King Charles and Queen Camilla

[MARG]

Perhaps Charles is influenced here by his father. Prince Philip re-converted back to being Greek Orthodox several years ago.

Any info on why or when this occurred?

 

[GrandDuchess]

I recently was reading through some material on Orthodoxy (long story) and it mentions Prince Charles's possible conversion. It says that there is nothing to stop the future Monarch being Orthodox, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish etc - he just can't be a Catholic. The author, a Russian Orthodox Monk, says that he believes Charles will either drop the title 'Defender of the Faith' or use instead 'Defender of Faith' and convert to Orthodoxy. The way the Church of England is going, I doubt it'll be an issue when Charles becomes King.

That's really interesting, thank you for sharing. I've known that Charles has been a person interested in different cultures and religions, but I didn't know he leaned so much towards one specific belief. Did you read anything about why he's so interested in this direction particularly?

 

[Lady Bluffton]

Seems to me that Camilla might get a new crown altogether as she is supposed to be styled "Princess Consort" rather than Queen Consort.

Also, seems impossible to be head of the Church of England and a member of another denomination / brand of Christianity, as some have suggested Prince Charles would convert to Orthodoxy. Big surprise to me that Prince Philip has reverted to Orthodoxy; I have heard nothing whatsoever about that development.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Did you read anything about why he's so interested in this direction particularly?

Well, from research I've done into Orthodoxy (and alot of websites etc mention Charles as a kind of big hope for Orthodoxy in Britain) it seems that Charles and his father regularly attended Orthodox services in the chapel specially created at Buckingham Palace for Princess Alice, Charles's Grandmother. He also goes at least once a year to Mount Athos to spend time there. Mount Athos is one of Orthodoxy's most holiest places and one of the monks there said in a rare interview, "When Charles comes, he's alive. He's Orthodox in his heart". I think that it's generally accepted at Clarence House that if the Protestant faith wasn't a huge requirement for him, Charles would convert to Orthodoxy. King Constantine has arranged retreats at Orthodox monasteries and meetings with Orthodox leaders and one Archmandrite goes to Highgrove once a month to say prayers with Charles. So, the interest really is a family one GrandDuchess and as you say, Charles is interested in many different cultures and religions and it seems his credo to promote a multi-faith society so that he can follow his own religious path.

As to the Duke of Edinburgh, although he converted to Anglicanism when he married the Queen, for a few years after, he could still be seen making the Orthodox sign of the cross when he entered a Church. Philip has also made trips to Mount Athos and is on a special 'board of directors' as is Charles. A few years ago, Philip began going back to the Orthodox church but it wasn't very publicised and as far as I know, he doesn't go to Orthodox services reguarly. Apparantly, he was chrismated in the 90s but I don't believe that as he was never excommunicated and wouldn't need to be re-christmated.

 

[Elspeth]

I recently was reading through some material on Orthodoxy (long story) and it mentions Prince Charles's possible conversion. It says that there is nothing to stop the future Monarch being Orthodox, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish etc - he just can't be a Catholic. The author, a Russian Orthodox Monk, says that he believes Charles will either drop the title 'Defender of the Faith' or use instead 'Defender of Faith' and convert to Orthodoxy. The way the Church of England is going, I doubt it'll be an issue when Charles becomes King.

That's true as long as we're talking about a future king. An actual king has to be a communicant of the CofE, and he can't do that if he's a Muslim, Hindu, Orthodox, or Catholic, although a Jewish king who'd converted to CofE could.

 

[BeatrixFan]

But is that strictly true? Edward VIII didn't take communion in the Church of England whilst he was King and only attended a church service twice. Charles could still take communion in the CofE if he was Orthodox.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, but he'd been confirmed in the church and had never left it, as far as I know. Isn't that all it takes to be a communicant?

