The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 01-11-2007, 06:32 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
The Buddha once was asked by a pupil if there was God. Buddha answered:
there are three answers to that question. The first is "yes", the second is "no" and the third is "I don't know". My answer is "I don't know". And now you go and search for your own answer!

For me this allegory puts a lot of things in perspective - maybe this could or even should be the way Charles follows in his coronation. Just an idea, of course.
I, personally, like the idea, but I think it might be somewhat difficult for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to work into his coronation the statement that he doesn't know whether or not there is a god - if that is the case, which is possible, of course - or even the fact that there are options.
__________________

__________________
  #82  
Old 01-11-2007, 06:35 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Why fix what aint broke? Why change things to please the minority?
__________________

__________________
  #83  
Old 01-11-2007, 10:55 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Because the minority are also citizens. I don't think institutionalised religious discrimination is a good thing.
__________________
  #84  
Old 01-11-2007, 11:21 PM
Queen Marie's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: West Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Why fix what aint broke? Why change things to please the minority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
It's a tradition from a time when it was the most normal thing to believe that the king has had a calling from the Lord and thus has a right to rule. To change that could open a can of worms noone wants out!
My sentiments exactly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Personally I'd have much preferred him to want to defend tolerance.
To tolerate something basically means to put up with it. As a Christian, it is a bad thing to merely "tolerate" other religions- and non religion for that matter. The duty of a Christian is to educate others about God and His Word. Therefore, changing "Defender of the Faith" to anything else would make it worthless. It may just be words to some, but to the Christian faith -of any denomination-, it is of the highest importance.

{off-topic religious assertion deleted - Elspeth}
__________________
  #85  
Old 01-11-2007, 11:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Marie
To tolerate something basically means to put up with it.
Religious tolerance to me means recognition that another person has the same right to believe in something as I do. It's respecting human rights, not putting up with something out of indiffence. Charles has been actively interested in learning cultures and faithes. I think that knowledge has been very useful in his travels representing his country. Just looking at photos of him and the Duchess visiting mosques in Pakistan. He came across looking natural wearing the attires suited to the occasions. And the photos probably had a stronger impact locally than if he seemed awkward and uncomfortable.
__________________
  #86  
Old 01-11-2007, 11:56 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Marie
My sentiments exactly!

To tolerate something basically means to put up with it. As a Christian, it is a bad thing to merely "tolerate" other religions- and non religion for that matter. The duty of a Christian is to educate others about God and His Word. Therefore, changing "Defender of the Faith" to anything else would make it worthless. It may just be words to some, but to the Christian faith -of any denomination-, it is of the highest importance.
Britain isn't a theocracy, and Charles isn't the Chief Cleric. The Archbishop of Canterbury is welcome to be the spiritual leader of just the members of the CofE, but the King is king of all his people. Either he defends the established church of the realm or he defends everybody. Saying that he wants to defend faith in general is outside his parameters as king.

Tolerance is a quality that most British people value very highly - far more so than religious exclusivity. We aren't interested in becoming a Christian theocracy.

You're aware, I assume, that the original title "Defender of the Faith" referred to the Catholic faith? Its meaning has now changed since it refers to the CofE these days. The specific meaning refers to defending the Established Church, which, as long as it exists, the monarch will be expected to do. But that oath refers to the CofE as a whole, including the part of the church which doesn't believe some of the things believed by other parts of the church.
__________________
  #87  
Old 01-12-2007, 12:12 AM
Queen Marie's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: West Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 30
I've personally always seen it as "Defender of the (Christian) Faith" - therefore encompassing all denominations- not just the Anglican. Whether or not that's what it actually means is irrelevant to me.

Anyhow, we've gone for a ride slightly afar from the original question. That being "will Charles ever reign". My belief is that he most certainly shall!
And if the vow he takes remains as Defender of the Faith, he can do no wrong in my eyes.
If not, I'll consider moving to the United States!
__________________
  #88  
Old 01-12-2007, 12:46 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Well, the monarch isn't Defender of the Faith in Australia, apparently; it doesn't apply to all the countries over which the monarch is head of state. It has, however, referred specifically to the CofE since the reign of Edward VI.
__________________
  #89  
Old 01-12-2007, 03:12 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Marie
I've personally always seen it as "Defender of the (Christian) Faith" - therefore encompassing all denominations- not just the Anglican. Whether or not that's what it actually means is irrelevant to me.

