The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

[Elihoenai]

When it comes to qualifications for monarch, the British constitution is anti-Christian: there's nothing barring a non-Christian from being crowned, but there's an explicit prohibition against a specific Christian denomination.

That's False. The British Monarch Must be a Protestant. Protestants are Christian.


Acts of Union 1707

English perspective

"...The English succession was provided for by the English Act of Settlement 1701, which ensured that the monarch of England would be a Protestant member of the House of Hanover...."

Act of Settlement 1701 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. As I say, I am inherently somewhat tribalistic, and value my pride in contrast to other people. Differentiation by means of identity provides a pretext for pride.
...

And now I am going to add useless and all the other variants of that. Anybody not my tribe are useless and not even worthy of rights. To call them nothing would an insult to nothing. *** minority right, I am the correct majority and anybody not up to my standard are useless and all the rest.
And that applies to you, because I don't like you.

Can you understand the problem with that kind of emotions? It works as long you don't become the minority, but that is arbitrary to the point of that I don't like your looks.

 

[Elihoenai]

A monarch who wasn't already an Anglican would "enter into conmunion with" the C of E merely by virtue of being the C of E's Supreme Governor, which happens as a side effect of becoming the monarch.

There's no actual requirement for a British monarch to hold Christian beliefs.

It appears you are repeatedly making False Claims and embarrassing yourself. What are your sources?

The British Monarch Must be a Protestant. Protestants are Christian.


The Act of Settlement

The Act of Settlement of 1701 was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne, and to strengthen the guarantees for ensuring a parliamentary system of government.

The Act of Settlement

The Act of Settlement of 1701 was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne, and to strengthen the guarantees for ensuring a parliamentary...

www.royal.uk

 

[syo]

If not anarchy (which is the best), then monarchy.

Democracy is disgusting.

I kinda like king Charles.

 

[Elihoenai]

And let's not forget the origins of the Church of England - Henry the 8th wanted to divorce his wife basically. So he just started up his own church.

Do you believe that Henry VIII was a Real Christian?


8. Reformation and Division, 1530-1558

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's False. The British Monarch Must be a Protestant. Protestants are Christian.

The British monarch must not be a Catholic, and becomes the Supreme Governor of - and therefore a member of, I guess - of the Church of England.

However, other than the "no Catholics" thing, there's no test of faith for the office of monarch. The monarch has to swear to protect the church, but doesn't have to agree to adopt any of its beliefs.

If you think that nominal membership in a Christian church is enough to make someone a Christian, well... you do you, I suppose. I have a different view.

If you think an atheist or Muslim in line for the throne would be told "sorry - you're not allowed to be King," then show me the law - the actual law, not some summary from some blog post - that would be cited.

 

[Elihoenai]

You think so? Thats the cop out monarchy gave thoughout history to subdue their subjects and keep their crown. It doesn't work now except on a few gullible people who are happy to be under the royal thumb.

Im not well enough up on the constitution but from what ive read on this thread the head of state does not need to be Anglican and could even be atheist.
.

Everything that happens is the Will of Elohim/God and Ordained by Elohim/God. I know that you being an Atheist have a different perspective.

The British Monarch is Head of State and the British Monarch Must be Christian Protestant. A Non-Protestant, Roman Catholic or Atheist is Barred from being British Head of State.


Monarchy of the United Kingdom

The monarchy of the United Kingdom, commonly referred to as the British monarchy, is the constitutional form of government by which a hereditary sovereign reigns as the head of state of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies (the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man) and the British Overseas Territories. The current monarch is King Charles III, who ascended the throne on 8 September 2022, upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.

Monarchy of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A Non-Protestant, Roman Catholic or Atheist is Barred from being British Head of State.

According to which law? Please be specific.

