The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

[Augustus]

In my opinion the worst distortion by far of the UK political system is the way that party leaders, who are de facto prime ministerial candidates, are chosen by an unelected body of activists, many with extreme and unrepresentative views. This is how we have ended up with such rank absurdities as Corbyn, Dumcnut-Smith, Bozo and Truss as party leaders. I think we should go back having them chosen by elected representatives of the people, viz. the parliamentary parties. MPs are far more in touch with what the people will vote for than a self-selecting bunch of activists who get the right to vote for leader based on paying a membership fee and nothing more.

I agree that asking party members is an awful idea and distorts the parties away from the general public.

This is a good example of how making something "more democratic" can actually make it less representative, and why I dislike facile claims that PR is "democratic" and FPtP is "undemocratic".

Didn't Corbyn require some dupes who didn't even support him to sponsor his leadership bid to even get on the ballot in the first place?

Did you ever watch The Thick of It? Would love to have seen a Jeremy Corbyn version of that.

"Any advice for the campaign Malcolm?"
Yes Jezza, the Tories are so bad that you can do just about anything, just don't come across as if you hate Britain while being anti-semitic and showing support for Hamas and the IRA"
"Alright Malcolm, I think I can handle that"
*Goes on stage at Britain is Evil, Death to Israel event with supporters of Hamas and the IRA*
"Oh **** ****ing**** *** ****ity *********...."

But on balance I would also like to see PR. I think coalitions would probably govern us moderately and well, with less room for the type of ideological mania with have suffered from in recent years.

While I tentatively support it too, I’m not so sure it will reduce ideological mania, in fact that is one of the reasons I only tentatively support it.

PR is great for the extremes, the far right do much better in Europe than the UK.

It’s also great for single issue parties or those built around popular individuals. It’s quite likely we’d have at least two of a Jeremy Corbin List, the Farage Party or Boris’ Boyz doing decent numbers if it happened today.

FPtP’s main advantage is its moderating influence and its ability to keep out the extremes. In the past that has been good, but maybe these days we need a bit more room for new ideas and different ways of thinking, even while accepting this probably means more influence for the fringes, and more personality politics.

Coalitions can also make reform hard as all coalition partners need to be willing to support them, and you need to keep either the Jeremy Corbin List or Farage Party and their consistent 10% of the seats happy. Election, coalition, breakdown, election, coalition....

If we do get PR, I think a lot of the strongest advocates for it will be in for a surprise and not like many of the things it produces.

 

[Augustus]

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

Even better, folk should be exposed to the good and the bad in human history and that requires historical memory.

Making a "clean break with the past" lulls people into a false sense of security that "we are better than that now".

 

[Debater Slayer]

Did you ever watch The Thick of It? Would love to have seen a Jeremy Corbyn version of that.

"Any advice for the campaign Malcolm?"
Yes Jezza, the Tories are so bad that you can do just about anything, just don't come across as if you hate Britain while being anti-semitic and showing support for Hamas and the IRA"
"Alright Malcolm, I think I can handle that"
*Goes on stage at Britain is Evil, Death to Israel event with supporters of Hamas and the IRA*
"Oh **** ****ing**** *** ****ity *********...."

Has Jeremy Corbyn displayed any antisemitism, or has he merely been critical of Israel's policies toward Palestinians and Palestinian territory?

I rarely follow British politics in any meaningful detail, so I would be interested to know more about this. I couldn't find much in the way of antisemitic statements from Corbyn when I googled, although I realize that was an incomprehensive search.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Here you go.

A certain poster won't see it as he has me on ignore because he likes being wrong, but hates learning why. But it's always good to show others when he's wrong, even if he misses out on being able to learn from it

The monarch specifically has to be CoE:

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established

Act of Settlement (1700)

An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Alien826]

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

Sometimes it's easier to let someone else do the hard work of looking into all the ins and outs of something.

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

Thank you.

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.

Did you see this from Article III?

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established

That clearly specifies that the monarch must be Church of England (not just protestant!) which would exclude all the Muslims and Atheists and so on as well as Catholics.

A bit more research shows me that it is the general agreement among those that post about it. Now, what's wrong with that? I know you'll come up with something.

 

[Augustus]

Has Jeremy Corbyn displayed any antisemitism, or has he merely been critical of Israel's policies toward Palestinians and Palestinian territory?

It's more his perceived sympathies with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sometimes it's easier to let someone else do the hard work of looking into all the ins and outs of something.

Thank you.

Did you see this from Article III?

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established

That clearly specifies that the monarch must be Church of England (not just protestant!) which would exclude all the Muslims and Atheists and so on as well as Catholics.

No, it means that the monarch gets automatic membership in the Church of England on becoming monarch. If they're an atheist, they'd be an atheist and a member of the C of E. If they're a Muslim, they'd be a Muslim and a member of the C of E.

