Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: mugnapper on April 30, 2023, 09:44:32 am
-
In a break with tradition, the Archbishop of Canterbury will ask the nation to join in with a chant of ‘May the King live forever’ at Charlie’s coronation next week.
Will you be joining in?
-
Not my king.
-
Yes I will be.
-
Feels a bit cultish
-
Not my king.
If you’re a British subject whether you like it or not yes he is your King
-
Feels a bit cultish
Will it be a three phrased chant?
-
Feels a bit cultish
Should that last 'l' have been an 'n'?
-
Not my king.
If you’re a British subject whether you like it or not yes he is your King
Here's a thought.
If the Archbishop of Canterbury had said we should all chant "May the King be able to flap his arms and fly like a bird", would you have expected us all to join in that.
Because it makes more logical sense.
-
Cheltenham fans might be chanting it, hoping to keep Alfie.
-
Feels a bit cultish
Almost correct, just replace one constanant.
-
We are all singing for his supper;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-coronation-bill-tipped-29849381
In a country of food banks, cost of living stress, and unaffordable fuel bills.
Make sense of it!
-
We are all singing for his supper;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-coronation-bill-tipped-29849381
In a country of food banks, cost of living stress, and unaffordable fuel bills.
Make sense of it!
Same bloke that jets around the world, makes short trips in helicopters, chauffeur driven in huge motors and owns multiple stately homes and gets to tell us
"If we go on exploiting the way we are, whatever we do to nature - however much we pollute her - we do to ourselves. It is insanity,"
f**k off you fat sausage fingered Kitson.
-
We are all singing for his supper;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-coronation-bill-tipped-29849381
In a country of food banks, cost of living stress, and unaffordable fuel bills.
Make sense of it!
£1.7 billion the amount the royal family brings to the economy
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/features/how-much-money-does-the-monarchy-bring-to-the-uk/
-
The estimate of £1.7 billion is referring to the monarchy as an institution, not the Royal family with the assets they control.
Even if it were accurate, the value to the economy does not transfer evenly.
That income does not directly impact the pockets of poverty in need.
How could the assets and income of the Royal Family, including the Duchies and the Crown Estates, be re-allocated to social priorities in the UK?
-
The estimate of £1.7 billion is referring to the monarchy as an institution, not the Royal family with the assets they control.
Even if it were accurate, the value to the economy does not transfer evenly.
That income does not directly impact the pockets of poverty in need.
How could the assets and income of the Royal Family, including the Duchies and the Crown Estates, be re-allocated to social priorities in the UK?
The Crown Estates don't belong to the Royal Family, they belong to the institution of the Crown (ie the job, not the person).
Get rid of the job and the assets revert to the state, not the Royal Family. That's how they'd get reallocated - and completely at that.
-
Agreed, Glyn.
-
The Monarchy generates a massive income for the country in tourism I don’t see a head of state in the likes of Machron or Shroeder would generate anything
-
So, would people stop visiting if there was no monarchy. Lots of tourism in other countries without a monarch. I believe the most visited palace is Versailles.
-
Are those people who dislike the monarchy still having the extra day off next Monday, of course they are.
-
The King's Coronation is expected to bring around £1 billion to the UK economy.
If you're against it ignore it and leave those who are for it to enjoy it.
-
I am because my customers don't want me in on Monday so I'm going to paint my kitchen and hang a radiator.
-
The King's Coronation is expected to bring around £1 billion to the UK economy.
If you're against it ignore it and leave those who are for it to enjoy it.
The Premier League brings in £3.2bn in taxes alone and £7.7bn is added to the overall economy annually .
Chicken feed BB given we have to put up with this medieval love fest for the benefit of the nation's toff sycophants .
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
-
I don't like organisations that harbour pedophiles and pay off witnesses.
-
I don't like organisations that harbour pedophiles and pay off witnesses.
If the general demeanour and attitude of this individual is anyway true to the alleged text messages he sent to his future wife about wanting to be where sanitary products are utilised then it just makes my skin crawl at the thought of what goes through his warped mind.
Repugnant individual.