I know where to find the prohibition on Catholics. I don't know where to find any prohibition on non-Protestants or atheists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's fair enough. In fact that's what I think a lot of the time, too. But I'm against throwing stuff out, just for the sake of it and I am suspicious of Whiggish notions of progress.

if it was just for the sake of it neither would I, but, like religions, monarchies tend to hold us back, even if this one doesn't have much power.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Apolitical heads of state are better in a parliamentary system (imo)
Can be used to woo foreign dignitaries
Can do diplomacy better than President Jeremy Hunt
Good for publicity/marketing
Tradition helps bind groups of people together
Avoids pointless elections every 5 years
Avoids people whining about who we elected ad nauseam
Avoids people whining about election coverage every 5 years
Avoids us wasting lots of time and passing the relevant legislation to become a republic
(Personally) I like the PM to have to feel inferior to someone quite regularly and having a powerless monarch does this quite well, a president would not do this at all.
etc.

But you missed out one - ties us to our Horrible Histories too.

 

[ChristineM]

Everything that happens is the Will of Elohim/God and Ordained by Elohim/God. I know that you being an Atheist have a different perspective.

In my view this is BS

The British Monarch is Head of State and the British Monarch Must be Christian Protestant. A Non-Protestant, Roman Catholic or Atheist is Barred from being British Head of State.

I believe this is not true, the monarch can be head of the CofE even if they are a non Anglican. The monarch must act out their duties even if they dont believe.

And i am skipping your totally irrelevant copy and paste

 

[Mock Turtle]

I personally consider identity, particularly as it helps to differentiate us from others, to be of paramount importance in human life. I think, rather, that this provided the major impetus for Brexit. I also believe in symbols and their power to confirm identity. Britain has only three symbols worth anything at all, the monarchy, the anthem, and the beautiful British flag (the most distinctively beautiful, IMO), by which British identity and pride are confirmed. Do you really want to get rid of two of these (if the monarchy goes, so does the anthem) so that more fat, useless people can get free ambulance rides to the hospital for imagined complaints? And as I say, the monarchy serves another purpose: as a reminder to the bureaucratic state that it represents not the only form of governance.

I don't know what other Brits think but those things mean nothing to me. I feel lucky to have been born in a relatively free and prosperous country, often torn by political nonsense though, but having quite a share of remarkable history for such a small place. I suspect this has come about more from geography, weather, and other considerations rather than from our superiority in any way however. And of course I do recognise all those who have contributed to our better moments whilst still accepting much of the bad our ancestors did too.

Hence why it doesn't bother me to see one aspect disappear into the past - the monarchy - given that this in my mind didn't contribute as much as the people themselves, and losing the monarchy shouldn't affect the lives of those in the future. We just don't need this kind of thing to prop us up and hopefully just being better citizens who would work for a better world for all would make me more proud than anything else.

 

[Alien826]

According to which law? Please be specific.

Explainer: Britain's rules of succession for a new sovereign

Queen Elizabeth, Britain's monarch for more than seven decades, died on Thursday aged 96.

www.reuters.com

The sovereign reigns by grace of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which lays down the rules of succession, decreeing that only Protestant descendants of a granddaughter of James I of England (Princess Sophia the Electress of Hanover) can take the throne.

Until a new law in 2013, being married to a Roman Catholic also barred a royal from a place in the line of succession. However, a Catholic can still not become monarch.

The 2013 legislation also removed precedence being given to the male line, meaning that any royal born from Oct 28., 2011, would not be discriminated against in succession to the throne based on gender.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Explainer: Britain's rules of succession for a new sovereign

Queen Elizabeth, Britain's monarch for more than seven decades, died on Thursday aged 96.

www.reuters.com

The sovereign reigns by grace of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which lays down the rules of succession, decreeing that only Protestant descendants of a granddaughter of James I of England (Princess Sophia the Electress of Hanover) can take the throne.

Until a new law in 2013, being married to a Roman Catholic also barred a royal from a place in the line of succession. However, a Catholic can still not become monarch.

The 2013 legislation also removed precedence being given to the male line, meaning that any royal born from Oct 28., 2011, would not be discriminated against in succession to the throne based on gender.

Random webpage, not a law, but thanks for trying.

 

[Alien826]

Do you believe that Henry VIII was a Real Christian?

