Chanting for Charlie

[turnbull for england]

Isn't Bear Grylls chief Scout ? Think that gets him on the list , Lionel was probably just looking for someone

[ravenrover]

Why all the comments about "protestant".
He is Head of the Church of England Fid Def, which is Protestant

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Grylls and Richie are both big ambassadors for the princes trust, his work with that is the biggest legacy Charles will ever have fore.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Branton Red]

I thoroughly enjoyed the ceremony.

It was very well done indeed.

[Branton Red]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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"?

[wilts rover]

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.

[Branton Red]

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

[ravenrover]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[tyke1962]

 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 .

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[Branton Red]

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.

[redwine]

I absolutely detest nepotism

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[drfchound]

Talk about whataboutism, jeez.

[Branton Red]

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.

[Nudga]

I wonder who is the head of child procurement now that Saville and Epstein were suicided?

[Branton Red]

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?

[Nudga]

I suppose peadophilia is childish in a sense Branton.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[normal rules]

I don't like organisations that harbour pedophiles and pay off witnesses.

Football has had its fair share.