How many times can I say no?
In your preposterous scenario, where the very existence of England is imperiled if the queen runs out of blush ( :o), what you are really suggesting is that the ends justify the means.
They don't.

Once would have been enough.  Glad you finally got around to it.

The logical-minded would not find the scenario "preposterous", and your attempts to paint it that way are deceiving (along with posting anonymously).  

When it comes to holding an office, of any type, there are two considerations:  The OFFICE itself, and the holder of the office.  If a queen has any respect for her office, or if she wishes those subject to her to have respect for it, there are certain things she must do, and certain things she must avoid doing.  If she appears at an official function dressed like a commoner, she undermines her office and the respect due to it.  When it comes to external appearances, not only is the clothing, hygiene, and comportment to be taken into consideration, but also the complexion.  There are a number of reasons why wearing makeup IS permitted, even according to moral theologians, among those reasons are justice (the scenario outlined here) and charity (consideration of others).  

If, by a haggard complexion, a sovereign brings disdain to the office, she does real damage to her credibility and the view that her subjects have of her office.  A good example can be readily seen when people make fun of Trump because of his orange face, or his peculiar hairstyle. 

The Catholic religion is eminently reasonable, as is the moral law.  You treat the notion of using makeup in any scenario as if it were intrinsically evil.  You are particularly unbalanced, and this trend among Trads of finding quotes and running with them, without consideration of the context, and without proper theological training, is disturbing.   People such as yourself find sin hiding under every rock.

Ahh, but it wasn't!
It was written by a Catholic woman studying St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori.
Which between you and her is the ugly and the beauty?
The one whose soul doth magnify the Lord, by studying His religion and yielding to the teachings of His doctors?
Or the hottie who bristles against them, defiant, and declaring those who remain faithful are ugly Puritans?

I'm assuming you're the anonymous poster I've been discussing with.  With all this hiding behind the internet, it can be deceiving who is saying what.  I find it impressive the way you rail against "deception" on the one hand, and practice it with such alacrity on the other.

A Catholic woman studying the faith and yielding to the teachings of the doctors is fine and dandy.  But when she presumes to start teaching doctrine and morality, that's a different matter altogether.   She'll find some great advice in St. Paul's first letter to St. Timothy (chapter 2).

The sovereign brings disdain to her office were she to present herself as a bimbo.

So you agree with the core principle?  Wonderful!  That's settled then.

Here's the state of the question:

All agree that when it's worn to entice men other than one's husband to impurity, makeup constitutes mortal sin.  Makeup worn out of vanity constitutes mortal sin, but more than likely it's the vanity itself that's sinful, not so much the makeup.  Excessive amounts of makeup, when not conducive to sins again purity (some women look downright ridiculous), are venial sins because they distort nature.

Now, Cardinal Cajetan and the Salamancans hold that there's nothing inherently wrong with makeup in so far as it's an improvement on nature and a way to approach a natural ideal.  I am a subscriber to this line of thought.

St. Alphonsus, quoting St. Thomas, who in turn quotes St. Augustine, say that makeup is never not sinful.  They list the criteria that would make it mortal, but then say that it's always at least venial because it's "deceptive".  But here's the point they're making that appears to have been missed here.  They hold that deception is wrong because "men do not wish to be deceived".  They say that women who dress extravagantly do not sin because they do so at the behest of and with the permission of men.  But they assume that no men approve of makeup.  But in today's society, very few men disapprove of makeup, and it's become a common cultural norm to wear it.  Now, quite a few of these theologians hold that it's even OK for a woman to bare the upper part of her breast if it has become custom.  [This opinion appears to have since been rejected by the directives of the Holy Office under Pius XI, which list objective criteria for immodest dress that do not appear to be relative to cultural norms.]  In any case, however, some men not only do not disapprove of makeup but even prefer that women wear it.  No one is really deceived by makeup, since it's so common and not in the least unexpected by men.  It's not like men are going around saying, "Hmmm, she's obviously naturally this pretty" but then later are surprised by the lack of makeup.  They know that makeup could be in play and could have improved upon the woman's natural appearance.  It's up to them to investigate if they think it would make that much of a difference to a shallow man who might reject a woman whom he otherwise is attracted to ... all because of makeup.

In any case, the reason they give for why makeup is always sinful has to do with the assumed disapproval of men.  I hold that since men no longer disapprove, then it's no longer inherently a venial sin to wear makeup.  Now if a woman wears makeup against the wishes of her husband, that would be a sin of disobedience.

Even unmarried women who wear makeup simply to reduce the impediment of the bad "first impression" due to lack of makeup ... and men indeed tend to gravitate more towards the women who do wear it rather than those with virtue and spiritual beauty ... in order that a man might get to know them for who they really are, I feel that they commit no sin at all.  Certainly, some men may well not "look at them twice" if they are not wearing makeup, but then might get to know them and see the beauty inside, and care less and less as time goes on about what she looks like without makeup ... once they get past those superficial considerations.

But here's the point they're making that appears to have been missed here.  They hold that deception is wrong because "men do not wish to be deceived".  They say that women who dress extravagantly do not sin because they do so at the behest of and with the permission of men.  

Which quote are you referring to here? I re-read the commentary on Timothy and the Summa article, but haven't found where this was said.

Which quote are you referring to here? I re-read the commentary on Timothy and the Summa article, but haven't found where this was said.

Cited by St. Alphonsus from St. Thomas on Timothy:

But with regard to makeup, it is always a sin; for women are not permitted to be elegantly dressed except on account of men, and men refuse to be deceived, as a powdered woman would appear to them.

So women are permitted to be elegantly dressed on account of men, but cannot use makeup, why, because men do not wish to be deceived.

Let us define terms.
Is "makeup" something women wear to cover up scars from skin cancer, or temporary blotches as a side effect of medicines?
Or is "makeup" something women wear in order to attract attention?
I am going with the former definition.

The use of makeup solely to cover "disfigurement arising from some cause such as sickness or the like" has not been said to be sinful by any saint quoted here nor anyone participating in this thread. On the contrary, it's the one use that everyone agrees is completely without sin.