The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1201  
Old 01-19-2007, 11:29 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: san francisco, United States
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
I think dropping the Catholic ban would be a bit of a betrayal to those who died to make sure Catholics didn't have the right to sit on the throne. And surely it would cause problems with the Church of England and lead to it's breakdown or at least it would mean that the monarch lost their place as Defender of the Faith. I'm all for multi-faith tolerance but I just think this opens up an unwelcome can of worms.
BeatrixFan, it's not often that I disagree with you, but there's a first for everything. We all know how well Maxima's doing in the Netherlands, and ok, granted, there, the RF isn't head of the church, but come on, who cares at this point as Charles has already said he'll be "defender of all faiths".
__________________

  #1202  
Old 01-19-2007, 11:59 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
It would cause problems for the Church of England if the heir to the throne was a Rastafarian or a Satanist, come to that, but it isn't enough to kick them out of the line of succession.
__________________

  #1203  
Old 01-20-2007, 12:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by princess olga
...Charles has already said he'll be "defender of all faiths".
But as with the Princess Consort business (though having a better chance I would think), that largely remains to be seen.
  #1204  
Old 01-20-2007, 06:02 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
I think dropping the Catholic ban would be a bit of a betrayal to those who died to make sure Catholics didn't have the right to sit on the throne. And surely it would cause problems with the Church of England and lead to it's breakdown or at least it would mean that the monarch lost their place as Defender of the Faith. I'm all for multi-faith tolerance but I just think this opens up an unwelcome can of worms.
Times move on and religious intolerance to any faith (or lack of it) should be ended.

Why would it lead to problems for the CoE or cause it's breakdown? People who go to a CoE church believe in their god regardless of who is on the throne, it is not a case of 'I belong to the CoE because I believe in the monarchy' or 'I believe in the monarchy therefore I go to a CoE church'!
  #1205  
Old 01-20-2007, 06:07 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by princess olga
Charles has already said he'll be "defender of all faiths".
Would someone please explain to me how this would be possible?
  #1206  
Old 01-20-2007, 06:13 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avareenah
Would someone please explain to me how this would be possible?
I don't have a problem with other people practising their own faith, as long as they are not trying to ram it down my throat, I would defend their right to believe what they want.

I would presume that Charles wants people to be free to worship whatever god they want and he would like to be able to defend their right to do that.
  #1207  
Old 01-20-2007, 06:24 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
I don't have a problem with other people practising their own faith, as long as they are not trying to ram it down my throat, I would defend their right to believe what they want.

I would presume that Charles wants people to be free to worship whatever god they want and he would like to be able to defend their right to do that.

Which is why I believe the actual quote was 'Defender of faith' - no ALL in the term at all.
  #1208  
Old 01-20-2007, 01:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,323
He should be Defender of the (Christian) Faith, while giving attention to ALL faiths does that make sense.
  #1209  
Old 01-20-2007, 04:13 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
"Defender of the Faith" in the context of the monarch means that the monarch, if proclaimed "Defender of the Faith" at his/her coronation, follows the belief system, supports and is aligned with the Church of England.

Therefore, when the time comes, Charles simply can't say he's "Defender of Faiths". You cannot make faith generic. No one can align themselves with all "faiths" because many stand for such different things.

He could probably say that he respects all faiths or something similar but other than that, this simply couldn't work.

Anyhow, I believe he's been told by the Church of England that no changes will be made to this aspect of the coronation ceremony when the time comes. Whether Charles truly does follow the Church of England is open to question. He is certainly interested in other religions as, supposedly, he reads the Koran daily.
  #1210  
Old 01-20-2007, 06:04 PM
Kat Kat is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Arima, Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 35
well, hmm, I think first of all that:
1. William is more likely to choose to keep his first name than Charles - he just seems like he's had a more normal life than Charles and wants to continue having a more normal life than Charles.
2. I agree that William probably isn't fully prepared for the responsibilities of King and wouldn't accept them over his father. I imagine, his father would have to die or at least get so far along in age that he's unable to continue his duties effectively for William to take them over. I'm not saying that William is an irresponsible person, but, growing up with a more normal childhood than Charles, he probably does not have quite as much experience in dealing with the responsibilities as Charles did at his age. Also, I believe Charles became Prince of Wales fairly young, while William probably wouldn't have that title (& responsibilities) for a while yet.
3. About the idea of changing Charles' title of Defender of the Faith (to "Defender of all Faiths" or whatever it is they want to change it to) - I think a compromise can be reached where the main religion is most recognised and continued to be the religion of the King / Queen, but acknowledges that their subjects do have the freedom to investigate other religions and join them if they so desire.
__________________
Luv Kat

"One day my music will unite. Fighting will be no more that's right. One day my people will know love and this war will over. And love will fall upon us ..." ~ from the song 'One Day' by Kees Dieffenthaller
  #1211  
Old 01-20-2007, 06:08 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avareenah
"Defender of the Faith" in the context of the monarch means that the monarch, if proclaimed "Defender of the Faith" at his/her coronation, follows the belief system, supports and is aligned with the Church of England.
Is this all it means? I think the original title granted to Henry VIII meant more than that. It was made in recognition of his Defence of the current faith. I haven't read what he said, but I understand he had taken a positive stance against Luther's writings. Therefore the title implies that there has been, or may be, an attack on or challenge to "the Faith", and the holder has defended, or is obliged to defend, that Faith. This would mean defending the Church of England in the event of conflicts with other religions. The word also has, IMO anyway, a "Crusading" connotation which is probably best let go.

