Will Charles Ever Reign? part 3

[Furienna]

I'm not a Brittish citizen, and I have my own royal family to care about. But I sure hope, that Charles will reign and that Camilla will be a queen. I will probably see a Charles III and a William V as kings of Britain during my lifetime.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by WindsorIII

Plus I've never really go the impression Charles wanted to. I think he would be more content living out his life as he is now with Camilla and allowing for a long ruling monarchy with William and his wife and family when that happens.

Where one earth did you get the idea that Charles didn't want to be King? He has lived and breathed his destiny his whole life. What he and Camilla are doing now is lightening the Queen's public duties (she is after all 80 years old and entitled to slow down a little, but she will not abdicate!). :)

Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwell are becoming ever larger on the British and world stage, and I would expect that we will see rather more of them than we have previously. To abdicate, as he would have to to enable William to take the throne in his stead, would be anathema to all that he is, and he would never do that to his son. I do not believe William would ever accept the crown over his father. This is not, after all, a reality show where people get to vote someone off the island! :p

[love_cc]

Prince Charles is the most prepared heir to the throne. He will do a great job and with Camilla by his side he will be even a better and happy King. I do expect to see them more than before and I expect more people would understand the work Prince Charles has undertaken. He deserves more admiration and respects for his dedication to his duty and his people.

[Queen Marie]

Originally Posted by Margrethe II

HRH the Prince of Wales has noted that he would like the title Defender of the Faith changed to Defender of all Faiths, which I imagine may not go down too well with the Protestant Church of England.

It most certainly won't. I had no idea he'd said that.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

...There are many, many faiths and non faiths that are celebrated in the UK and Commonwealth Countries, contrary to what is shown on the news, we are not all out killing one another over it.

Yes we are- all over the world.

Originally Posted by Avalon

...however I think that the Head of state...must be head of state for every single citizen of his country, regardless of religion.
With all respect to British traditions, I do think that Prince Charles' intention to be Defender of Faiths, rather than Defender of the Faith, is the right thing to do. That's my private opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I urge you to do your research and find out why it's a very bad idea to change this tradition.

On that note, it appears that HRH the Prince of Wales needs to do much research also.
If I could go into more detail I would, but I would be in breach of posting rules on religious grounds.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Queen Marie

It most certainly won't. I had no idea he'd said that.

In the Dimbleby interview he said that he would prefer to have the title Defender of Faith (not 'all).

Yes we are- all over the world.

Did you see the word ALL in the post to which you replied.

I am certainly not killing people because of their religion and nor are the majority of people in this world - that some are is not in question but the original post said that we 'all' weren't doing this and that is correct.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I urge you to do your research and find out why it's a very bad idea to change this tradition.

I have spent my entire life researching the British Royal traditions (as I have majored in British Royal History for my Masters degree and teach High School History and British History whenever I get the chance). I see no reason for not changing the tradition.

I have also discussed this with a number of Anglican ministers and one or two bishops and they have no problem with him changing that part of the oath and even remaining head of the COE.

On that note, it appears that HRH the Prince of Wales needs to do much research also.

Why? If anyone knows the reasons for the oath he will take at some stage in the future it would be the POW. He is a very spiritual man but one of compassion and sense. To change to Defender of Faith makes sense in an extremely multicultural country like Britian where there are many people who are not COE and he is to be their king as well. He wants to move more in line with the religious make-up of his own country - something to be applauded in my opinion.

If I could go into more detail I would, but I would be in breach of posting rules on religious grounds.

If you are not going to be anti any specific religion then there should be no problem as you are really talking about discussing the history of the COE as it relates to the coronation oath.

[Skydragon]

There are many, many faiths and non faiths that are celebrated in the UK and Commonwealth Countries,contrary to what is shown on the news, we are not all out killing one another over it.

Originally Posted by Queen Marie

Yes we are- all over the world.

Out of a population in the UK of around 60 million (so I am told), I hear about very few killings based on faith in the UK.

The same for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many of the other commonwealth countries, although as I am not there I cannot be definite about that. I am sure however, that mass killings in these countries, based solely on faith, would have made the international news.

[Elspeth]

On that note, it appears that HRH the Prince of Wales needs to do much research also.
If I could go into more detail I would, but I would be in breach of posting rules on religious grounds.