-
What I find hard to articulate (and I don't think writing it down helps AT ALL) is this :
Why do lots of people in this Country fly flags , hang on fences for hours , fawn ,hang on every spoken or written word of ( this is the hard bit to explain ) a family just like yours and mine
That's not strictly true because I have no family. There's just me and Mrs DW no kids so you get the picture
Just an ordinary set of people who may once have had a direct link to God who have been diluted , fragmented , halted in their "genetic line" but still continue to have people hanging on their every action , their every word
Why ?
4 Doors from me , 5 Doors from me and 6 Doors away from me there are ordinary people whose names I don't even know and to me they are on a par with Charlie Boy and the Queen Consort and the boys Wills and Harry . Except Im more interested in my neighbours than the alleged Royal family
My neighbours don't cost me piles every year. They don't have millions maybe billions of ordinary people's money but they are the same as me and my small family ..... just ordinary people no great recognized bloodline , just a family tree that commands no interest
So NO I won't be pledging any oath or anything else to Charlie boy or his kling ons as to me they are as ordinary as the family three doors away. They've been married twice (each) have kids and Grandkids and I don't talk to them either.
The difference is the family up the road can't perpetuate the notion that they are descended directly from God and fleece me and around 50% of others by pretending they are
I knew it wouldn't work. My conclusion is Charlie and his little (massive) empire is alive only because people think it is still plausible in the 21st Century
-
I agree with BB that people should be allowed to enjoy this day if they wish to.
He's also hoping to enjoy the day as much as he did at King George V1's Coronation.
-
.... having sung in Choir for Queen Victorias Coronation as well ?
-
So, would people stop visiting if there was no monarchy. Lots of tourism in other countries without a monarch. I believe the most visited palace is Versailles.
It's estimated that with the land and the Palace it would have cost over 2 billion dollars at todays prices. It is fully open to tje public hence why it is probably the most visited nothing to do with current royalty it is more a museum with a vast amount of land.
Yes I've been and it is magnificent it is a days outing but the French royalty, as in royal familly, has long gone except in name, as opposed to over here
-
I am because my customers don't want me in on Monday so I'm going to paint my kitchen and hang a radiator.
What's the radiator done?
-
I am because my customers don't want me in on Monday so I'm going to paint my kitchen and hang a radiator.
What's the radiator done?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
The difference though is that the Premier League isn't undemocratic and doesn't cost me anything.
When those who want to ignore the Royal family can have their money back you might have a point.
-
The Monarchy generates a massive income for the country in tourism I don’t see a head of state in the likes of Machron or Shroeder would generate anything
Is it the members of Royal Family themselves who generate tourism, or the trappings of monarchy? They're not the same things.
If we're serious about tourism income let Disney handle the monarchy for us, they really know how to get money out of tourists. And they'd do it in a cost effective way.
-
So, would people stop visiting if there was no monarchy. Lots of tourism in other countries without a monarch. I believe the most visited palace is Versailles.
It's estimated that with the land and the Palace it would have cost over 2 billion dollars at todays prices. It is fully open to tje public hence why it is probably the most visited nothing to do with current royalty it is more a museum with a vast amount of land.
Yes I've been and it is magnificent it is a days outing but the French royalty, as in royal familly, has long gone except in name, as opposed to over here
More people visit Chester Zoo each yer than visit Buck Palace.
-
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/features/how-much-money-does-the-monarchy-bring-to-the-uk/#:~:text=A%20moneymaking%20monarchy,foreign%20investment%20and%20much%20more.
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
The difference though is that the Premier League isn't undemocratic and doesn't cost me anything.
When those who want to ignore the Royal family can have their money back you might have a point.
The Premier League would cost you a lot if you chose to attend a game or paid to view it on TV. Those who choose to ignore the Royal family receive the same benefits as everyone else in respect of the revenue it brings in in terms of tax income, trade, tourism, media, real estate and heritage sites, foreign investment, etc, which far exceed the cost to each UK citizen.
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
The difference though is that the Premier League isn't undemocratic and doesn't cost me anything.
