King Charles and Queen Camilla - Page 4

Princejohnny25 · #61 12-04-2005, 03:31 PM

Does anybody have pics of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth at the State Opening of Parliment or at their coronations. Its hard for me to imagine a guy wearing a crown and I want to see how it will be like with Charles and Camilla.

ysbel · #62 12-04-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

Does anybody have pics of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth at the State Opening of Parliment or at their coronations. Its hard for me to imagine a guy wearing a crown and I want to see how it will be like with Charles and Camilla.

Here's a post with a picture of King George V and Queen Mary in their coronation robes. It should give you an idea, Princejohnny. :)

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ion#post215805

ksenia · #63 12-04-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk1189

I totally agree that he should be the Defender of ALL faiths

I dont think it makes since for him to be defender of all faiths. For me, by choosing the faith you are living your life according to you are basically saying that you beleive the others to be wrong. You may respect anothers choice to follow their beleifs but it is not correct. As the head of the Anglican church it wouldn't make sense for him to defend all faiths. Leave that to parlaiment and law.

**Elspeth** · #64 12-04-2005, 05:25 PM

I don't like the idea of him becoming defender of faith in general because that means he's excluding a significant proportion of his subjects who aren't people of faith. While we have an established church, it's appropriate for the head of state to be affiliated with it. If the church is disestablished, there's no reason for the head of state to take up cudgels on behalf of faith in a spiritually diverse country.

ysbel · #65 12-04-2005, 05:31 PM

But isn't it normal for a monarch to be associated with one church, Elspeth?

Over in the Denmark forum, there is a discussion about Margrethe's role in the Lutheran church and it turns out she's the head of the church in Denmark as Elizabeth is head of the church in England.

**Elspeth** · #66 12-04-2005, 06:04 PM

Well, I assume Charles would be associated with a particular church; he was confirmed in the CofE when he was a youngster. But he sounds as if these days he's more interested in some sort of freelance spirituality, and I don't know quite how that would play out if there weren't an established church.

ysbel · #67 12-04-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, I assume Charles would be associated with a particular church; he was confirmed in the CofE when he was a youngster. But he sounds as if these days he's more interested in some sort of freelance spirituality, and I don't know quite how that would play out if there weren't an established church.

I totally agree Elspeth. the King of all Religions just doesn't sound right.

ksenia · #68 12-04-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, I assume Charles would be associated with a particular church; he was confirmed in the CofE when he was a youngster. But he sounds as if these days he's more interested in some sort of freelance spirituality, and I don't know quite how that would play out if there weren't an established church.

this might explain why he wants to change the coronation ceremony. He may not take the religious context of it as seriously as his mother

chrissy57 · #69 12-05-2005, 01:44 AM

What I always interpreted his statement about being Defender of Faith to mean was that he wanted to ensure that everyone had a right to have their faith protected by law regardless of what that faith was (or even if they had no faith then that non-faith had a right to be protected).

Isn't it interesting the way we all hear the same comment and yet we can interpret it differently??

Idriel · #70 12-05-2005, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57

What I always interpreted his statement about being Defender of Faith to mean was that he wanted to ensure that everyone had a right to have their faith protected by law regardless of what that faith was (or even if they had no faith then that non-faith had a right to be protected).
Isn't it interesting the way we all hear the same comment and yet we can interpret it differently??

I believe the title Defender of Faith originaly means defender of an unique faith, the Catholic one to be precise as that title was first granted by the pope to Henry VIII (???). Then of course the C of E was created but if the defended faith has changed, I don't think the meaning of the title did.

Skydragon · #71 12-05-2005, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57

What I always interpreted his statement about being Defender of Faith to mean was that he wanted to ensure that everyone had a right to have their faith protected by law regardless of what that faith was (or even if they had no faith then that non-faith had a right to be protected).

Isn't it interesting the way we all hear the same comment and yet we can interpret it differently??