As long as you stick to the specific topic of religion as it applies to the royals both at present and throughout history and don't start getting into value judgements, you'll be within the rules. We're just not prepared to put up with the "my god is better than your god" sorts of arguments that sometimes break out when religious topics are being discussed.

Here's the relevant rule:

"Discussion of politics and religion is permitted only in association with the royal-related topics of the threads."

[Queen Marie]

Alrighty then, the monarch is the head of the CHRISTIAN church in England, and as such he or she is the defender of the Christian faith, and for this reason, should not be encouraging other religions in any way.

I'm not saying that other religions don't exist and shouldn't be recognised. I'm just saying that this particular tradition should not be changed on the basis that it is a Christian tradition.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Out of a population in the UK of around 60 million (so I am told), I hear about very few killings based on faith in the UK.

The same for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many of the other commonwealth countries, although as I am not there I cannot be definite about that. I am sure however, that mass killings in these countries, based solely on faith, would have made the international news.

I'm not necessarily talking about mass killings. I'm also not necessarily talking about Commonwealth countries. The fact that it's happening at all (anywhere in the world such as Indonesia, China, & Vietnam where Christians do not have the freedom to practise their faith openly, for fear of persecution, torture and execution) should be disturbing enough. The fact that it doesn't make world headlines doesn't mean it's not happening- all the time.

I hope I haven't crossed any posting lines with this!

[Rebafan81]

Originally Posted by PreDoc

Charles has 30 more years of experience over William in dealing with the hostile press, the dictatorial establishment, the boring critics, the endless speeches, the soul-crushing staged events and life in a goldfish bowl. Camilla will make a satisfactory Queen Consort and Charles is finally happy.

I can't fathom why anyone would want to handcuff a man in his early twenties to the life of a king (i.e. "never stray from the following job description for the rest of your life: read out loud what we write on this paper, look interested in everybody and everything they have to say, wave and smile on cue, have sons and ensure they have sons, periodically wear theatrical costumes and preside over archaic ceremonies, and never share any point of view that could be interpreted as political").

Let William continue to find himself, get married or play the field, and enjoy the little amount of freedom he currently has.

Well said, I also agree that William should be allowed to spend his early years as the heir and find a life with a family of his own. I think that is what messed up the current Windor children. Their mothers' early appointment to the crown I think really hurt this family. She had to pledge all her strength and time to her country and I don't think there was much time for her children, IMO. She has always been an amazing Queen, thanks goodness, she has had the chance to enjoy her grandchildren. Thank God Charles had time to spend with William and Harry, I personally think it made a difference. I hope Charles reigns for a while so William can grow into his role as a future King.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Queen Marie

Alrighty then, the monarch is the head of the CHRISTIAN church in England, and as such he or she is the defender of the Christian faith, and for this reason, should not be encouraging other religions in any way.

He's the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, not of the Christian church in general. The monarch vows during the coronation ceremony to uphold the Protestant faith.

I'm not saying that other religions don't exist and shouldn't be recognised. I'm just saying that this particular tradition should not be changed on the basis that it is a Christian tradition.

The Prince of Wales appears to believe that the role of Defender of the Faith (i.e., the Protestant Christian faith, or, more narrowly, the Church of England) is too exclusionary in a country that's become increasingly multicultural. Speaking as a nontheist, I'm not thrilled by the "Defender of Faith" or "Defender of Faiths" or whatever he wants to call himself, because the country has a large number of people without religious faith, over whom he will also be king.

There's historical precedent for the "Defender of the Faith" position as it applies to the CofE, and until the CofE is disestablished I assume we're stuck with it, which is fine by me. But once we don't have an established church any more, I see no reason for the monarch to have any sort of religious epithet as defender of anything.

[Queen Marie]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

He's the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, not of the Christian church in general.

Sorry, that's what I meant. I have a very romantic, old fashioned view so that's how I put it! "Church in England" being a Henry VIII thing.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The Prince of Wales appears to believe that the role of Defender of the Faith (i.e., the Protestant Christian faith, or, more narrowly, the Church of England) is too exclusionary in a country that's become increasingly multicultural. Speaking as a nontheist, I'm not thrilled by the "Defender of Faith" or "Defender of Faiths" or whatever he wants to call himself, because the country has a large number of people without religious faith, over whom he will also be king.

