The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 01-11-2007, 12:45 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,832
I might have taken it wrong, and if I did then I apologize, but I thought by him saying "Defender of Faith" he was saying that as King, he would defend his subjects' abilities to practice whatever faith they practiced.
__________________

__________________
"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......"
  #1142  
Old 01-11-2007, 12:59 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
From what I can gather from excerpts of the Dimbleby interview, he said he didn't want to be a defender of a particular faith because "people have fought each other to the death over these things, which seems to me a peculiar waste of people's energies." His comment about Defender of faith was here, where he said he wanted to be "defender of the Divine in existence, the pattern of the Divine which is, I think, in all of us, but which, because we are human beings, can be expressed in so many different ways."

Which leaves out his subjects who don't believe in this business of the pattern of the Divine. I think (although I'm not sure about this) that he already has a duty to defend people's rights, which would include the right to worship according to their conscience.
__________________

  #1143  
Old 01-11-2007, 07:28 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Marie
I'm not necessarily talking about mass killings. I'm also not necessarily talking about Commonwealth countries.
I fail to see what killings happening in other countries has to do with whether Charles wants to be known as a 'defender of the Divine in existence', within the UK and some of the commonwealth countries, (I say some because a few are now republics).

Like Elspeth, I have a problem with those of his subjects he will exclude.
  #1144  
Old 01-11-2007, 07:56 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
I fail to see what killings happening in other countries has to do with whether Charles wants to be known as a 'defender of the Divine in existence', within the UK and some of the commonwealth countries, (I say some because a few are now republics).

Like Elspeth, I have a problem with those of his subjects he will exclude.
You're right: it spounds as if he will only defend those who have a belief. But how to word it better? Okay, maybe it's time to come to a complete laizistic way to view a country: the head of state has nothing to do whatsover with religion. But when we talk of a coronation, it seems strange to omit the religious part. 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!

IMHO it is okay if a king who has a faith (and Charles is, at least nominally, whatever his private belief may be, CoE) is crowned according to this belief's tradition. He did after all marry the first time in a CoE-service, too. But why can't he say in his oath that he wants to protect and defend his subject's rights to their own belief, whatever that might be?

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.
__________________
'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.
  #1145  
Old 01-11-2007, 05:32 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,100
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.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1146  
Old 01-11-2007, 05:35 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Why fix what aint broke? Why change things to please the minority?
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1147  
Old 01-11-2007, 09:55 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Because the minority are also citizens. I don't think institutionalised religious discrimination is a good thing.
  #1148  
Old 01-11-2007, 10:21 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}
  #1149  
Old 01-11-2007, 10:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,685
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.
  #1150  
Old 01-11-2007, 10:56 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
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.
  #1151  
Old 01-11-2007, 11:12 PM
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!
  #1152  
Old 01-11-2007, 11:46 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
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.
  #1153  
Old 01-12-2007, 02:12 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
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.
  #1154  
Old 01-12-2007, 02:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
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
  #1155  
Old 01-12-2007, 03:02 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.
  #1156  
Old 01-12-2007, 03:16 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,100
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.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1157  
Old 01-12-2007, 05:04 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,832
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......"
  #1158  
Old 01-12-2007, 06:11 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
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!
  #1159  
Old 01-12-2007, 06:22 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
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".
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1160  
Old 01-12-2007, 03:58 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
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.
__________________

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
Reign of Felipe VI: How Will Things Be Different? muriel King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 90 01-03-2017 06:30 PM
“The Lady Queen: the Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sic An Ard Ri Royal Library 0 07-06-2014 07:27 PM
Is Victoria Ready to Reign? NotAPretender Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 20 06-19-2011 07:05 AM
Elizabeth II: Oldest British Monarch (Dec 20 2007); 2nd Longest Reign (May 12 2011) WindsorIII Queen Elizabeth II 33 05-30-2011 07:40 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida taiwan tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×