third Sector/Fifth Columnists? If these people were hung, drawn and quartered then I am sure that the issues affecting the UK (from migrants to concerns over UBI benefits) would be over within weeks.

The TLDR is that without one, the other can't operate. However, as both are similarly bad, removing either from power is going to create a multitude of issues which will not be easy to solve.
 
IAmNotAlpharius said:
Trump should overthrow the King and take the crown by force for the lulz.
Click to expand...
A risky move, but if it came off it would be epic.

I think the best thing to do is leave Charles to fate - he has cancer and is not a well man, therefore I doubt he'll be around for many more years anyway.

If King William V is a let-down, then yes finish the Royals off.
 
Made In Wales said:
The problem that Parliament has had since Cromwell is balancing power:

If the Monarch has all the power, Parliament is impotent.

If Parliament has all the power, the Monarch is impotent.

Therefore, the trade-off is 50/50 - Parliament will rule and run the country but only with the say-so of the Monarch.

However, if the Monarch disagrees with Parliament, this then creates a Constitutional Crisis which the Privy Council would then need to sort out. Similarly if Parliament disagrees with the Monarch, this too has to be sorted out quickly (if only to stop the Tabloid Hacks from orgasming themselves into a stupor).

Should King Charles III, therefore demand the dissolution of Parliament tomorrow, Starmer will fire back with 'if you do that, there will be an immediate vote on the future of the Monarchy.' In other words, 'you know your place and I will know mine'.

The trade-off of powers is best shown when the PM asks for the dissolution of Parliament (which only he/she is obliged to ask for) and the Monarch grants this request (again, only he/she can do this).

What we should be asking is why is Parliament continuing to listen to DEMOS, Common Purpose, Fabians and Third Sector/Fifth Columnists? If these people were hung, drawn and quartered then I am sure that the issues affecting the UK (from migrants to concerns over UBI benefits) would be over within weeks.

The TLDR is that without one, the other can't operate. However, as both are similarly bad, removing either from power is going to create a multitude of issues which will not be easy to solve.
Click to expand...
I won't pretend to be an expert on British politics, because I am not, but I did get that much. I understand why the traitor king wouldn't do anything, and that dissolving Parliament is effectively the nuclear option. What I don't understand is why people love Elizabeth so much when she presided over the collapse and ignoble death of the British Empire, and did nothing about contemporary issues even when she was old enough that it didn't matter. It's not like her family would have ended up in the streets even if Parliament threw a tantrum and got rid of the monarchy. Maybe I am speaking out of ignorance, but I do not understand the love.

Couldn't Elizabeth have just rolled in with her guard and killed the very people you are talking about? She was the Queen, after all, and widely beloved.
 
King Charles III said:
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.
Click to expand...
What?!

John said:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Click to expand...
 
He's not just King, but he also is in charge of appointing Anglican bishops/archbishops. His heretical worship of political correctness gatekeeps actual Christians from becoming bishops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom