Archbishop of Canterbury

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Then my question is, what gives him that power? When Britain was very religious and followed the C of E strictly I could understand the loyalty to the Archbishop. But that isn't quite the way now. Prince Charles wants to be 'Defender of the Faiths'. Will this mean that a Catholic Cardinal could crown the King? Or a Muslim Imam?

Not until the CofE is disestablished, which I don't think there's any serious talk of doing at the moment.

[una]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

As Spiritual Head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop has every right to refuse to crown someone he feels is not worthy.

From wikipedia:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who has precedence over all other clergymen and over all laymen except members of the Royal Family, traditionally officiates at coronations; during his absence, another bishop may take his place. There have, however, been several exceptions. William I was crowned by the Archbishop of York, since the Archbishop of Canterbury had been excommunicated by the Pope. Edward II was crowned by the Bishop of Winchester because the Archbishop of Canterbury was not in England at the time. Mary I, a Catholic, refused to be crowned by the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury; the coronation was instead performed by the Bishop of Winchester. When Elizabeth I was crowned, the archbishopric of Canterbury was vacant; the Bishop of Carlisle performed the ceremony. Finally, when James II was deposed and replaced with William III and Mary II jointly, the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to recognise the new Sovereigns; he had to be replaced by the Bishop of London. Hence, in almost all cases where the Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to participate, his place has been taken by a senior cleric: the Archbishop of York is second in precedence, the Bishop of London third and the Bishop of Winchester fifth. Elizabeth I was crowned by the Bishop of Carlisle, to whose see is attached no special precedence, because the senior Catholic prelates objected to the Protestant Queen's religious reforms.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Prince Charles wants to be 'Defender of the Faiths'. Will this mean that a Catholic Cardinal could crown the King? Or a Muslim Imam?

Prince Charles wants to be known as "Defender of Faith" - whether he does become known as this or not is still very much a mystery. We have no constitutional oath like some other countries, and we could have a king of any religion except Catholicism. He would be head of the Anglican Church, it wouldn't work and the monarchy would dissolve, but it would be legal.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Queen Mary I]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The Archbishop is still the spiritual head of the Church of England, though; if he thinks a spiritual matter needs dealing with, it's his duty to do so. He wasn't criticising the Queen, just Charles, and we don't know what went on behind the scenes to lead to this outburst. He could have been given assurances about how things would be, which might have been gone back on when it was too late for him to do anything. He might also have misunderstood how much more ceremony is expected of the senior royals, and for Charles it might well have been a very understated ceremony.

And as ysbel said, we don't have that great a source anyway. If the Archbishop comes out and says that, yes, he said it and stands by it or that he didn't actually say it like that or something, we'll have more to go on.

Hi. I am a newbie and I can't find the thread on the Archbishop's 'outburst'. What were his comments exactly please? I am very interested in the Anglican faith. I am a Roman Catholic who has been considering converting for some years now. Anyway back to the subject-I tried to google the Daily Mail but if that source cannot be trusted then who could confirm or deny whatever his comments on C & C's wedding? Perhaps I should email the Archbishop myself!