This could get a bit tricky for Charles in view of his interest in other religions, especially Islam. I think it's time to dispense with the title and just have him as Supreme Governor of the CofE. I initially thought that it should stay, but I've reconsidered and now I think the expression is anachronistic and should go. The UK can still have a state religion and the monarch can still be its Supreme Governor without being its Defender. Removing it and not replacing it with "Defender of Faith" would also have the benefit of not raising the hackles of subjects who hold to no "Faith".

Quote:
Therefore, when the time comes, Charles simply can't say he's "Defender of Faiths". You cannot make faith generic. No one can align themselves with all "faiths" because many stand for such different things.

He could probably say that he respects all faiths or something similar but other than that, this simply couldn't work.
I agree. "Defender of Faith" is a completely different thing from "Defender of the Faith". It would be as significant a change as removing "Defender of the Faith".

If Charles just wants to say he respects all faiths and his subjects' right to practise their religions, he can just make a statement to that effect. There's no need to make it part of the Coronation ceremony.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1212  
Old 01-20-2007, 06:29 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,453
[quote][I think the poeple who don´t believe that Charles will be the next King are out of reality./QUOTE]

How so? I don't think that it is written in stone that Charles will outlive his mother. Anything is possible.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #1213  
Old 01-20-2007, 07:15 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234
Quote:
I think the poeple who don´t believe that Charles will be the next King are out of reality.
How so? I don't think that it is written in stone that Charles will outlive his mother. Anything is possible.

That's true, but have you heard anything about Charles being ill a lot or suffering medical problems? No you haven't. It's a safe bet that he will outlive his mother and if for some tragic reason he does not, then William is King when the Queen dies.
__________________
"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......"
  #1214  
Old 01-20-2007, 08:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
[quote=sirhon11234]
Quote:
[I think the poeple who don´t believe that Charles will be the next King are out of reality./QUOTE]

How so? I don't think that it is written in stone that Charles will outlive his mother. Anything is possible.
But most of those who are saying that Charles shouldn't be the next king are actually wanting to replace him with William.

In other words what they want is to pass over Charles.

Obviously if Charles died first then William will be the next king but otherwise Charles should be and will be, even if there are people who are eager to see him passed over - I suspect that most of those people are Dianafanatics who want to continue to punish Charles for the failure of his marriage.


I don't know where I read it but I am sure that I have read somewhere that William has said that he won't be king while his father lives as he loves and respects his father and the wonderful work that Charles has done and is doing for the nation.
  #1215  
Old 01-21-2007, 06:28 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn
The word also has, IMO anyway, a "Crusading" connotation which is probably best let go........
This could get a bit tricky for Charles in view of his interest in other religions, especially Islam. I think it's time to dispense with the title and just have him as Supreme Governor of the CofE. I initially thought that it should stay, but I've reconsidered and now I think the expression is anachronistic and should go. The UK can still have a state religion and the monarch can still be its Supreme Governor without being its Defender. Removing it and not replacing it with "Defender of Faith" would also have the benefit of not raising the hackles of subjects who hold to no "Faith". ......
.....If Charles just wants to say he respects all faiths and his subjects' right to practise their religions, he can just make a statement to that effect. There's no need to make it part of the Coronation ceremony.
Very well thought out post, the only thing I have to disagree on is that the UK does not have a state religion.
  #1216  
Old 01-21-2007, 07:48 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
Very well thought out post, the only thing I have to disagree on is that the UK does not have a state religion.
Saucy, pedantic wretch! OK. How about State religion of England.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1217  
Old 02-03-2007, 09:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,323
if he chooses Arthur or Philip as his "Roya"l name will there be a numeral?
  #1218  
Old 02-03-2007, 09:41 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Fan
if he chooses Arthur or Philip as his "Roya"l name will there be a numeral?


If he chooses Philip, he'd be Philip III......I think? Philip II of Spain, who was married to Mary I, was King Consort of England, so I think that counts.

If he goes by Arthur, he'd have no numeral.
__________________
"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......"
  #1219  
Old 02-04-2007, 12:26 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
If he chooses Philip, he'd be Philip III......I think? Philip II of Spain, who was married to Mary I, was King Consort of England, so I think that counts.

If he goes by Arthur, he'd have no numeral.

Philip II of Spain was never King of England in his own right and therefore his number shouldn't count in England.

When Mary I died Philip ceased to be the Consort of England or have any role in the government - even ordering the Armada to sail against England.

When Mary II died William III remained as King in his own right.

There is a difference - consorts don't have numbers and therefore they don't count.

If he chose Philip he would be just Philip (and a later Philip would be Philip II of the UK etc).


Arthur, on the other hand, could have a numeral - namely II, if you accept that King Arthur ever existed. As I am not convinced one way or the other the safe bet would be no numeral (and no to Arthur as his regnal name anyway).
  #1220  
Old 02-04-2007, 12:28 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn
Saucy, pedantic wretch! OK. How about State religion of England.
England has an Established Church, not a state religion. Don't ask me what the difference is, but apparently it's significant in some way that the CofE is the Established Church and not the Official Church.
__________________

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 04:27 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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