 

[Elspeth]

This is the bit of wording from the Act of Settlement I'm thinking of:

"That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established;"

which is the paragraph after the stuff in paragraph III here:

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/settlement.htm

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, the church defines being a communicant as someone who reguarly takes communion in a protestant church and not a Catholic church. That's the major difference. The Doctrines of the RCC really are immaterial - it's communion that's the biggie. The Orthodox believe the same as the RCC where communion is concerned, but there isn't a named ban on the Orthodox. There is on Catholics.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, well, I think the thing I was trying to say is that while being a member of a religion other than Protestant Christian (with the exception of Roman Catholic) wouldn't be enough to kick a person out of the line of succession, refusing to become a member of the C of E would be enough to stop them becoming monarch. Harry could become a Muslim and stay in line to the throne legally (although the public outcry might be interesting), but if Charles and William predeceased him, he couldn't become king without converting. I'm absolutely sure the archbishop would flat refuse to crown him too, although I think the cutoff is accession, not coronation.

 

[BeatrixFan]

That's true. And I doubt the Archbiship would crown an Orthodox King. But at the moment, the Church of England seems to be on it's last legs and it'll be interesting as to how the closure of it will affect the Monarch and his personal faith.

 

[GrandDuchess]

Maybe in the future, after Queen Elizabeth has lived a long and happy life and has passed on to the other side, the Church of England will no longer be the official state church. At least that's the development we've seen in the rest of Europe, so why not in England were you have such a multicultural population anyway.

And as Charles might want to see change in the monarch's role in the Church of England (as we already suspect) - and perhaps the monarch would end being the Defender of the Faith (what I would prefer, although I have no say in it since I'm not British ) - then why should there be religious coronations anyway?

As much as I love the pomp and circumstance of English royal ceremonies, I can't understand how a specific church is the one who coronates the monarch. I know the historic part and how it used to be in the old days, but really - I would prefer it if they could come up with a coronation that only has a religious aspect, not carried out by the church in itself. The monarch should be crowned by the people in some way, not by the church.

England is really one of the last countries remaining were the monarch still keeps this strong bond to a state church. For me it would be preferable if the monarch would either be the Defender of Faiths, or then have no religious role whatsoever, only a religious affiliation of choice. And not Head of the Church of England either.

Of course it's also up to the Government, since all this has to do with laws as well... So I guess it also depends on the political development in England the next few years.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The thing is, as much as the Government want it to seem that Britain is now a secular country, the majority of Britons are Christian or identify themselves as Christian but don't follow a denomination. The Church of England has always made sense being our national church that the coronation should be a religious matter and that the Church of England is the best denomination to do the actual crowning with catholic, orthodox, baptists, jews, muslims, hindus and buddhists represented by their various leaders at the ceremony. As you rightly say GrandDuchess, it's alot to do with the Government of the time. I think that having the Archbishop crowning the Monarch is a good thing - who else could possibly do it?

 

[GrandDuchess]

The thing is, as much as the Government want it to seem that Britain is now a secular country, the majority of Britons are Christian or identify themselves as Christian but don't follow a denomination. The Church of England has always made sense being our national church that the coronation should be a religious matter and that the Church of England is the best denomination to do the actual crowning with catholic, orthodox, baptists, jews, muslims, hindus and buddhists represented by their various leaders at the ceremony. As you rightly say GrandDuchess, it's alot to do with the Government of the time. I think that having the Archbishop crowning the Monarch is a good thing - who else could possibly do it?

Yes, I understand that is has a lot to do with traditions and continuance in England, but I'm just not particularly fond of state churchs still being in existance in our day and time.

Also, I particularly find that in the world we're now living in, when many of our countries are highly multicultural, with minorities and hundreds of languages being spoken - the monarch as the Head of State should not be the nominal head of a particular church, especially not a state church, but should be the defender or keeper of all the faiths in the nation... Not just one.

For me, the whole "by the grace of God" thing is outdated. It doesn't belong in this time. The coronations in the past was one thing, but now it's another world. I have no idea whom I'd prefer to carry out the crowning, but I'd love to see some kind of representative for the people, not the church, doing it.

