George Washington rumor - 06/16/14 01:35 PM
There is a legend that George Washington converted to Catholicism "on his deathbed." Can anyone verify this, or has anyone else heard this?
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/16/14 06:28 PM
I have also heard this!!! And I a Canadian.
Garaj
Garaj
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/16/14 08:38 PM
"Slaves Held Washington Became a Catholic on His Deathbed"
http://catholicism.org/washington-slaves.html
http:/
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/17/14 11:40 AM
George Washington also celebrated his namesake, St George on April 23rd (he could have been an Anglican to do that, however).
He actually wanted to keep the Union Jack in the original American flag rather than the stars.
It would certainly not be the first time, if this is true, that a Protestant became a secret Catholic.
King Charles II had strong Catholic sympathies (when asked what he thought of the Protestant service, he replied, "Not a religion for gentlemen . . .") and died a Catholic. King James II followed suit and became a staunch and open Roman Catholic.
After his military losses against William of Orange, James II retired to France where he became a monk and died in the odour of sanctity - so much so that the nuns in the area promoted his veneration and the Cause for his canonization after his death.
His body was discovered incorrupt - as was that of his Anglican father, King Charles I.
To this day, there are arguments in favour of Charles I having become an RC before his beheading (highly unlikely though).
Alex
He actually wanted to keep the Union Jack in the original American flag rather than the stars.
It would certainly not be the first time, if this is true, that a Protestant became a secret Catholic.
King Charles II had strong Catholic sympathies (when asked what he thought of the Protestant service, he replied, "Not a religion for gentlemen . . .") and died a Catholic. King James II followed suit and became a staunch and open Roman Catholic.
After his military losses against William of Orange, James II retired to France where he became a monk and died in the odour of sanctity - so much so that the nuns in the area promoted his veneration and the Cause for his canonization after his death.
His body was discovered incorrupt - as was that of his Anglican father, King Charles I.
To this day, there are arguments in favour of Charles I having become an RC before his beheading (highly unlikely though).
Alex
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/17/14 11:53 AM
Very unlikely
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/18/14 12:32 AM
Washington was good at least to his soldiers who were Catholic and allowed them feast days and Mass attendance.
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/19/14 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by Roman refugee
There is a legend that George Washington converted to Catholicism "on his deathbed." Can anyone verify this, or has anyone else heard this?
Others have provided links that deal with this question and I was happy to read them.
I myself read as a teenager about George Washington's death bed conversion to Roman Catholicism in a publication of the Slaves of Mary Immaculate (whom we irreverently referred to as the "Immaculate Slaves of Mary'
). At the time I thought it fanciful. But Nicholas Chapman has done a lot of research about Othodox Christians in prerevolutionary America. There is a connection with Jacobite sympathies and disillusionment with the Church of England after the "Glorious' Revolution with conversion to Orthodoxy and, perhaps, Catholicism.Fr David Straut
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/20/14 06:21 AM
If I recall rightly, there's a story on the Orthodox History website of a 1700s family in Virginia who became Orthodox and remained so for a few generations. I think that's Nicholas Chapman's subject.
Washington was an "Enlightenment" unbeliever. The good side of that was he was fair to Catholics, not trying to push Protestantism on them.
I'm undecided about the American Revolution. I like the original republic but the king was wrongly blamed. Then again, look at how Britain evolved. The mother country and Canada, whose reason to exist was conservative, are more liberal and less religious than the U.S.
I think Washington's deathbed conversion is a myth some Catholics made up that is part wishful thinking and part invention to make Catholic immigrants feel more at home in America and Protestant Americans more comfortable with Catholics.
Washington was an "Enlightenment" unbeliever. The good side of that was he was fair to Catholics, not trying to push Protestantism on them.
I'm undecided about the American Revolution. I like the original republic but the king was wrongly blamed. Then again, look at how Britain evolved. The mother country and Canada, whose reason to exist was conservative, are more liberal and less religious than the U.S.
I think Washington's deathbed conversion is a myth some Catholics made up that is part wishful thinking and part invention to make Catholic immigrants feel more at home in America and Protestant Americans more comfortable with Catholics.
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/21/14 09:46 AM
I have heard of that deathbed conversion for years, but have not seen any proof of it.
