Archbishops of Canterbury and Crowning Charles King

BeatrixFan · #1 10-23-2005, 06:49 PM

To Carry On the Topic;

Quote:

The Archbishop is NOT there as a puppet of the English Monarch. He is the senior clergyman of a Church that represents millions of parishoners around the world and would be doing his position a diservice if he did not speak out against a situation he found unethical.

The Archbishop of Canterbury should be aware of his betters - the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and should be shown deference due to her position. That should reflect in her family. If the Archbishop has made these comments then he plunges down furthur in my estimation (and seeing as he is in the bowels of the underworld in my estimation he better invest in some asbestos robes).

james · #2 10-23-2005, 07:05 PM

Beatrixfan, as a "fan" of your previous posts I don't wish to argue with you but the Queen and her family are not the Archbishop's "betters" as no one is anyones "betters" in a Christian society and if he saw something amiss in the Charles/Camilla senario he showed bravery and integrity in drawing attention to it as it would have been easier in his position to say nothing.

ysbel · #3 10-23-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Yes it is a direct quote. Richard Kaye from the Daily Mail newspaper reported the Archbishop's response about the union six months on this month. Rowan Williams seems bitterly angry towards Charles with regards to the whole event

The Daily Mail is hardly a reputable source. I still don't think the Archbishop would have said this.

If the marriage was wrong, then the Archbishop coming back and saying yes he agreed to the blessing but he thought that it was going to be a contrite lowkey affair is really not going to go over well with the clergy.

The blessing was a compromise; he knew it and he knew the implications. He agreed to do the blessing; if he had had any grave reservations about the marriage he wouldn't have done it.

Whatever his feelings about how the blessings came out, it would be very unwise to go back and say that he agreed but he thought it was going to be handled differently. I don't think the Archibishop is that stupid.

Elspeth · #4 10-23-2005, 07:10 PM

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.

BeatrixFan · #5 10-23-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Beatrixfan, as a "fan" of your previous posts I don't wish to argue with you but the Queen and her family are not the Archbishop's "betters" as no one is anyones "betters" in a Christian society and if he saw something amiss in the Charles/Camilla senario he showed bravery and integrity in drawing attention to it as it would have been easier in his position to say nothing.

James, I'd rather have people agree with me on some things and be staunchly against me on others - it makes my life that bit more interesting!

I'm afraid Britain is no longer a Christian Society. If I had my way we'd all be looking to Rome for our spiritual guidance but certain people prevented that from ever being allowed to happen. I must disagree. I dont believe he showed bravery or integrity - he showed disobedience and a lack of respect for authority and the institutions that have kept this nation united through terrible terrible times.

So, we'll disagree on this one but we'll be brothers-in-arms on the subject of Prince and Princess Michael!

Quote:

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.

Thats my point. He should do as he's damn well told.

james · #6 10-23-2005, 07:24 PM

I am shocked about statements regarding "disobedience". The Archbishop is not a puppet. He is not "YES MAN" and the position never has been. If he deems things to be wrong he has an OBLIGATION to say so otherwise what is the point of his position?

BeatrixFan · #7 10-23-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

I am shocked about statements regarding "disobedience".

I'm afraid I'm a terrible snob and a friend of mine calls me 'The Pink Autocrat' - I rather like the title. I don't mean to shock but why are you shocked? I don't see that as a shocking statement but maybe I'm a little too self-inflated to see my error!

james · #8 10-23-2005, 07:32 PM

Maybe in the spirit of the forum it's better to get back to more light hearted matters.

BeatrixFan · #9 10-23-2005, 07:35 PM

I agree!

ysbel · #10 10-23-2005, 07:35 PM

James, I don't think the Archbishop is a puppet but the position of Archbishop of Canterbury is a highly political position and people in those positions don't just blurt out what they think or feel about certain events. That's why I doubt the Daily Mail source. From a religious standpoint, it just doesn't wash well to agree to do something against church rules as long as its going to be a lowkey affair.

For someone in his position to say that would make some wonder why he did the blessing in the first place and the Archbishop can't afford to do or say something to make people start second guessing his actions any more than they do now. This would have grave implications the next time he rules on a controversial issue.

If he had reservations about how big the event became, it would have been far better for him to keep his mouth shut since he agreed to the blessing in the first place.

Lady Marmalade · #11 10-24-2005, 07:00 PM

IF he did make these statements, then more power to him!

He has the right to make such statements as he sees fit that coincide with his Christian views.

He does not anwer to ONLY Her Majesty or the Prince of Wales, but answers to millions of Anglicans in Great Britain and around the world.

Since the future sovereign is going to be head of the Church of England and he is divorced and now remarried to the third person, it is like having your cake and eating it too.

BeatrixFan · #12 10-24-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Since the future sovereign is going to be head of the Church of England and he is divorced and now remarried to the third person, it is like having your cake and eating it too.

Divorce is common nowadays. In fact, you're boring if you haven't divorced. Your first marriage should be for legitimate sex, money or title. It's the second you make the effort with.
We'd never have heard George Carey be so insolent.

Elspeth · #13 10-24-2005, 09:35 PM

We'd never have heard George Carey say that you're boring if you haven't divorced either. At least, I sincerely hope we wouldn't.

I don't think the Archbishop is being insolent. His first loyalty is to God, not to Charles.

Royal Fan · #14 10-24-2005, 09:47 PM

will the current Archbishop crown Charles or will their be a new Archbishop by then

Elspeth · #15 10-24-2005, 10:00 PM

It depends how far into the future the coronation is.

If the Archbishop really feels that he can't crown Charles in good conscience, he might decide to step down before the coronation. We'll have to wait and see.

Lady Marmalade · #16 10-24-2005, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Divorce is common nowadays. In fact, you're boring if you haven't divorced. Your first marriage should be for legitimate sex, money or title. It's the second you make the effort with.

We'd never have heard George Carey be so insolent.

Um....boring......I must be old fashioned then as I just got married and view this marriage as my first and only. I married for love and only love.

I am guessing you are just being facetious.. :)

Or it must be the generation gap between our views.

BeatrixFan · #17 10-25-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Or it must be the generation gap between our views.

I think its that.

Quote:

His first loyalty is to God, not to Charles.

It depends on whether you believe in the Divine Right of Kings I suppose.

tiaraprin · #18 10-25-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

IF he did make these statements, then more power to him!

He has the right to make such statements as he sees fit that coincide with his Christian views.

He does not anwer to ONLY Her Majesty or the Prince of Wales, but answers to millions of Anglicans in Great Britain and around the world.

Since the future sovereign is going to be head of the Church of England and he is divorced and now remarried to the third person, it is like having your cake and eating it too.

Couldn't agree with you more Lady Marmalade!!

If someone today believes in the Divine Right of Kings, what is he to do when he gets a monarch he doesn't like?? William perhaps as an example?

BeatrixFan · #19 10-25-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

If someone today believes in the Divine Right of Kings, what is he to do when he gets a monarch he doesn't like?? William perhaps as an example?

William will be my King and I'm not happy about that but he'll have my loyalty as my Sovereign.

Lady Marmalade · #20 10-25-2005, 02:19 PM

Thanks, Tiaraprin. :)

Elspeth and Warren have made some excellent points in regards to the reasons there as to why the the current system of government is in place and why the monarch does not rule, but reigns.

To point out once again, it is not in the Prince of Wales, or the monarch's, interest to meddle, make public, or show favoritism to any political party or issue, whether they like it or not.

Isn't that why you have a Prime Minister, House of Commons, and opposing political party to do all that?