I guess we have different views on these things depending on were in Europe we live. Here in Scandinavia we're quite secularised, and the whole thing of seeing the monarch as being king by the "grace of God", not to mention coronations by the church etc, were abolished a long time ago - as parliamentarism took over power from the ruling kings.

And thank you, BeatrixFan, for all your insightful and knowledgeable posts. I much enjoy reading them.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, as a Catholic (now moving into the Orthodox faith), I do believe in Monarchs ruling because God put them there but that doesn't mean that my fellow countrymen believe the same and even some people who follow the same religious principles as I do, won't believe in "Divine Right". Britain is slowly becoming more like Scandinavai, in that, we're starting the process of becoming a secular nation that encourages multi-faith communities. But as you say, Britain likes tradition. The wider world is changing and in many ways, I think Britain is split with one half wanting us to change with it and the other half wanting us to slow down and take things slowly.

The Church of England no longer has the same reverance from people or the power it once enjoyed because it's gone down the popularity path. Lord Carey, the old Archbishop of Canterbury, said when he stepped down that the Church shouldn't change it's views to get more people into the churches. Sadly, thats what it has done and Charles has criticised the Church of England for doing just that. But in other ways, he's been treated very well by the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury carried out the wedding blessing etc and in many ways, Charles and the Archbishop agree on matters spiritual. Rowan Williams recently said that the Churches should go "back to the Eastern founding fathers of our faith". And that matches with Charles's faith and his fondness for Orthodoxy.

I think that Britain has two roads to go down and it will be Charles's time as Sovereign that sees the choice made. We can follow the path of America and say, we're now a secular republic or we can follow the path of Norway, where we have a Monarchy and there are religious affiliations but they aren't raised above any other religion. So, the key really will be the two leaders of the time. Personally, I believe that if it's a Labour Prime Minister and Charles, a republic could become more likely. If it's a Conversative Prime Minister (namely David Cameron), then it'll be the Norwegian route we follow.

I think that Britain would keep the coronation ceremony because it's just something we've always done. An investiture just wouldn't be British, but I suppose it could work. It's the anointing with oil thing that could be a problem but that raises the question, "What makes a King a King?" and thats where alot of Britons worry because it means reassessing alot more than just the Monarchy. It would mean the total evaluation of the establishment, the way we live and the society we've built. And I see it as slightly dangerous to make big changes to something we can't get back once it's gone.

It's certainly going to be interesting to see how things pan out. Thanks for your compliments on my posts. I'm glad you like them.

 

[JOY!]

What about the crown Queen Charlotte (wife of George III) wore? could Camilla wear that crown if she wanted to? does it have to be just those mentioned in this post or can she choose which ever one she wants?

Charlotte's crown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Charlotte.jpg

 

[Incas]

When King Charles ascends the throne, he will let Queen Camilla pick whatever crown she wants to wear. I don't see how anyone can say no to them.

 

[Skydragon]

I am surprised to read that anyone still believes that The Royal family rule by 'Divine Right'. The reason they are in the position they are, has more to do with their ancestors starting out with more land, which they fought over or traded for support against others with land that they wanted. They arranged marriages, again to get support for their campaigns (much like any large cormpany does now) and the rest as they say, is history.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, from conversations I've had with the Orthodox people I've met, they do believe that all Monarchs do rule by the Grace of God and I've always believed that. They also have a great love and respect for Charles and Camilla.

 

[branchg]

What about the crown Queen Charlotte (wife of George III) wore? could Camilla wear that crown if she wanted to? does it have to be just those mentioned in this post or can she choose which ever one she wants?

Charlotte's crown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Charlotte.jpg

I doubt Camilla would use such an old Crown. More likely, she would use the one created for The Queen Mother in 1937 since it was designed to match the current Imperial State Crown.