Anyhow, we've gone for a ride slightly afar from the original question. That being "will Charles ever reign". My belief is that he most certainly shall!
And if the vow he takes remains as Defender of the Faith, he can do no wrong in my eyes.
If not, I'll consider moving to the United States!
It was never a title meaning the Defender of the Christian Faith - initially it was Defender of the Roman Catholic Faith at the time when it was under direct threat from the Protestant Church. It was given in response to Henry VIII's own defence of that Church.

Once Henry broke with Rome he had his own Parliament give it to him as Defender of the established faith of England and Edward declared that that faith was Church of England.

For much of the next three hundred years there were laws restricting the activities of any Christians who were not COE and therefore the monarch of the day was not defending their faiths at all. e.g. RC couldn't sit in Parliament or be officers in the army until the early 19th century but if they converted they could - so all the monarchs from Edward until George IV had to agree to Acts of Parliament that discriminated against certain Christian faiths. You couldn't therefore argue that the title Defender of the Faith means the Defender of the Christian Faith - it is specifically Defender of the Anglican Faith.
__________________
  #90  
Old 01-12-2007, 03:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, the monarch isn't Defender of the Faith in Australia, apparently; it doesn't apply to all the countries over which the monarch is head of state. It has, however, referred specifically to the CofE since the reign of Edward VI.

As Australia doesn't have an established church we don't have a use for a Defender of the Faith.

Britain has an established church and therefore the title Defender of the Faith can apply.


According to Wikipedia this is her title in Australia:

Quote:
In Australia, the Queen's official title is: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. ("Commonwealth" here refers to the Commonwealth of Nations, not the Commonwealth of Australia.)

In the same article the following discussion about the religious situation in Australia:

Quote:
Neither the Queen, the Governor-General, nor any Governor has any religious role in Australia. There have been no established churches in Australia since before federation in 1901. This is one of the key differences from the Queen's role in the United Kingdom where she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. As the Queen of Australia is also the Queen of the United Kingdom, the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic or married to one and must be in communion with the Church of England upon ascending the throne.

Another interesting point in that article is that she was originally Defender of the Faith in Australia but now isn't:


Quote:
Her title in 1953 was:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

When the Parliament of Australia passed the Royal Style and Titles Act (1973), this act repealed sections of the Royal Style and Titles Act (1953), and her Australian style and titles became:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

See also: List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II


It will be noted that the title "Defender of the Faith" was deleted by this Act from the Queen's Australian style and titles. In the United Kingdom the Church of England is a state church, and the Queen is its "Supreme Governor." Australia has no state church, and neither the Queen nor the Governor-General have any official connection with the Anglican Church of Australia.

The full article is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Australia
__________________
  #91  
Old 01-12-2007, 04:02 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Marie

To tolerate something basically means to put up with it. As a Christian, it is a bad thing to merely "tolerate" other religions- and non religion for that matter. The duty of a Christian is to educate others about God and His Word. Therefore, changing "Defender of the Faith" to anything else would make it worthless. It may just be words to some, but to the Christian faith -of any denomination-, it is of the highest importance.
But nowadays even the Catholic Pope is not longer trying to evangelise anybody but accepts that there are other beliefs as well. Thus I don't think it is still the "duty" of a Christian. Especially as the POW does not seem to believe that it's his duty, either. And it will be his oath - he must be comfortable with it, otherwise it's just the travesty of an oath.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #92  
Old 01-12-2007, 04:16 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
As Australia doesn't have an established church we don't have a use for a Defender of the Faith.

(snippage of very interesting information)
Thank you for posting all that, Chrissy. I didn't realise the Monarch was no longer Defender of the Faith here. Thanks to your post I have one less thing to dwell on and worry about.
__________________
  #93  
Old 01-12-2007, 06:04 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
But nowadays even the Catholic Pope is not longer trying to evangelise anybody but accepts that there are other beliefs as well. Thus I don't think it is still the "duty" of a Christian. Especially as the POW does not seem to believe that it's his duty, either. And it will be his oath - he must be comfortable with it, otherwise it's just the travesty of an oath.