When those who want to ignore the Royal family can have their money back you might have a point.
If Manchester United want to upgrade Old Trafford or Spurs want to build a new stadium they don't ask the UK taxpayer to foot the bill either .
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
The difference though is that the Premier League isn't undemocratic and doesn't cost me anything.
When those who want to ignore the Royal family can have their money back you might have a point.
The Premier League would cost you a lot if you chose to attend a game or paid to view it on TV. Those who choose to ignore the Royal family receive the same benefits as everyone else in respect of the revenue it brings in in terms of tax income, trade, tourism, media, real estate and heritage sites, foreign investment, etc, which far exceed the cost to each UK citizen.
Wasn't the Queen the world's richest woman ? .
It doesn't quite configure that the Royal Family is some kind of Socialist Enterprise does it .
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
The difference though is that the Premier League isn't undemocratic and doesn't cost me anything.
When those who want to ignore the Royal family can have their money back you might have a point.
If Manchester United want to upgrade Old Trafford or Spurs want to build a new stadium they don't ask the UK taxpayer to foot the bill either .
Why should they? Only those who attend their games would benefit from the upgrades, unlike the Royal family where everyone benefits.
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
The difference though is that the Premier League isn't undemocratic and doesn't cost me anything.
When those who want to ignore the Royal family can have their money back you might have a point.
The Premier League would cost you a lot if you chose to attend a game or paid to view it on TV. Those who choose to ignore the Royal family receive the same benefits as everyone else in respect of the revenue it brings in in terms of tax income, trade, tourism, media, real estate and heritage sites, foreign investment, etc, which far exceed the cost to each UK citizen.
Money that would revert to the state if the monarchy was abolished, actually more so as we wouldn't fund the monarchy from it.
-
Do you mean a bit like leaving the EU?
-
So, would people stop visiting if there was no monarchy. Lots of tourism in other countries without a monarch. I believe the most visited palace is Versailles.
It's estimated that with the land and the Palace it would have cost over 2 billion dollars at todays prices. It is fully open to tje public hence why it is probably the most visited nothing to do with current royalty it is more a museum with a vast amount of land.
Yes I've been and it is magnificent it is a days outing but the French royalty, as in royal familly, has long gone except in name, as opposed to over here
More people visit Chester Zoo each yer than visit Buck Palace.
Just remind me how many months a year BuckPal is open to the public that'll be 3 then, by ticket
-
So, would people stop visiting if there was no monarchy. Lots of tourism in other countries without a monarch. I believe the most visited palace is Versailles.
It's estimated that with the land and the Palace it would have cost over 2 billion dollars at todays prices. It is fully open to tje public hence why it is probably the most visited nothing to do with current royalty it is more a museum with a vast amount of land.
Yes I've been and it is magnificent it is a days outing but the French royalty, as in royal familly, has long gone except in name, as opposed to over here
More people visit Chester Zoo each yer than visit Buck Palace.
Just remind me how many months a year BuckPal is open to the public that'll be 3 then, by ticket
People go to Buck Palace every day. You don't have to go in it to visit it FFS!
-
So how many people "go to" Buck Palace every day?
-
And how many go thinking they are going to actually meet the King?
-
So how many people "go to" Buck Palace every day?
Google's your friend BB. Oh and in excess of 8,000,000 million people visited the Palace of Verseils last year; and France doesn't even have a King or Queen!
-
So how many people "go to" Buck Palace every day?
Google's your friend BB. Oh and in excess of 8,000,000 million people visited the Palace of Verseils last year; and France doesn't even have a King or Queen!
Are you suggesting that figure would be less if France still had a King or Queen?
How many people visit Buck Palace every day without going in it?
-
So, would people stop visiting if there was no monarchy. Lots of tourism in other countries without a monarch. I believe the most visited palace is Versailles.
It's estimated that with the land and the Palace it would have cost over 2 billion dollars at todays prices. It is fully open to tje public hence why it is probably the most visited nothing to do with current royalty it is more a museum with a vast amount of land.