Speaking as a born again Christian, I find the whole thing to be very, very wrong.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

He's the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, not of the Christian church in general. The monarch vows during the coronation ceremony to uphold the Protestant faith.

The Prince of Wales appears to believe that the role of Defender of the Faith (i.e., the Protestant Christian faith, or, more narrowly, the Church of England) is too exclusionary in a country that's become increasingly multicultural.

Technically speaking, if he's the head of the Church of England, it makes sense for him to swear to defend the Anglican faith.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that he's swearing to defend the Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, born-again Christian, or whatever other non-Anglican faith that's out there.

I also don't know how much relevance it has because I'm not sure how much influence the monarch has on religious debate and decisions within Great Britain.

I think it would only matter in the Coronation ceremony which is traditionally Christian and for the King of England, traditionally Anglican. I can't imagine what a Coronation for a Defender of ALL faiths would look like and I'm not sure I want to.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Technically speaking, if he's the head of the Church of England, it makes sense for him to swear to defend the Anglican faith.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that he's swearing to defend the Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, born-again Christian, or whatever other non-Anglican faith that's out there.

I also don't know how much relevance it has because I'm not sure how much influence the monarch has on religious debate and decisions within Great Britain.

I think it would only matter in the Coronation ceremony which is traditionally Christian and for the King of England, traditionally Anglican. I can't imagine what a Coronation for a Defender of ALL faiths would look like and I'm not sure I want to.

He never said ALL faiths but rather 'faith' as a singular term. Something of a difference - he wants to defend 'faith' for all his people not just those of one particular section of the Christian faith - note that Defender of the Faith only relates to his role of Defender the Anglican faith and other Christians even aren't covered. (I know the history behind the title so please don't tell me about Henry VIII, the Pope etc).

Charles is a forward thinking man who sees a problem with a King, who should represent all his people, only being able to defend the right to faith of some of those people (and the statistics would indicate that that figure could be a minority of his people as well.)

As a Christian I have no problem with my future king wishing to defend faith in a general sense as I believe that the a powerful way to show true Christianity is to respect the faith, or non faith of others. This, to my interpretation of what he said and what he has done, is what Charles wants to do.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

He never said ALL faiths but rather 'faith' as a singular term. Something of a difference - he wants to defend 'faith' for all his people not just those of one particular section of the Christian faith - note that Defender of the Faith only relates to his role of Defender the Anglican faith and other Christians even aren't covered. (I know the history behind the title so please don't tell me about Henry VIII, the Pope etc).

OK I won't tell you about Henry VIII!

But I still think. like Elspeth, that it comes down to the Church of England being the established church within the British government.

If the British go so far as to set up a relationship between a church and a government and anoint the head of state as appointed by God, then it just makes common sense that the monarch is the defender of the faith that is established with the government.

If the Church is disestablished then Charles' Defender of Faith idea makes perfect sense but without that disestablishment, it doesn't make sense at all.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Queen Marie

Speaking as a born again Christian, I find the whole thing to be very, very wrong.

What whole thing? The title Defender of the Faith is a holdover to the pre-CofE days in England anyway, yet it now pertains to the Protestant faith even though it was intended to be a Catholic title. It's something of a historical anachronism which has evolved with the way society and the church has evolved.

Even though England has an established church, it doesn't have an official church and it isn't a theocracy. The monarch is the monarch of the entire country, not just a defender of people of faith.

For me, the thing that's very, very wrong is the continuing prohibition of Catholics, and only Catholics, from the line of succession. I know that's also a holdover from the days when it was relevant, but these days it's purely discrimination, and I think the government should do whatever it takes to get that law changed. If the monarch has to be a member of the CofE, then ALL other religions should be barred to him/her, not just Catholicism.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

As a Christian I have no problem with my future king wishing to defend faith in a general sense as I believe that the a powerful way to show true Christianity is to respect the faith, or non faith of others. This, to my interpretation of what he said and what he has done, is what Charles wants to do.

Personally I'd have much preferred him to want to defend tolerance. Once you start defending faith as a matter of personal desire rather than as a historical form, the only thing you can possibly be defending it from is absence of faith, and the fact remains that he's going to be king of a country with a significant secular, agnostic, atheist, etc, population. All of whom he's excluding by that expressed wish of his.