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/24/14 08:27 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
If I recall rightly, there's a story on the Orthodox History website of a 1700s family in Virginia who became Orthodox and remained so for a few generations. I think that's Nicholas Chapman's subject.
Washington was an "Enlightenment" unbeliever. The good side of that was he was fair to Catholics, not trying to push Protestantism on them.
I'm undecided about the American Revolution. I like the original republic but the king was wrongly blamed. Then again, look at how Britain evolved. The mother country and Canada, whose reason to exist was conservative, are more liberal and less religious than the U.S.
I think Washington's deathbed conversion is a myth some Catholics made up that is part wishful thinking and part invention to make Catholic immigrants feel more at home in America and Protestant Americans more comfortable with Catholics.
Washington was an "Enlightenment" unbeliever. The good side of that was he was fair to Catholics, not trying to push Protestantism on them.
I'm undecided about the American Revolution. I like the original republic but the king was wrongly blamed. Then again, look at how Britain evolved. The mother country and Canada, whose reason to exist was conservative, are more liberal and less religious than the U.S.
I think Washington's deathbed conversion is a myth some Catholics made up that is part wishful thinking and part invention to make Catholic immigrants feel more at home in America and Protestant Americans more comfortable with Catholics.
But the question still remains whether constitutional monarchy is a better form of civil society - or not.
Liberalism and worse infects all Western countries today. It is not as a result of any political system, but of a general degrading of religious and moral values - it is the people's choice, in short.
Interestingly, I've yet to meet an American historian at conferences who was against constitutioinal monarchy - some even suggested that if framed properly, a referendum question on the subject put to the American people may surprise many.
I was a parade marshall in Toronto for the Queen's Birthday Parade when a group of American tourists came by to ask what this was all about.
When I told them, I quipped, "You could join us today for this were it not for the American Revolution . . ."
To which several replied, "We'd love to have the Queen/Crown back!"
Remember, it's never too late . . .
Alex
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/24/14 12:37 PM
Alex,
I don't think most of us Merickans would mind a King or Queen who was elected; but appointment by divine right? Noooo.. especially in a diverse land such as these. You'd have riots.
I don't think most of us Merickans would mind a King or Queen who was elected; but appointment by divine right? Noooo.. especially in a diverse land such as these. You'd have riots.
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/25/14 02:30 AM
I know Catholics of a certain stripe are hung up on monarchy, thinking it is more Mediaeval and whatnot, without realising that republics existed in Mediaeval times in various Italian city-states. Poland was for a long time a commonwealth, or republic, and eventually had elected monarchs, but that did not turn out too well. Both systems, therefore, are potentially "Catholic".
True, the maladies that infect Western civilisation are not there by popular choice, but the people running things all went to universities and I suppose the blame goes there where a lot of bad ideas coexist with very good ones.
That said, I would be all for monarchy, even under HRH Elizabeth, but the US is too far gone culturally and there is too much of this $ in politics to do it with aplomb.
True, the maladies that infect Western civilisation are not there by popular choice, but the people running things all went to universities and I suppose the blame goes there where a lot of bad ideas coexist with very good ones.
That said, I would be all for monarchy, even under HRH Elizabeth, but the US is too far gone culturally and there is too much of this $ in politics to do it with aplomb.
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/25/14 09:39 AM
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Alex,
I don't think most of us Merickans would mind a King or Queen who was elected; but appointment by divine right? Noooo.. especially in a diverse land such as these. You'd have riots.
I don't think most of us Merickans would mind a King or Queen who was elected; but appointment by divine right? Noooo.. especially in a diverse land such as these. You'd have riots.
It would be by birth rather than "Divine Right."
Some would argue that the Clintons and the Bushes feel they have the Divine Right to rule . . .
Also, the whole point about having an unelected sovereign who represents the people's history and/or the entire people is precisely that.
When a person is "elected by the people" - is he or she truly representative of the people? Not by a long shot. In fact, such a head of state obliges the many thousands of people who did not vote for them to submit themselves to their rule.
Elected officials really and truly only represent those who elected them.
This is one of the reasons that led to your Civil War - the South did not vote for Abraham Lincoln and his protectionist economnic policies (that would have been detrimental to their economy that needed the European markets).
