Before we take up any theological discussion, we should note that this declaration was not based on any scriptural understanding of Mary, but on the development of Marian adoration. The above image is a typical depiction of Mary. This image is also supposed to depict the woman of Revelation 12, with a crown of twelve stars around her head and the moon at her feet, interpreted by Catholics to be Mary as the Queen of Heaven and the Queen of the Universe..

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

This presents a major problem. In establishing the immaculate conception of Mary and to her sinless ever virgin life "Protoevangelium of James" describes in detail the birth of the baby without pain and without hymen of Mary being broken in graphic detail. Mary: Full of Grace at Catholic Answers presents the Catholic teaching on this matter from the writings of early church fathers and shows that because Mary bore Jesus without pain, it proved that Mary was free from original sin.
But the Rev 12 woman gave birth to her child "cried", "travailing" and "pained". Evidently this woman was still under the original sin and the curse of pain
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Thus the woman in Rev 12 cannot be Mary. If it is then she was neither immaculate or without original sin and did not give birth without pain and the entire documentation and evidences will be under question. But since we are dealing with revelational symbolisms they are amenable to any number of artificial manipulations. Catholic theologians can find means of avoiding this conflict. The easiest approach is "To Be in the pains of birth doesn't always mean literal birth pain in scripture." That particular statement is doesnot refer to the pain of child birth. It refers only to the anguish of Mary in bringing Jesus to birth. Upto that point the story is literal, the woman is literal, the moon is literal, the stars are literal but this particualr pain is not. As a second way out they concote two giving birth to Jesus. First one without pain at Bethlehem and the second one at the cross with pain.(Doesn't that mean Mary was physically sinless but spiritually fallen?) The second giving birth by Mary is not mentioned or found anywhere in the scripture - if I am not mistaken not even in the apocryphal or any other early documents. The first one was a physical birth and the second a spiritual birth. Once that point is reached we can go on to such lofty philosophies. "On this subject, some speak of superimposed planes or of the "law  of two  phases"  in a single prophetic  perspective, one including both the joyful virginal  childbirth of Christ, the Head, at Bethlehem and the painful spiritual childbirth of the members - already included in the humanity of Christ (but not born) - on Calvary."--James Akins. We are expected find all this in the direct and simple words John 19:26-27 "When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."

The fallacy of the argument is clear if we continue to read the passage. Rev. 12: 5....she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6.and the woman fled into the wilderness........and nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days."

Look at the sequence of the events. Woman with child- dragon tries to kill - child born - child taken upto God and to his throne - woman flees to wilderness. That does not fit Mary at all. After the ascension of Jesus, she fled into the wilderness! She fled to Egypt soon after the birth of Jesus and after the ascension of Jesus we see her in Jerusalem with the disciples worshipping. That is the last thing we hear about Mary. Unless we take the symbolism out of context it does not tally. We can of course play with it and say "sometimes it is the Church and some time it is Mary - they are the same." But what about the 1260 days?

Who then is this Woman?. Evangelical interpretation identifies this woman as the Church. Church is the bride of the lamb taken from among the gentiles. The elect therefore are not without original sin - they are indeed a fallen people justified and sanctified in Jesus. The church gave birth to her children in great travail and pain. . The remaining war with the Serpent evidently refers to the end time. Eph.2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus. The Catholic encyclopaedia actually agrees to this interpretation but then makes it as Mary as a symbol of the Church.". It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both a figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of the Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the Apocalypse (xii, 5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of accommodation (cf. Drach, Apcal., Pris, 1873, 114), but applies to her in a truly literal sense which appears to be partly limited to her, and partly extended to the whole Church."

If we accept the the Catholic Mary, Mary cannot represent the Church at all. Church is taken from among the gentiles, from a fallen state and redeemed by the blood of Jesus and justified and sanctified. That is the Church. Mary does not in any way fit the description. She is not even human and do not share the same flesh and blood of mankind which is by nature a decaying and dying one because of the "original sin".

Once the Queen of heaven is established as Mary, the doctrine of Coronation of Mary is inevitable. We have ample reference to the Bride of the Lamb i.e Jesus sitting in the heavenlies not only in the Revelation- which book offers interpretations as varied and diverse as to the imagination of the interpreter - but in other parts of the scripture. It was a common imagery in the epistles of Paul. Mary's coronation prophecy or picture is found no where, not even in the gnostic literature of that period. It is evidently the result of adoration to Mary through the many centuaries following the influence of pagan cultures.

The Queen of Heaven is also represented with a slight twist as above. Here Mary is represented as crushing the head of the Serpent. This is in fulfilment of the promise: Gen 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Evidently this verse clearly states that "he will crush your head", and not "she will crush your head."

Justification of this doctrine is that Jesus being the son of Mary, if Jesus crushed the head of the serpent, it is indirectly done by Mary. This will be twist of the intelligent theologians.

However there are translations of Bible which are officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church which really makes this change. Roman Catholic Douay Rheims, 1899 Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, dated September 1, 1899 translates Gen 3:15 thus:
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The foot note reads: She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin; others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.

A translation by Monsignor Ronald Knox, from the Latin Vulgate published in 1944, authorized by the Heirarchy of England and Wales, and the Heirarchy of Scotland. Imprimatur of Bernard Cardinal Griffin, the Archbishop of Westminster, translates this portion more clearly thus:

Gen 3:15 And I will establish a feud between thee and the woman, between thy offspring and hers; she is to crush thy head, while thou dost lie in ambush at her heels.

Whatever the explanation for such a mistranslation it can hardly be attributed to faithfulness to the originals. Evidently they were so translated to conform with the new revelations to the "Church".
 

But the real evidence for the coronation and glorification of Mary comes from Mary herself - not from the the Scripture, nor from the historical evidences nor from traditions handed down from the Apostles. Aparitions and revelations of Mary had given all these dogmas validity!! Now the "Roman Catholic Church", in its authority to establish truth, by infallible Papal Bulls have made them true.

The true implication of the concept of the Queen of Heaven will not be clear unless we interpret this concept in terms of the scripture. Where can we find this? A search will show that it is not present in the New Testament. The only occurrence is in Jeremiah's prophecy:

I am well aware that any amount of prophetic warning will fall only on deaf ears. Queen of Heaven was a miracle figure. She provided temperal benefits in abundance at the expense of eternal damnation. This is what Jeremiah was told:

Jer 44:16 "We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD!
17 We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.
18 But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."
19 The women added, "When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?"

So this worship of the Queen of Heaven is nothing new. It started right in the heart of Jerusalem and Judah from the very Temple of the Lord which bore His name. The figure has not changed. The idol has not changed. The method of burnig incense has not changed. The ardant proponents of the new movement are women too! Queen of Heaven has resurrected back.

As anyone can see, the concept of Queen of Heaven is an abomination to Our Lord.