I'm not sure how one would define a "real Christian" but Henry VIII was quite devout in his younger days. He wrote a piece supporting the Catholic Church and the Pope awarded him the title Fidei Defensor, which means 'Defender of the Faith'. The title was revoked when Henry broke with Rome in 1530, but in 1544 the English Parliament conferred it on the King who, as supreme governor of the Church of England, was defender of the Anglican faith. 'Fid Def' or the letters 'FD' have appeared on coins since the 18th century.

 

[Alien826]

Britain has only three symbols worth anything at all, .... the anthem ....

The Yanks have already pinched the tune (My Country 'tis of Thee) so one part would live on.

 

[Alien826]

Random webpage, not a law, but thanks for trying.

Please tell me how I can refer to a law (as that web page did) without quoting something? Do you want me to get the original document (probably have to steal it from a museum) and bring it to your house so you can see it? Did you not see the reference to the 1701 Act of Settlement? An "act" is a law. You can be very silly sometimes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please tell me how I can refer to a law (as that web page did) without quoting something?

I want you to quote something: an actual law. Not an article about a law.

Do you want me to get the original document (probably have to steal it from a museum) and bring it to your house so you can see it? Did you not see the reference to the 1701 Act of Settlement? An "act" is a law. You can be very silly sometimes.

Fun fact: the Act of Settlement that's currently in effect is posted online: Act of Settlement (1700)

Another fun fact: the only place in the Act of Settlement that speaks to a desire for the monarch to be Protestant is in the preamble (i.e. the explanation of the rationale for the law, which isn't an enforceable part of the law).

The Act of Settlement was written by people who assumed, based on the conditions of the time, that a non-Catholic person in line to the throne would necessarily be Protestant.

This assumption is not a good one today, but the law does not automatically update itself to reflect the change in British society.

 

[Zwing]

It works as long you don't become the minority, but that is arbitrary to the point of that I don't like your looks.

You seem to think I am speaking of either “racial” or some other identity which might be expressed in appearance. If so, you misread me. I am talking about ethnic (read “cultural”) identity, and the symbols which help to define it. I am in favor of open borders, and have a strong dislike of the territorial nation state. Even so, my feeling about migrants is that they should not only integrate but utterly assimilate to the culture into which they migrate. That’s another aspect of the modern nation-state that I profoundly dislike: the concept of the “multi-ethnic state”. I personally focus on peoples’ culture and ethnicity (undoubtedly this is why I like the concept of “the tribe”), dislike the state, and think that the concept of human “race” is arbitrary and has no basis in natural fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem to think I am speaking of either “racial” or some other identity which might be expressed in appearance. If so, you misread me. I am talking about ethnic (read “cultural”) identity, and the symbols which help to define it. I am in favor of open borders, and have a strong dislike of the territorial nation state. Even so, my feeling about migrants is that they should not only integrate but utterly assimilate to the culture into which they migrate. That’s another aspect of the modern nation-state that I profoundly dislike: the concept of the “multi-ethnic state”. I personally focus on peoples’ culture and ethnicity (undoubtedly this is why I like the concept of “the tribe”), dislike the state, and think that the concept of human “race” is arbitrary and has no basis in natural fact.

I didn't mean race.
I mean I find you useless and I don't like the look of you. You are worthless and not my tribe as for beliefs and all that. You simply look wrong. My tribe are humans with real pride, worthy of respect and useful. You are not.
That goes back to your post about fat useless people. And I am simply returning the favor. You are useless.

I personally consider identity, particularly as it helps to differentiate us from others, to be of paramount importance in human life. I think, rather, that this provided the major impetus for Brexit. I also believe in symbols and their power to confirm identity. Britain has only three symbols worth anything at all, the monarchy, the anthem, and the beautiful British flag (the most distinctively beautiful, IMO), by which British identity and pride are confirmed. Do you really want to get rid of two of these (if the monarchy goes, so does the anthem) so that more fat, useless people can get free ambulance rides to the hospital for imagined complaints? And as I say, the monarchy serves another purpose: as a reminder to the bureaucratic state that it represents not the only form of governance.

Your opinions are meaningless and without merit and you are useless.

Do you get it now? You are not useless, but that is not unique to you. But the moment you use that standard, I can do that too. You are useless.