A constitutional monarch (where the head of state is elected) represents the country/people precisely because no one voted for him or her. One's ties to the sovereign have to do with the nation's values, history, culture etc.
The monarch therefore becomes a non-political nead of state. Queen Elizabeth II is actually descended from over 30 European Royal Houses/nations.
She is therefore the best possible person to head a multicultural federation like Canada.
Alex
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/25/14 09:46 AM
Originally Posted by Mark R
I know Catholics of a certain stripe are hung up on monarchy, thinking it is more Mediaeval and whatnot, without realising that republics existed in Mediaeval times in various Italian city-states. Poland was for a long time a commonwealth, or republic, and eventually had elected monarchs, but that did not turn out too well. Both systems, therefore, are potentially "Catholic".
True, the maladies that infect Western civilisation are not there by popular choice, but the people running things all went to universities and I suppose the blame goes there where a lot of bad ideas coexist with very good ones.
That said, I would be all for monarchy, even under HRH Elizabeth, but the US is too far gone culturally and there is too much of this $ in politics to do it with aplomb.
True, the maladies that infect Western civilisation are not there by popular choice, but the people running things all went to universities and I suppose the blame goes there where a lot of bad ideas coexist with very good ones.
That said, I would be all for monarchy, even under HRH Elizabeth, but the US is too far gone culturally and there is too much of this $ in politics to do it with aplomb.
Dear Mark,
You raise a number of important points!
I don't believe the U.S. will "return" to a monarchical form of government (at least, not any time soon).
However, as a royalist, I see interesting connections with how your country is headed.
For example, for all the talk about democracy, does it not bother Americans that presidents tend to come from the same families (Bush and Clinton), and have done so for a good quarter of a century?
Name recognition in democratic politics is important, but does it not show a weakness in the politial system when people appear to be too busy to bother with policy and opt for the path of least resistance re: the celebrity status of candidates?
About half of those elgible to vote actually do so in Ontario and Canada. What are your numbers? And if a percentage of those who vote decide who is to run the country for everyone, how does that approximate the democratic ideal (which is an ideal which is itself a hand-me-down from ancient Greece, never mind medieval times).
There are any number of American ceremonial traditions that are descended from royal times, including the buildings of Washington D.C.
It is also, if I might muse, confusing to want to attack a President, as head of government, who is also the head of state (which citizens must never attack as he/she is supposed to represent everyone).
True, other countries separate the roles of president and prime minister. Then why the need to vote in a president if he is the head of state? Why not a constitutional monarch of some sort?
Alex
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/25/14 10:00 AM
Dear Alex,
If the USofA were to select monarch to be Head of State today, I think that our society has become so extreme to both ends that this monarch would have to be bi-polar, multiracial, an American war hero who is antiwar, a male who is lesbian, and an atheist minister. He or she would have to drink beer, smoke a little weed, watch basketball, thump their Bible, while also for abortion and gay marriage.
If it were up to me, I'd prefer a Royal from the line of His Imperial Majesty the King of Kings of Ethiopia, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God; not any of the European powers.
If the USofA were to select monarch to be Head of State today, I think that our society has become so extreme to both ends that this monarch would have to be bi-polar, multiracial, an American war hero who is antiwar, a male who is lesbian, and an atheist minister. He or she would have to drink beer, smoke a little weed, watch basketball, thump their Bible, while also for abortion and gay marriage.
If it were up to me, I'd prefer a Royal from the line of His Imperial Majesty the King of Kings of Ethiopia, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God; not any of the European powers.
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/25/14 12:46 PM
Alex,
I think Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn or Russel Kirk made similar observations to yours, in a complimentary way since whoever said it was in favor of monarchy. I think Henry Adams was so thoroughly disgusted with our system that he was in favor of monarchy...not to his own benefit, even though he was a scion of our first presidential dynasty. By his time mere lucre was having too much inluence. C. S. Lewis observed that the US's fascination with celebrity is filling a vacuum left by monarchy. I agree, but now that everyone is famous for 15 minutes, as a famous Rusyn said, they would be lost in the shuffle as is the case in the UK.