Yes I've been and it is magnificent it is a days outing but the French royalty, as in royal familly, has long gone except in name, as opposed to over here
More people visit Chester Zoo each yer than visit Buck Palace.
Just remind me how many months a year BuckPal is open to the public that'll be 3 then, by ticket
People go to Buck Palace every day. You don't have to go in it to visit it FFS!
Does that analysis apply to the zoo as well?
Judging by the 000's who attend events such as the jubilee the coronation the chsnging of the guards etc my guess would be it far exceeds visitors to Chester Zoo bssed on what you have just daid. Versailles by the way is actually on the edge of the town and is massive, both the palace and the grounds no comparison to Buck Pal, think more along the lines of Chatsworth housebut 3 or 4 times bigger and grander
-
I see the Met are arresting anti-Monarchists who were protesting peacefully in Trafalgar Square.
-
I see the Met are arresting anti-Monarchists who were protesting peacefully in Trafalgar Square.
Starmer will sort it. Not long to wait now!
-
I see the Met are arresting anti-Monarchists who were protesting peacefully in Trafalgar Square.
On what grounds? Are these unlawful arrests?
-
Shame his mum’s not alive to watch this.
-
Congratulations to King Charles, Crowned on Saint Georges day, watch our for some Eastern Orthodox part in ceremony.
-
I see the Met are arresting anti-Monarchists who were protesting peacefully in Trafalgar Square.
On what grounds? Are these unlawful arrests?
Yes after the Anti Protest Bill was passed recently
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/02/uk/uk-public-order-act-coronation-intl/index.html
You can have free speech unless we don't like what you are saying or holding on a Banner perhaps ?
-
Quite bizarre that, in the 21st century, our Head of State has to confirm that he is a "faithful Protestant" before he can be confirmed in the role.
We are a very strange country.
-
I was never a royalist but I wouldn't say I actively disliked them. The more they try to suppress dissent through pr and police action, the more that changes. f**k them and the met. Two gangs of sex offenders and racists looking out for one another.
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
The difference though is that the Premier League isn't undemocratic and doesn't cost me anything.
When those who want to ignore the Royal family can have their money back you might have a point.
If Manchester United want to upgrade Old Trafford or Spurs want to build a new stadium they don't ask the UK taxpayer to foot the bill either .
I see what point youre trying to make... but wasn't our ground built with local taxpayer money?
-
People who don't like the Premier League don't have to put up with it. They can ignore it and leave those who like it to carry on liking it.
The same should go for the Coronation.
The difference though is that the Premier League isn't undemocratic and doesn't cost me anything.
When those who want to ignore the Royal family can have their money back you might have a point.
If Manchester United want to upgrade Old Trafford or Spurs want to build a new stadium they don't ask the UK taxpayer to foot the bill either .
I see what point youre trying to make... but wasn't our ground built with local taxpayer money?
Yes, it was, and only about 2% of tax payers in the borough go to watch Rovers there!
-
I'm not a militant Republican. If folk need this sort of Ruritanian pomp to make them feel good...there are worse things.
But this ceremony is all very strange if you take a step back and think how you'd explain it to extra-terrestrials.
A holy man exhorts a supernatural deity to bless the rule of a man who's position rests on the fact that he's the descendant of medieval gang bosses who won their turf war.
In fairness to Charles, I do think he gets how nonsensical all this is. There are full on reactionaries in the Royal Establishment who want to give the impression that the last 150 years of modernity never happened
Charles is cannier than that. He knows that the Royal Family has to adapt and evolve its image as society changes. His mother was a genius on that score, managing the process of changing Royalty's role from being aloof Rulers of Empire to being a homely First Family (just like yours, only with a palace and a ship).
Charles knows that process has to continue - the Royal Family has to be seen to reflect society or it rapidly becomes irrelevant. Hence the little gestures like calling himself Defender of Faiths (plural). And weirdly, inviting Bear Grylls and Lionel Richie to the service.
-
It's all very medieval and completely outdated. Its emphasis on keeping the Protestant faith front and centre is evident
Charles looks suitably embarrassed.