 

[hayz64]

Oh i'm so excited about Charles' coronation,even though i doubt it will be anytime soon!I think Camilla will look wondeful in whatever she chooses to wear and the crown...well she will make it look good!

 

[Prince of Chota]

The George IV Diadem is not designed for a coronation ceremony and would not be used.

In fact it was designed for a coronation, but it was never actually used for one. (I assume you are referring to the Diamond State Diadem).

 

[Prince of Chota]

I am surprised to read that anyone still believes that The Royal family rule by 'Divine Right'. The reason they are in the position they are, has more to do with their ancestors starting out with more land, which they fought over or traded for support against others with land that they wanted. They arranged marriages, again to get support for their campaigns (much like any large cormpany does now) and the rest as they say, is history.

Please don't attempt to force that opinion upon subjects of the United Kingdom--even those like myself, living outside the realm. Her Majesty is the head of the Anglican Church, as well, so there is much more involved here than the history of power and politics. Some would say that divine right and political history are very much interlaced.

 

[User0501]

There have been several questions raised about certain events that will take place in the reign of Charles III. Firstly, will he be called Charles III or will he go with George VIII or Edward IX? Will Camilla be Queen or Princess Consort? But, for this thread let's assume that Charles and Camilla are Charles III and Queen Camilla.

HRH Prince Charles,Prince of Wales has indicated his preference to be known officially as George VII once he assumes the British throne upon the death of his mother,HM Queen Elizabeth II as previous British monarch with the same name as him has bad record and attitude.So I guess HRH doesn't want the monarchy to have a bad image or impression and decided to be called as HM King George VII as the continuation of George VI later on.Moreover,HRH was very close to his maternal grandfather and HM King George VI was very close to HRH as HRH is the first child to Elizabeth II and the first grandchild to HM.

 

[Toledo]

I like the next to the last one, the small Queen Victoria Crown. The one worn by Elizabeth II on the second photo is too overwhelming. Too tall. Not to mention we have to take into consideration today's hairt styles. Camilla seems to like her version of a Farah Fawcett neo-retro hair style and when you put a crown over that the sides on her hair-do will look odd. She might have to pull all the hair back in a stylish way to get the crown effect to work. Remember, those first photos will be the ones for posterity, that mix of Crown and Hair-do has to work in the first try of the live broadcast.

 

[Vanesa]

What a beatiful set of tiaras! I sure like them. {material deleted - Elspeth} I never saw them before.

Vanesa.

 

[BeatrixFan]

HRH Prince Charles,Prince of Wales has indicated his preference to be known officially as George VII once he assumes the British throne upon the death of his mother

He hasn't publicly made any comments about his regnal name. We have a number of people who claim to be in the know saying that he'll go with Charles III and another lot, equally clued up, who say he's going with George. So no preference has been indicated publicly, only privately and as it's not clear who you can believe on this matter, I think it's best that we just wait and see.

 

[Warren]

...and decided to be called as HM King George VII as the continuation of George VI later on. Moreover, HRH was very close to his maternal grandfather as well.

Charles was born in November 1948; King George VI died in February 1952. At the age of 3 years and 3 months I doubt it could be claimed that Charles was "very close" to his grandfather in any meaningful way.

 

[lord_rankin]

From my point of view I think Prince Charles would do better to be known as King George VII rather than his current moniker. History didn't particularly prove keen to Charles I and Charles II, I wouldn't want him to inherit any bad luck using the appellation of Charles III. But then it might be hard for people to adjust to knowing him as George rather than Charles. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[hayz64]

From my point of view I think Prince Charles would do better to be known as King George VII rather than his current moniker. History didn't particularly prove keen to Charles I and Charles II, I wouldn't want him to inherit any bad luck using the appellation of Charles III. But then it might be hard for people to adjust to knowing him as George rather than Charles. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I think it would be very difficult for people to adjust to calling him George!Like his mother before him,i think he should stick with the name he was given at birth!