The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1161  
Old 01-12-2007, 04:00 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
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.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1162  
Old 01-12-2007, 04:09 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
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!
__________________

  #1163  
Old 01-12-2007, 04:30 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
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.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1164  
Old 01-12-2007, 04:56 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,100
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?
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1165  
Old 01-12-2007, 05:00 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Yes we do. Since Charles made that comment, we have seen endless articles and polls saying that people don't like the idea at all. We haven't seen that many endorsing the idea. From the people I speak to, not one would support the idea of a Defender of Faith and so I'm the minority amongst them in supporting the idea. Wasn't there a MORI poll into the idea last year?
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1166  
Old 01-12-2007, 08:06 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
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.
I'm not talking about always doing what the minority wants and always ignoring the majority. I'm saying that historically it's been shown that if a majority has an opportunity to ride roughshod over a minority it very often will, and it's the responsibility of a representative government to protect its more vulnerable citizens. I don't think it would be appropriate for England to have anti-Catholic laws on the books just because the majority are Protestant - I'd hate to see a situation where, for example, Catholics were barred from being teachers, lawyers, or university professors or from owning property or being able to get a passport simply because of their religion, even if the Protestant majority thought it was perfectly fine. All but four of my father's rather large family were killed in the Holocaust in a country where the majority didn't seem to have any problem with killing Jews by the millions, just as has been the case in Europe for centuries. The fact that the majority of Europeans thought pogroms were just part of the scenery doesn't make it acceptable.

Quote:
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.
In post 82 you said "why fix what ain't broke?" In the context of England having an established church, the title Defender of the Faith has both historical and actual meaning, so why change it?
  #1167  
Old 01-12-2007, 09:26 PM
theprincess's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 235
I don't know why, but I've always just had a feeling that Charles will not ever become King. IMO the next 20 years or so will be a crucial time for the British monarchy, especially after the Queen is gone. The monarchy will have to modernize and change with the people for it to not only survive, but also remain strong. Sorry, I went a bit off topic there!
  #1168  
Old 01-12-2007, 09:38 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
The only reason Charles, Prince of Wales will not become King is if he predeceases his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.

The monarchy has actually modernized in the past decade or so, theprincess. I think if Charles intends to make further changes in this area when his time comes, he will need to tread very carefully.

I agree with Elspeth on the topic of the history and meaning of "Defender of the Faith" - there is no reason to change this. To reflect the times, other faiths can be acknowledged within the Coronation service without changing the title of the monarch to "Defender of Faiths". No one can be a defender of all faiths.
  #1169  
Old 01-12-2007, 09:41 PM
theprincess's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avareenah
The only reason Charles, Prince of Wales will not become King is if he predeceases his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.
What about if he choose to abicate and let William be King? I know that is unlikely, but not entirely impossible!
  #1170  
Old 01-12-2007, 09:47 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
If he chooses to abdicate, he'll have to already be King. Are you talking about if he decides to remove himself from the line of succession while he's still Prince of Wales? I assume there'd be a way to do it, but I don't think there's any precedent.
  #1171  
Old 01-12-2007, 10:35 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
Why would Charles abdicate in favour of William? The role of king is one Charles has been training for virtually all his life. He is said to have a strong sense of entitlement about his future role.

He has given no indication that I know about that he is unwilling to take the throne after his mother's death.
  #1172  
Old 01-12-2007, 10:45 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Well, there are still Diana supporters out there who are hoping to see William follow the Queen as monarch during Charles's lifetime. Not because of anything to do with Charles's present situation, but because they think he owes it to Diana's memory or something.
  #1173  
Old 01-12-2007, 10:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
My understanding is that if Charles wanted to remove himself from the line of succession it would necessitate a special Act of Parliament and the RF want go that route because it would open up the possibility of the Act no just removing Charles but removing the RF itself.


I always wonder about these people who want William to become king in Charles' lifetime as some sort of way of honouring Diana. To me one thing that both Diana and Charles always agreed on was the the young princes were brought up to love and respect both their parents and that Diana, for one, would not want William to reign in place of his father to honour her - now if Charles didn't want to do it or felt he wasn't up to the job that's different - but just because he is Diana's son isn't right. After all he is also Charles' son and appears to love his father very much. I have read somewhere, but I don't know where, that William has indicated, via the ubiquitous friends, that he won't become king while his father is alive as he loves and respects his father too much to take away his birthright.
  #1174  
Old 01-12-2007, 11:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
Yes, there seems to be a certain group who imagine that William will wish to come to the throne as soon as possible so that he can somehow avenge his late mother but I really think this is the last thing on his mind. I'm sure his memories of his mother are precious but that he also loves his father and lives in the present, not the past and just wants to have as normal a life as possible until his turn comes, hopefully a long way into the future.
  #1175  
Old 01-13-2007, 08:01 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,469
We have digressed. This thread is "Will Charles Ever Reign?"
The thread to discuss possible future titles is King Charles and Queen Camilla.

thanks.

ETA: about 2 pages of posts discussing Camilla's position when Charles becomes King have been moved to the appropriate thread.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #1176  
Old 01-13-2007, 09:08 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
The monarchy cannot afford to be turned into a 24 hour 7 day a week apology to the late Princess Diana. Once one person hijacks the purpose, majesty and history of a 1000 year old institution, then that institution is for all intents and purposes washed up and irrelevant. I sincerely hope that is not the case with the British monarchy and that the monarchy has some good years left.

I would be very disappointed if Charles caved into public opinion and abdicated to William because of the hypersensitivity of some Diana fans. That action would not show him as sensitive or caring but in my opinion would show only a monumental weakness of will and enormous insensitivity to his eldest son William to hand over the reins of responsibility to William so early (and insensitivity towards his present wife Camilla to publically acknowledge she is the cause of all of this) .

Even now William seems ambivalent about inheriting the throne so I doubt if he'd appreciate theprincess' suggestion for his future career path. I'm afraid people are going to have to find some other way of respecting Diana rather than making Charles give up the throne.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #1177  
Old 01-13-2007, 03:33 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
All but four of my father's rather large family were killed in the Holocaust in a country where the majority didn't seem to have any problem with killing Jews by the millions, just as has been the case in Europe for centuries. The fact that the majority of Europeans thought pogroms were just part of the scenery doesn't make it acceptable.
Who said the majority would always be right morally? But what the majority want, the majority gets. And surely it has to be that way?

Quote:
In post 82 you said "why fix what ain't broke?" In the context of England having an established church, the title Defender of the Faith has both historical and actual meaning, so why change it?
I don't mind either way. If that's what he wants, it's fine by me.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1178  
Old 01-13-2007, 04:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by theprincess
What about if he choose to abicate and let William be King? I know that is unlikely, but not entirely impossible!
Not going to happen. He is King when his mother dies and is likely to have a relatively short reign due to his age. William will likely have a long reign like his grandmother.
  #1179  
Old 01-13-2007, 04:54 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Exactly. It is entirely impossible. Charles would never do that. Why would he? It's not like a Saturday job where you can ask a friend to cover for you.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1180  
Old 01-13-2007, 04:59 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,832
Charles will not be abdicating. He takes his current role and his future role very seriously and I can't see him walking away from that. What if when the Queen passes and Charles becomes King....William has not yet married? Would he want to abdicate in favor of someone who is not married and has no heir yet? I would think not.
__________________

__________________
"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......"
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 asian baby names birth britain britannia british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation customs daisy duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten nara period pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida taiwan thai royal family tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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