-
Isn't Bear Grylls chief Scout ? Think that gets him on the list , Lionel was probably just looking for someone
-
Why all the comments about "protestant".
He is Head of the Church of England Fid Def, which is Protestant
-
Why all the comments about "protestant".
He is Head of the Church of England Fid Def, which is Protestant
Think about how it would sound to our ears if the Head of State of, say, Micronesia had by law to be a member of a national religious sect.
-
Grylls and Richie are both big ambassadors for the princes trust, his work with that is the biggest legacy Charles will ever have fore.
-
Grylls and Richie are both big ambassadors for the princes trust, his work with that is the biggest legacy Charles will ever have fore.
Fair enough.
-
I thoroughly enjoyed the ceremony.
It was very well done indeed.
-
Quite bizarre that, in the 21st century, our Head of State has to confirm that he is a "faithful Protestant" before he can be confirmed in the role.
We are a very strange country.
The Monarch is confirmed in the role from the moment of the previous Monarch's death.
Their role of Monarch is formally proclaimed in a civic ceremony of the Privy Council a short period of time after this.
The Coronation is a religious and symbolic ceremony. Hence why it is held on consecrated ground and conducted by an Archbishop. It does not signify the beginning of a reign.
The Monarch, as well as Head of State, is also Head of the Church of England. The Church of England is a protestant religious order. Hence the Monarch declares they are a 'faithful protestant' in the symbolic religious ceremony called the Coronation conducted by the Church of England.
Charles had the role of King before today's ceremony took place
-
Go on then. I'll bite.
What would have happened if Charles, when asked today if he was a faithful Protestant, had answered, "No, I belong to the Church of the Latter Day Dude and I'm a practicing Dudist"?
-
Quite bizarre that, in the 21st century, our Head of State has to confirm that he is a "faithful Protestant" before he can be confirmed in the role.
We are a very strange country.
The Monarch is confirmed in the role from the moment of the previous Monarch's death.
Their role of Monarch is formally proclaimed in a civic ceremony of the Privy Council a short period of time after this.
The Coronation is a religious and symbolic ceremony. Hence why it is held on consecrated ground and conducted by an Archbishop. It does not signify the beginning of a reign.
The Monarch, as well as Head of State, is also Head of the Church of England. The Church of England is a protestant religious order. Hence the Monarch declares they are a 'faithful protestant' in the symbolic religious ceremony called the Coronation conducted by the Church of England.
Charles had the role of King before today's ceremony took place
Yes. Edward VIII, who never had a coronation was King for 326 days, January - December 1936.
-
Yes. Edward VIII, who never had a coronation was King for 326 days, January - December 1936.
Correct. Edward V and Queen Jane (aka Lady Jane Grey) also did not have Coronations.
Their fate, and those of other Monarchs, explains why the heir and previously the peerage (inc others with claims to the throne) pay homage to the new Monarch in a Coronation. Deeply religious people were felt unlikely to go against a promise made on holy ground.
So back to the OP. The change from a homage from the peerage to an invitation to all to pledge an allegiance if they wish to do so is IMO a very appropriate change in tradition which recognises the shift in power caused by democratisation. The power to maintain or remove the Monarch(y) is now in the hands of the people.
Any criticism of the wording "may the King live forever" within this pledge fundamentally ignores two crucial points: -
a) the Coronation is part of a religious Christian ceremony
b) Christians believe in life everlasting as a matter of faith
-
Why all the comments about "protestant".
He is Head of the Church of England Fid Def, which is Protestant
Think about how it would sound to our ears if the Head of State of, say, Micronesia had by law to be a member of a national religious sect.
But he is head of a Protestant church so what has that got to do with Micronesia, it is what it is like it or not
-
Why all the comments about "protestant".
He is Head of the Church of England Fid Def, which is Protestant
Think about how it would sound to our ears if the Head of State of, say, Micronesia had by law to be a member of a national religious sect.
But he is head of a Protestant church so what has that got to do with Micronesia, it is what it is like it or not
Sorry, I thought my point was obvious.
It's this.
If we looked at another country and found it had a 300 year old law that required its Head of State to be a member of a specific religious sect, we'd think the place was a benighted hole that refused to engage with the modern world.