There's no requirement that the monarch hold any particular beliefs, only that they not be Catholic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's more his perceived sympathies with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

I see that he called them "friends." That's quite awful.

I wonder whether he was also aware that they certainly don't view secularists or almost anyone else as a "friend" either.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Even better, folk should be exposed to the good and the bad in human history and that requires historical memory.

Making a "clean break with the past" lulls people into a false sense of security that "we are better than that now".

Well kids are in the UK, given that Horrible Histories is a TV favourite with them I suspect. But even if I would vote to remove the monarchy if this ever came up, I don't have anything particular against them, apart from the few obvious ones, and I suspect that the monarchy is safe for at least a century probably.

 

[Augustus]

No, it means that the monarch gets automatic membership in the Church of England on becoming monarch. If they're an atheist, they'd be an atheist and a member of the C of E. If they're a Muslim, they'd be a Muslim and a member of the C of E.

There's no requirement that the monarch hold any particular beliefs, only that they not be Catholic.

I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.

Accession Declaration Act 1910

An Act to alter the form of the Declaration required to be made by the Sovereign on Accession.

www.legislation.gov.uk

The king has to take multiple oaths swearing to be a faithful Protestant, and must be in communion with the CoE to become monarch, not "they get free membership no matter what their religion or lack thereof."

It's not rocket science...

 

[Alien826]

No, it means that the monarch gets automatic membership in the Church of England on becoming monarch. If they're an atheist, they'd be an atheist and a member of the C of E. If they're a Muslim, they'd be a Muslim and a member of the C of E.

There's no requirement that the monarch hold any particular beliefs, only that they not be Catholic.

Where does it say anything about "automatic membership"? It says "shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England". That at least implies that an action by the would-be monarch, in other words conversion if necessary. And that would also suggest belief if the conversion were genuine. Of course nobody can be a mind reader about these things.

@Augustus has added something you should also think about, the oath/s taken on Accession. It's all quite clear.

I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.

You're wrong, for goodness sake admit it!

 

[Vee]

What are you thoughts on the Coronation? Do you think King Charles III has Real Christian Spiritual and Temporal Powers?
​

I think it's a circus for rich people.
And no, the king doesn't have any particular powers, unless you consider spending tons of money that he didn't work for a power.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Augustus has added something you should also think about, the oath/s taken on Accession. It's all quite clear.

I have him on ignore, so I didn't see it.

(He gets pissy when you reflect his tone back at him... or at least he did when I gave up on him)

I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.

What's the source for that?

You're wrong, for goodness sake admit it!

If your quote comes from some actual law, then sure.

 

[Alien826]

What's the source for that?

Accession Declaration Act 1910

An Act to alter the form of the Declaration required to be made by the Sovereign on Accession.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Edit: I don't know why that came up twice, it does go to the correct page. It's from @Augustus' post.
Edit again: Now it shows as it did in his post. Grrrr

If your quote comes from some actual law, then sure.

I await your retraction.

 

[Elihoenai]

I like these things, in general. I must say that I find the particular British form that it takes a bit efette. By this I mean that it exhibits a marked internal contradiction between the highly effected self-indulgence of the ceremony and the actual feeble impotence of the office being so celebrated. I would like to see the ceremony a bit less decadent and the kingship having a bit more actual force; in this way the issue of efetteness might be resolved.

The Grandiose Religious Coronation Ceremony is to stimulate Awe of the Christian Church in the viewer. The office of the British Monarch is Not Feeble and Impotent. The British Monarch has great Power and Influence in Britain, the Commonwealth and all around the World. Do you think any Senior member of the Royal family could be Prosecuted in any Court of Law in the World for a crime?

No, this is absurd. Thrones were attained by physical force, actual “temporal power”, and by ruthlessness in a less idealistic era. Spiritual powers don’t exist any more than do spirits, which is not at all.

King Charles III did Not attain the Throne by Physical Force. That has happened in the past, although Not in recent history. Have you considered that it could be that you are Ignorant of Spirits because of your Lifestyle? Living a Materialist Lifestyle makes you Ignorant of Spirits.

Lacking data, I have no idea. Even less do I know if he is a believing Christian, which is his personal business, in any case.

The British Monarch Must be a Practising Protestant.

This is a great philosophical question. I say yes. The current monarchy was established by William of Normandy, who rode under the banner of the cross and the authority of the papacy. It is a Christian monarchy. The nature of the relationship between the monarchy and Christendom changed fundamentally through the actions of Henry 8, but the relationship remained. Even so, I think the king need not be a Christian, so long as he acts in his official capacity according to the (Christian) principles of that monarchy. If any particular king wishes to sever the British crown from the cross, then he must take the throne by force…with the presumption of force and under arms, whether opposed or not, thus establishing a new monarchy. If he is unopposed, a new monarchy begins without bloodshed, if opposed it means civil war. I think that the British monarchy has become such a shell, though, that no king would have the stomach for that, or the military resources to prosecute it. Again, the Brit monarchy has become a shell thanks to Cromwell and others. The Saudi king could certainly take such steps, though.