Said much better than I ever could.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #94  
Old 01-12-2007, 07:11 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn
I, personally, like the idea, but I think it might be somewhat difficult for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to work into his coronation the statement that he doesn't know whether or not there is a god - if that is the case, which is possible, of course - or even the fact that there are options.
A very good friend of mine always used to say "And may your god, gods or whatever, go with you".

Now all we have to do is find a way to alter the coronation wording to encompass that sentiment!
__________________
  #95  
Old 01-12-2007, 07:22 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
In a democracy you go with the majority. And the majority don't see that a change is needed to please the happy clappy political correct mob who are slowly destroying every tradition we have under the guise of "equality".
__________________
  #96  
Old 01-12-2007, 04:58 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
In a democracy you also protect the interests of the minority, especially if their rights are being infringed and they're being discriminated against simply because they are a minority. I don't think it's unreasonable of Prince Charles to be concerned about minority faiths; I just think it'd be nice if he'd remembered that not all citizens of the UK are people of faith. It's fine to follow tradition if the practical effect in modern society isn't harmful. But people will go a long way to try to justify discrimination, and I think it's something that we should be careful about. If England has an established church, then the monarch needs to be a member of it. He doesn't have to just be "not Catholic," he also has to be "not any other religion and not atheist." If the CofE is ever disestablished, there should be no religious requirements or exclusions at all.
__________________
  #97  
Old 01-12-2007, 05:00 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Then why bother to have a democracy if you let the wants of the minority affect an institution which the majority see doesn't need changing? The majority either don't care or don't want to see any change to the faith issue, the minority do. Well for once, the minority have to accept that they can't just ask and get. This is the most serious tradition we have - the coronation of our Head of State. They've just got to learn that the majority won't always pander to the minority, especially on a matter so important.
__________________
  #98  
Old 01-12-2007, 05:09 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
The whole point of a democratic form of government rather than some sort of tyranny is that everybody is supposed to belong, not just the majority.

For the moment, it's Charles who wants to be called Defender of Faith, not Defender of the Faith. If you're concerned about people tampering with the coronation ceremony for their personal reasons, maybe you should write to him. Let us know what he says in response!
__________________
  #99  
Old 01-12-2007, 05:30 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I disagree Elspeth. The whole point of a democracy is to govern on the will of the majority. If you govern against the will of the majority just to please the majority then you show a blatant disregard for the will of the majority and do what you want anyway. That is more tyrannical and more autocratic than always doing what the majority wants. Charles may want to be called Defender of Faith and I totally agree with him. I'd love for him to be able to be called that. I think it'd be a wonderful step forward - but the majority don't want it and IMO, you always listen to the majority.
__________________
  #100  
Old 01-12-2007, 05:56 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
I disagree Elspeth. The whole point of a democracy is to govern on the will of the majority. If you govern against the will of the majority just to please the majority then you show a blatant disregard for the will of the majority and do what you want anyway. That is more tyrannical and more autocratic than always doing what the majority wants. Charles may want to be called Defender of Faith and I totally agree with him. I'd love for him to be able to be called that. I think it'd be a wonderful step forward - but the majority don't want it and IMO, you always listen to the majority.
Do we know the majority don't want it?
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


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
Charles and Camilla Current Events 4: Oct - Nov 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 248 11-18-2005 02:47 PM
Charles & Camilla Current Events 3: 4-16 October 2005 Warren Current Events Archive 185 10-15-2005 08:11 PM
Charles and Camilla: Current events 2: Sept - Oct 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 199 10-04-2005 04:45 AM
Prince Charles visits Jordan: October 2004 Safaa Batin Royal House of Jordan 28 10-29-2004 05:56 PM
Charles And Camilla news and pics 1: Oct 2002 - Oct 2003 Lorraine Current Events Archive 134 10-31-2003 10:31 AM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:11 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]