The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 07-14-2006, 10:57 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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.
__________________

__________________
  #102  
Old 07-14-2006, 11:50 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
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.
__________________

__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #103  
Old 07-14-2006, 12:07 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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?
__________________
  #104  
Old 07-14-2006, 12:37 PM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #105  
Old 07-14-2006, 02:12 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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. :)
__________________
  #106  
Old 07-24-2006, 04:23 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Columbus, United States
Posts: 57
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
__________________
  #107  
Old 07-24-2006, 09:26 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,692
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.
__________________
  #108  
Old 07-25-2006, 04:59 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
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.
__________________
  #109  
Old 07-25-2006, 07:56 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
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.
__________________
  #110  
Old 07-30-2006, 07:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
__________________
  #111  
Old 07-31-2006, 08:04 AM
hayz64's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: plymouth, Uzbekistan
Posts: 53
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!
__________________
  #112  
Old 08-07-2006, 09:12 PM
Prince of Chota's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Neuilly, France
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
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).
__________________
  #113  
Old 08-07-2006, 09:16 PM
Prince of Chota's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Neuilly, France
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________
  #114  
Old 08-07-2006, 10:17 PM
srivishnu's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seremban, Malaysia
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.
__________________
  #115  
Old 08-07-2006, 10:32 PM
Toledo's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Spain, residing in the USA, United States
Posts: 1,522
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.
__________________
  #116  
Old 08-08-2006, 12:24 AM
Royal Highness
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 1,734
What a beatiful set of tiaras! I sure like them. {material deleted - Elspeth} I never saw them before.

Vanesa.
__________________
  #117  
Old 08-08-2006, 08:26 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
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.
__________________
  #118  
Old 08-08-2006, 09:09 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by srivishnu
...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.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #119  
Old 08-08-2006, 09:42 AM
lord_rankin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Detroit, United States
Posts: 130
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?
__________________
  #120  
Old 08-08-2006, 01:22 PM
hayz64's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: plymouth, Uzbekistan
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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!
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
accession, camilla, coronation, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sarah Ferguson, Duchess Of York: News and Photos Jacqueline Current Events Archive 170 09-23-2004 03:30 PM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 08:40 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]