I agree with your interpretation chrissy57, in this day and age Charles is very aware of the many faiths and non faiths.:)

ksenia · #72 12-05-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I agree with your interpretation chrissy57, in this day and age Charles is very aware of the many faiths and non faiths.:)

leave it to the government. He doesnt have to serve that function especially since he has no "real" political power in matters like that

Princejohnny25 · #73 12-05-2005, 12:13 PM

yes but I dont think the goverment has a say in that title or the church for that matter. The pope offered it to the soverign as a personal title but when Henry severed ties with rome the title lost its original meaning and changed to mean the church of england. I think the soverign has all power in changing or reliunquishing that title.

branchg · #74 12-05-2005, 12:44 PM

The Government does have a say because the Sovereign is still Head of the Church of England and any change would require Parliament's assent. There has been talk of deinstitutionalizing the Church from the State to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury (who, in reality, is the Head of the Church) to officially be so, but it never seems to go anywhere.

Skydragon · #75 12-05-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

The Government does have a say because the Sovereign is still Head of the Church of England and any change would require Parliament's assent. There has been talk of deinstitutionalizing the Church from the State to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury (who, in reality, is the Head of the Church) to officially be so, but it never seems to go anywhere.

It might all change if Charles has any say.:)

Princejohnny25 · #76 12-05-2005, 02:55 PM

Yes but the title "Defender of the Faith" has no offical connections what so ever with the Church of England. The title is still technically used by the soverign at the grace of the Pope. The title is interpreted as meaning the Anglican Church but it is ment for the Roman Catholic Church. The title was a gift from the Pope to the soverign. I think it is a personal title of the soverign. The title carries no duties or meaning know. It hasnt for hundreds of years technically. It is a just a phrase that is know associated with the Anglican Church. Having said that, I believe the soverign can change the title at his will to refere to the modern era. Just as when it changed from the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church it might now change to all faiths or none at all. That is how I believe the history of the title goes but I may be wrong.

chrissy57 · #77 12-06-2005, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

Yes but the title "Defender of the Faith" has no offical connections what so ever with the Church of England. The title is still technically used by the soverign at the grace of the Pope. The title is interpreted as meaning the Anglican Church but it is ment for the Roman Catholic Church. The title was a gift from the Pope to the soverign. I think it is a personal title of the soverign. The title carries no duties or meaning know. It hasnt for hundreds of years technically. It is a just a phrase that is know associated with the Anglican Church. Having said that, I believe the soverign can change the title at his will to refere to the modern era. Just as when it changed from the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church it might now change to all faiths or none at all. That is how I believe the history of the title goes but I may be wrong.

The title was originally given to Henry VIII after he wrote an article in defence of the Roman Catholic church at the time of the Lutheran reformation.

When he broke from Rome the title was withdrawn by the Pope, when the Pope excommunicated Henry BUT Henry then had the English Parliament confer the title on him for defending the reformed Catholic church in England.

As a result the title has been one that goes with the title of King/Queen of England. When the throne joined with that of Scotland to become the King/Queen of Great Britain the title still remained with the monarch.

Charles simply wants to acknowledge more of his subjects rather than just those who are worshippers within the Anglican Church.

The idea of disestablishing the C of E has been around for well over 100 years. There is a scene in the mini-series The Pallisers, made in the 1970s and based on Trollope's books where they politicians are discussin that very issue in the 1870s. One comment that sticks in my mind is one of the C of E politicians asking 'If we disestablish the church what will be the role of the Queen and to whom would the church ultimately be responsible?' The RC politician replied "To God"!!!!

Margrethe II · #78 12-06-2005, 06:19 AM

With HRH wishes & when it is time to take the place of his mother (may it be not, for many years to come) I would hope that 'Defender of the Faith' is kept in accordance with tradition, but, have something like 'Keeper of all faiths' included so as to recognise the vast display of religions practiced by many of his subjects throughout the world.

For, eg:

"By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Keeper of all Faiths."

This is of course one of many options that can be pursued.The above addition is purely and utterly my own take on the matter & it doesn't have to be 'Keeper'. It shall be whatever they feel appropriate I am most sure. Thats if they feel it appropriate at all...time shall tell.

"MII"

Skydragon · #79 12-06-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

I believe the sovereign can change the title at his will to refer to the modern era. Just as when it changed from the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church it might now change to all faiths or none at all. That is how I believe the history of the title goes but I may be wrong.

I'm sure that one day all will be revealed with regard to the wishes of Prince Charles! Whatever he decides, some of the population will probably think it is wrong>:)