I confess that I stopped voting some time after I married nearly 9 yrs ago. I used to vote 3rd party a lot, and I live in a part of the US where the largest city has very loopy politics for all of its economic strength. I think less vote here than in Canada...people here have narrower political choices. Things have the appearance of running themselves not to care to vote. For all this talk of red state, blue state, after in office long enough all politicians are "purple". Supposedly there is more of a prolife strength here than in Canada, but for all that there is little result. I think both of our countries get a lot of immigrants who end up voting the same left of center way -- often contrary to the values they brought with them. But, the left of center, at least in the US is just more adept at running things since the right of center makes too big a point of not wanting to run too much.
At one time in this country there was a class of people (WASPs) who all went to the same schools, ran things, but practiced self-restraint and were self-effacing...so self-effacing they are pretty much now out of the picture. Under them the center held, but with more people getting higher education, making more money, and the real decline of proestantism, this could not have lasted.
Sorry I went on too long off subject. I'm a little weird.
I think Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn or Russel Kirk made similar observations to yours, in a complimentary way since whoever said it was in favor of monarchy. I think Henry Adams was so thoroughly disgusted with our system that he was in favor of monarchy...not to his own benefit, even though he was a scion of our first presidential dynasty. By his time mere lucre was having too much inluence. C. S. Lewis observed that the US's fascination with celebrity is filling a vacuum left by monarchy. I agree, but now that everyone is famous for 15 minutes, as a famous Rusyn said, they would be lost in the shuffle as is the case in the UK.
I confess that I stopped voting some time after I married nearly 9 yrs ago. I used to vote 3rd party a lot, and I live in a part of the US where the largest city has very loopy politics for all of its economic strength. I think less vote here than in Canada...people here have narrower political choices. Things have the appearance of running themselves not to care to vote. For all this talk of red state, blue state, after in office long enough all politicians are "purple". Supposedly there is more of a prolife strength here than in Canada, but for all that there is little result. I think both of our countries get a lot of immigrants who end up voting the same left of center way -- often contrary to the values they brought with them. But, the left of center, at least in the US is just more adept at running things since the right of center makes too big a point of not wanting to run too much.
At one time in this country there was a class of people (WASPs) who all went to the same schools, ran things, but practiced self-restraint and were self-effacing...so self-effacing they are pretty much now out of the picture. Under them the center held, but with more people getting higher education, making more money, and the real decline of proestantism, this could not have lasted.
Sorry I went on too long off subject. I'm a little weird.
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/25/14 12:57 PM
[quote=Michael_Thoma]Dear Alex,
If the USofA were to select monarch to be Head of State today, I think that our society has become so extreme to both ends that this monarch would have to be bi-polar, multiracial, an American war hero who is antiwar, a male who is lesbian, and an atheist minister. He or she would have to drink beer, smoke a little weed, watch basketball, thump their Bible, while also for abortion and gay marriage.
If it were up to me, I'd prefer a Royal from the line of His Imperial Majesty the King of Kings of Ethiopia, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God; not any of the European powers.
I'd certainly cheer anyone from the line of the King of Kings of Ethiopia! (The only problem then might be that Americans will say that Obama put the fix in for this . . . ).
The Habsburgs were not not a bad Royal line - but then your Congress could declare a King (many, if not all of your Presidents are actually somehow descended from the Royal lines of Britain, are they not?).
You remind me of an acquaintance of mine who has a website dedicated to Crosses of all kinds.
He even has the "atheist Cross." This is just the plain Cross - his reasoning is that even if the atheist doesn't accept it, it is still the Cross and it is still there as such . . .
God bless a future Royal America!
Alex
If the USofA were to select monarch to be Head of State today, I think that our society has become so extreme to both ends that this monarch would have to be bi-polar, multiracial, an American war hero who is antiwar, a male who is lesbian, and an atheist minister. He or she would have to drink beer, smoke a little weed, watch basketball, thump their Bible, while also for abortion and gay marriage.
If it were up to me, I'd prefer a Royal from the line of His Imperial Majesty the King of Kings of Ethiopia, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God; not any of the European powers.
I'd certainly cheer anyone from the line of the King of Kings of Ethiopia! (The only problem then might be that Americans will say that Obama put the fix in for this . . .