-
We've Got Super Charlie Windsor
He's Got Everything He Needs
A Nonce At The Back Harry In Attack
The Royals Are Going To Drain Us Till We Bleed .
-
Why all the comments about "protestant".
He is Head of the Church of England Fid Def, which is Protestant
Think about how it would sound to our ears if the Head of State of, say, Micronesia had by law to be a member of a national religious sect.
But he is head of a Protestant church so what has that got to do with Micronesia, it is what it is like it or not
Sorry, I thought my point was obvious.
It's this.
If we looked at another country and found it had a 300 year old law that required its Head of State to be a member of a specific religious sect, we'd think the place was a benighted hole that refused to engage with the modern world.
If that other country had a ceremony that made over a billion quid and had representatives from 203 countries and approximately 100 heads of state in attendance, many of us would be quite envious and would think it must be doing something right.
-
Quite bizarre that, in the 21st century, our Head of State has to confirm that he is a "faithful Protestant" before he can be confirmed in the role.
What would have happened if Charles, when asked today if he was a faithful Protestant, had answered, "No, I belong to the Church of the Latter Day Dude and I'm a practicing Dudist"?
The obvious answer to that is that grown ups do not make public declarations of intent on the hoof. The wording of the ceremony was agreed in advance.
You made 2 (highlighted) statements in your original post. Both are factually incorrect. I've dealt with the 2nd already. The Monarch is confirmed in their role on the death of their predecessor not after the Coronation.
It is not law that the Monarch has to confirm that they are a faithful protestant. Some parts of the Coronation oath are decreed in law. Other parts are not. This part is not.
It is law that the Monarch confirms they will "Maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". As they are Head of the CoE this would seem a reasonable thing of the law to ask of them.
History lesson.
The Coronation Oath was rewritten in 1688 on the Glorious Revolution when James II (a Catholic) was overthrown, following a birth of a son (and heir) who would be brought up in the Catholic faith, in favour of Protestant Mary II and William III.
Since the Protestant Reformation there had been a series of violent attempts to restore Catholicism thwarted. Hence the establishment's rejection of allowing the Royal family to become Catholic in perpetuity.
Therefore the C of E requested that the Monarch(s) declared their faithful Protestantism in the Coronation. Every Monarch since has acquiesced. But they don't have to.
Similarly in 1688 the new oath contained a robust repudiation of Catholic doctrines. For similar reasons. This request from the C of E was carried on also. Until George V in 1911 objected and it was removed.
Charles or any future Monarch was/is at liberty to refuse in advance to declare themselves to be "faithful protestants"
If you're going to reduce your argument to waspish criticism in order to belittle you should first get your facts correct otherwise you come across as pathetically juvenile.
-
I absolutely detest nepotism
-
BR
You're arguing over semantic detail rather than core content.
Let me simplify it.
If Charles had at some point in his life decided that he did not believe in God, or did believe in God but not in organised religion, or did agree with organised religion, but wanted to be a Roman Catholic, he would have not been able to become Head of State.
You may think it perfectly normal and reasonable that the 322 year old Act of Settlement requires our monarch to be a practicing Protestant (and THAT is the context of why the statement about being a faithful Protestant is in the ceremony).
Me, I find it indicative of our national inability to come to terms with our history. We have a very reactionary Establishment that wants our systems and processes and conventions to be preserved in aspic as some sort of perfect exemplar. And we end up with the faintly embarrassing situation where in reality we are a modern, multi-ethnic, multi-religion (and mainly no religion) nation, but we insist on conventions from over three centuries ago.
I wonder why so many people cling so tightly to these historical absurdities. Would the sky fall in if we separated the Church of England from the state?
-
Talk about whataboutism, jeez.
-
Billy
You seem absurdly vexed about a Head of State with virtually no political power also being a symbolic but powerless Head of our most popular religious order by dint of explainable historic traditions.
No the law does not require the Monarch to believe in God or organised religion or anything else.