No. The King is just the lord and protector of the English Church. The Church is his subject, not something which he is subject to. That was established by King Henry in the 16th century.

Only a Practising Protestant Christian can Ascend the British Throne.

 

[Elihoenai]

Sure. I meant I was interested to compare with Catholic practice how Anglicans do the consecration, since the question of how that it is interpreted was a great bone of contention at the Reformation. I notice the words are carefully framed to dodge the issue of whether or not transubstantiation may occur.

Psalm 21:1-3

21 The king shall joy in thy strength, O Lord; and in thy salvation how greatly shall he rejoice!

2 Thou hast given him his heart's desire, and hast not withholden the request of his lips. Selah.

3 For thou preventest him with the blessings of goodness: thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head.



What you saw in the Coronation is High Church Service making it Essentially Roman Catholic in Nature. Apparently, there are varied Anglican teachings on the Nature of the Eucharist. It appears the Service Observed the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

​

High church

The term high church refers to beliefs and practices of Christian ecclesiology, liturgy, and theology that emphasize "ritual, priestly authority, [and] sacraments".[1] Although used in connection with various Christian traditions, the term originated in and has been principally associated with the Anglican tradition, where it describes churches using a number of ritual practices associated in the popular mind with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

High church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anglican eucharistic theology

"...Anglican eucharistic theologies universally affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though Evangelical Anglicans believe that this is a pneumatic presence, while those of an Anglo-Catholic churchmanship believe this is a corporeal presence.[1] In the former interpretation, those who receive the form or sign of the body and blood (bread and wine) in faith, receive also the spiritual body and blood of Christ. Those who receive the form or sign without faith, or for those who are wicked, Christ is not present spiritually and they consume only the physical signs of this holy presence, which further adds to their wickedness – in accordance with Article XXIX.[2] In the latter interpretation, there exists the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, although the precise manner of how that presence is made manifest is a mystery of faith.[3] To explain the manner of Christ's presence, some high-church Anglicans, however, teach the philosophical explanation of consubstantiation,[4] associated with the English Lollards and, later, erroneously with Martin Luther, though Luther and the Lutheran churches explicitly rejected the doctrine of consubstantiation and actually promulgated their dogma of the sacramental union.[5] A major leader in the Anglo-Catholic Oxford Movement, Edward Pusey, championed the view of consubstantiation...."

Eucharist in Anglicanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zadok is one of 4 coronation anthems Händel wrote for the coronation of George II in 1727, and has been sung at every coronation since. It is said he was given only 4 weeks notice of the commission, in which case he did amazingly well. Here's The King Shall Rejoice:

I've sung this (Bass) and love especially the 2nd movement (from 02:39 on this video). At yesterday's coronation they used a different setting of this, by William Boyce, a somewhat lesser Baroque composer, who apparently composed it for the next coronation, of George III.

The King Shall Rejoice is taken from Psalm 21:1-3.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Only a Practising Protestant Christian can Ascend the British Throne.

..that is what I always understood.
If Charles had publicly declared that he was no longer a Christian/Protestant, it
would not have been a workable situation for him to have become King.

In my view, it is ridiculous that an atheist would go through all the religious ceremonies
with pretense.

However, being a Protestant Christian, does NOT mean that Charles would necessarily rule out Islam as being "false" ,
or whatever..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Accession Declaration Act 1910

An Act to alter the form of the Declaration required to be made by the Sovereign on Accession.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Edit: I don't know why that came up twice, it does go to the correct page. It's from @Augustus' post.
Edit again: Now it shows as it did in his post. Grrrr

I await your retraction.

Sounds like you're right. I stand corrected.

 

[Kathryn]

Do you believe that Henry VIII was a Real Christian?


8. Reformation and Division, 1530-1558

It's not my place to judge that. That's between him and God, I guess, not him and me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, being a Protestant Christian, does NOT mean that Charles would necessarily rule out Islam as being "false" ,
or whatever..

The "five solas" of the Protestant reformation are incompatible with Islam. Accepting them as true carries with it the implication that Islam is false in many of its key points.

The Five Solas and Islam - Biblical Missiology

So what does sola Scriptura (by Scripture = the Bible alone) and four other statements of the Reformation have to do with Islam? In this piece, I will assume the truthfulness of each of the Solas, and see what effect this has on our view of Islam. What are the 5 Solas? A strict Latin […]

biblicalmissiology.org