).The Habsburgs were not not a bad Royal line - but then your Congress could declare a King (many, if not all of your Presidents are actually somehow descended from the Royal lines of Britain, are they not?).
You remind me of an acquaintance of mine who has a website dedicated to Crosses of all kinds.
He even has the "atheist Cross." This is just the plain Cross - his reasoning is that even if the atheist doesn't accept it, it is still the Cross and it is still there as such . . .
God bless a future Royal America!
Alex
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/25/14 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Dear Alex,
If the USofA were to select monarch to be Head of State today, I think that our society has become so extreme to both ends that this monarch would have to be bi-polar, multiracial, an American war hero who is antiwar, a male who is lesbian, and an atheist minister. He or she would have to drink beer, smoke a little weed, watch basketball, thump their Bible, while also for abortion and gay marriage.
If the USofA were to select monarch to be Head of State today, I think that our society has become so extreme to both ends that this monarch would have to be bi-polar, multiracial, an American war hero who is antiwar, a male who is lesbian, and an atheist minister. He or she would have to drink beer, smoke a little weed, watch basketball, thump their Bible, while also for abortion and gay marriage.
Oh my gosh, Michael Thoma, thank you, thank you for a little laugh today!
You know what they say: if you can't cry, then laugh...All that you said is soooo true! What a sick mess our once noble country has become.
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/25/14 01:05 PM
Dear Mark,
You are not weird at all, but raise quite fascinating points of social history and political sociology as a whole!
And i'm not, for one minute, am suggesting that monarchy is the panacea for all of everyone's ills.
I like the idea that authority is something that "comes from above" rather than emanates from "the people" whoever they really are (and they are never "everybody").
There seems to be a republican (small "r") bias in history. For example, far from what I was taught about the end of World War I, monarchies were being established rather than "forgotten about" as a result. The Kingdom of Iceland (which fell in a referendum sponsored by the Nazis in 2944(, the Kingdom of Poland, of Lithuania, of Finland etc.
Monarchy was not an idea whose value had gone past the "best before date."
As someone once said, "There is a king-sized void within us that only a . . . king can fill."
And I would much rather pledge allegiance to a person, a king or queen, rather to a constitution or a flag etc.
I just rather would.
That is not to say there is so very much about the U.S. and its history that is to be admired.
Alex
You are not weird at all, but raise quite fascinating points of social history and political sociology as a whole!
And i'm not, for one minute, am suggesting that monarchy is the panacea for all of everyone's ills.
I like the idea that authority is something that "comes from above" rather than emanates from "the people" whoever they really are (and they are never "everybody").
There seems to be a republican (small "r") bias in history. For example, far from what I was taught about the end of World War I, monarchies were being established rather than "forgotten about" as a result. The Kingdom of Iceland (which fell in a referendum sponsored by the Nazis in 2944(, the Kingdom of Poland, of Lithuania, of Finland etc.
Monarchy was not an idea whose value had gone past the "best before date."
As someone once said, "There is a king-sized void within us that only a . . . king can fill."
And I would much rather pledge allegiance to a person, a king or queen, rather to a constitution or a flag etc.
I just rather would.
That is not to say there is so very much about the U.S. and its history that is to be admired.
Alex
Re: George Washington rumor - 06/26/14 02:24 AM
I hate to brag, but my wife is related to all pre-Reformation European monarchs, inluding Alexius Comnenus, Vladimir and Olga, Mieszko, Charlemagne. It is the blessing of having lots of English blood. On the Continent, only nobles married nobles. The genius of the English system allowed younger sons of younger sons of royalty to marry nobles, and younger sons of nobles to marry rich commoners. Many Southern families like my late father-in-law's are descended from younger sons who received land grants from kings. This is one reason why many American presidents have some royal blood. (The other is that settlers of Boston were upper crusty, unlike the Pilgrims of Plymouth.)
This should not be a big deal for most people with English blood because it is so common among them. But because marriage patterns were so different on the Continent, it is a big deal to someone 100% Continental like me.
This should not be a big deal for most people with English blood because it is so common among them. But because marriage patterns were so different on the Continent, it is a big deal to someone 100% Continental like me.