The law requires the Monarch to take Protestant communion and ensure their heir does the same i.e. they must attend C of E church services though there is no requirement on frequency. That is hardly a bind.
Constitutional law moves slowly and by necessity only. If a future atheist Monarch was so opposed to the above law and, as would be expected, was broadly supported by our (very) modern secular society the law would be changed.
Or were you gnashing your teeth about male primogeniture in the succession before it was belatedly overturned by necessity and public opinion in 2013?
The Monarchy has survived in the UK because it has adapted with the times - and there was plenty of evidence for this in the Coronation compared to the prior one 70 years ago.
We live in a country that emphatically does embrace, reflect on and consider our history. This is healthy. The Coronation ceremony was evidence for this also. And that includes confronting less glorious parts of our history as well as the celebratory pomp and circumstance.
The procession passed right by a prominent statue of Charles I, head in situ, a foolish tyrant. The crowning took place on a chair designed for Edward I, a merciless warmonger.
Considering modern history all recent PM's were invited and given a prominent place at the ceremony. This included another (politically) decapitated fool and another warmonger.
A mature society remembers and does this, in part, through continuing historic conventions and traditions.
It is by contrast telling that those opposed to such traditions or the Monarchy itself on this thread have to resort to childish juvenilia when making their objections known.
-
I wonder who is the head of child procurement now that Saville and Epstein were suicided?
-
A mature society remembers and does this, in part, through continuing historic conventions and traditions.
It is by contrast telling that those opposed to such traditions or the Monarchy itself on this thread have to resort to childish juvenilia when making their objections known.
I wonder who is the head of child procurement now that Saville and Epstein were suicided?
See what I mean?
-
I suppose peadophilia is childish in a sense Branton.
-
Billy
You seem absurdly vexed about a Head of State with virtually no political power also being a symbolic but powerless Head of our most popular religious order by dint of explainable historic traditions.
No the law does not require the Monarch to believe in God or organised religion or anything else.
The law requires the Monarch to take Protestant communion and ensure their heir does the same i.e. they must attend C of E church services though there is no requirement on frequency. That is hardly a bind.
Constitutional law moves slowly and by necessity only. If a future atheist Monarch was so opposed to the above law and, as would be expected, was broadly supported by our (very) modern secular society the law would be changed.
Or were you gnashing your teeth about male primogeniture in the succession before it was belatedly overturned by necessity and public opinion in 2013?
The Monarchy has survived in the UK because it has adapted with the times - and there was plenty of evidence for this in the Coronation compared to the prior one 70 years ago.
We live in a country that emphatically does embrace, reflect on and consider our history. This is healthy. The Coronation ceremony was evidence for this also. And that includes confronting less glorious parts of our history as well as the celebratory pomp and circumstance.
The procession passed right by a prominent statue of Charles I, head in situ, a foolish tyrant. The crowning took place on a chair designed for Edward I, a merciless warmonger.
Considering modern history all recent PM's were invited and given a prominent place at the ceremony. This included another (politically) decapitated fool and another warmonger.
A mature society remembers and does this, in part, through continuing historic conventions and traditions.
It is by contrast telling that those opposed to such traditions or the Monarchy itself on this thread have to resort to childish juvenilia when making their objections known.
Branton.
Forgive me, but you are firing off at everything bar the heart of the point I am making. It's the indivisible bond between the British Establishment and the Church of England.
I agree the primogeniture issue was a good example of the monarchy joining the 20th century (even though it took them.until the 21st century to do it). But your blithe assertion that if the heir to the throne chose to hold any religion other than CoE, that would be fine and we'd adjust the law to cope is rather a leap of faith. It ignores how deeply enmeshed the CoE is in our systems.
And in a bizarre coincidence, I'm listening to the R4 news as I write this. They are reporting on the Archbishop of Canterbury giving an excoriating speech on the Rwanda policy in the Lords. As it happens, I agree with him, but that's scarcely the point. In which other modern, liberal country do 26 members of the legislature have their positions solely because of their roles in a specific religious sect?
-
I don't like organisations that harbour pedophiles and pay off witnesses.
Football has had its fair share.