Archbishops of Canterbury and Crowning Charles King

[Margrethe II]

I was Christend in the Protestant faith but to be honest cant really call myself a dedicated Christian. I dont go to church, probably dont speak to the "BIG GUY" upstairs as much as I should, have only read about one chapter out of the holy Book, I dont know the lords prayer & live a life (unchosen by me) that is frowned upon by much of our society (both socially and religiously). But, with all that going against me.lol. I still have my faith and keep it to myself.

"MII"

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

He should be told to do as he is damn well told?? You DO NOT speak to the Spiritual Head of the English church in that manner.

Oh but I do and I have. I enjoyed many a dicussion with the former Archbishop and found him to be a brilliant man who had the right ideas on life and was loyal to his Queen, country and to his congregation.

He is a man of God and he answers to a higher power, higher than the Queen and the mere Prince of Wales.

The Prince of Wales will be King one day - I don't see that as a mere position at all. The Archbishop may have to crown King Charles one day. I don't consider Rowan Williams to be worthy to crown our King at all.

You also now want to overthrow the Anglican church and bring all of England back to Rome??

I said Rome wouldn't have created so many difficulties. Read into it what you will, but there was no talk of overthrowing anyone.

Not one single citizen in any country has the right to tell others that they should follow him. They should follow what they believe to be the truth.

Thats a wonderful idea but it doesn't work. But I feel we're getting into political waters now so I'll drop it.

If you are not serious about making it work " as long as you both shall live" what is the point of taking the vows in the first place

The Party and the new Hats

 

[Royal Fan]

I Agree the Duty of any Christian (in my view) is to God First and formost

 

[Elspeth]

The Prince of Wales will be King one day - I don't see that as a mere position at all. The Archbishop may have to crown King Charles one day. I don't consider Rowan Williams to be worthy to crown our King at all.

I think the issue may be more a matter of whether the Archbishop of the time thinks Charles is worthy to be crowned. If the Archbishop is a stickler for marital fidelity and for the notion that Christian vows aren't made to be broken, you could have an interesting situation. I wonder if Archbishop Lang would have crowned a king with Charles's track record. I should imagine he'd have had a problem with having to crown Edward VIII if he'd married Mrs Simpson and stayed as king.

 

[tiaraprin]

I think the issue may be more a matter of whether the Archbishop of the time thinks Charles is worthy to be crowned. If the Archbishop is a stickler for marital fidelity and for the notion that Christian vows aren't made to be broken, you could have an interesting situation. I wonder if Archbishop Lang would have crowned a king with Charles's track record. I should imagine he'd have had a problem with having to crown Edward VIII if he'd married Mrs Simpson and stayed as king.

Exactly Elspeth. A monarch who only reigns has no power to force the Archbishop of Canterbury to do something he feels is morally repugnant.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I think the issue may be more a matter of whether the Archbishop of the time thinks Charles is worthy to be crowned

I don't see it as his responsibility to decide whether he's worthy or not. That rests with the majority and the majority are now secular - the Church of England isn't the stuffy institution it once was holding the chains over us all - it shouldn't attempt to hold chains over the Royal Family.

 

[tiaraprin]

I don't see it as his responsibility to decide whether he's worthy or not. That rests with the majority and the majority are now secular - the Church of England isn't the stuffy institution it once was holding the chains over us all - it shouldn't attempt to hold chains over the Royal Family.

As Spiritual Head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop has every right to refuse to crown someone he feels is not worthy. Even in the days when Kings ruled, Archbishops of Canterbury refused to crown individuals they felt unworthy until pressure was placed upon them.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Then my question is, what gives him that power? When Britain was very religious and followed the C of E strictly I could understand the loyalty to the Archbishop. But that isn't quite the way now. Prince Charles wants to be 'Defender of the Faiths'. Will this mean that a Catholic Cardinal could crown the King? Or a Muslim Imam?

 

[tiaraprin]

Then my question is, what gives him that power? When Britain was very religious and followed the C of E strictly I could understand the loyalty to the Archbishop. But that isn't quite the way now. Prince Charles wants to be 'Defender of the Faiths'. Will this mean that a Catholic Cardinal could crown the King? Or a Muslim Imam?

You will have to take that up with an Ecumenical Council. I do not know where the debate about Charles' wish is leading to.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't see it as his responsibility to decide whether he's worthy or not. That rests with the majority and the majority are now secular - the Church of England isn't the stuffy institution it once was holding the chains over us all - it shouldn't attempt to hold chains over the Royal Family.

As long as England has an established religion, and as long as the Coronation is a religious service presided over by the religious leaders of the UK, it's very much his responsibility.

 

[Elspeth]

Then my question is, what gives him that power? When Britain was very religious and followed the C of E strictly I could understand the loyalty to the Archbishop. But that isn't quite the way now. Prince Charles wants to be 'Defender of the Faiths'. Will this mean that a Catholic Cardinal could crown the King? Or a Muslim Imam?

Not until the CofE is disestablished, which I don't think there's any serious talk of doing at the moment.

 

[una]

As Spiritual Head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop has every right to refuse to crown someone he feels is not worthy.

From wikipedia:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who has precedence over all other clergymen and over all laymen except members of the Royal Family, traditionally officiates at coronations; during his absence, another bishop may take his place. There have, however, been several exceptions. William I was crowned by the Archbishop of York, since the Archbishop of Canterbury had been excommunicated by the Pope. Edward II was crowned by the Bishop of Winchester because the Archbishop of Canterbury was not in England at the time. Mary I, a Catholic, refused to be crowned by the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury; the coronation was instead performed by the Bishop of Winchester. When Elizabeth I was crowned, the archbishopric of Canterbury was vacant; the Bishop of Carlisle performed the ceremony. Finally, when James II was deposed and replaced with William III and Mary II jointly, the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to recognise the new Sovereigns; he had to be replaced by the Bishop of London. Hence, in almost all cases where the Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to participate, his place has been taken by a senior cleric: the Archbishop of York is second in precedence, the Bishop of London third and the Bishop of Winchester fifth. Elizabeth I was crowned by the Bishop of Carlisle, to whose see is attached no special precedence, because the senior Catholic prelates objected to the Protestant Queen's religious reforms.

 

[JohnnyB]

Prince Charles wants to be 'Defender of the Faiths'. Will this mean that a Catholic Cardinal could crown the King? Or a Muslim Imam?

Prince Charles wants to be known as "Defender of Faith" - whether he does become known as this or not is still very much a mystery. We have no constitutional oath like some other countries, and we could have a king of any religion except Catholicism. He would be head of the Anglican Church, it wouldn't work and the monarchy would dissolve, but it would be legal.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Queen Mary I]

The Archbishop is still the spiritual head of the Church of England, though; if he thinks a spiritual matter needs dealing with, it's his duty to do so. He wasn't criticising the Queen, just Charles, and we don't know what went on behind the scenes to lead to this outburst. He could have been given assurances about how things would be, which might have been gone back on when it was too late for him to do anything. He might also have misunderstood how much more ceremony is expected of the senior royals, and for Charles it might well have been a very understated ceremony.

And as ysbel said, we don't have that great a source anyway. If the Archbishop comes out and says that, yes, he said it and stands by it or that he didn't actually say it like that or something, we'll have more to go on.

Hi. I am a newbie and I can't find the thread on the Archbishop's 'outburst'. What were his comments exactly please? I am very interested in the Anglican faith. I am a Roman Catholic who has been considering converting for some years now. Anyway back to the subject-I tried to google the Daily Mail but if that source cannot be trusted then who could confirm or deny whatever his comments on C & C's wedding? Perhaps I should email the Archbishop myself!