The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

[exchemist]

Queen Victoria's son Edward VII was king with German background. So too was Queen Victoria, the monarch called the 'grandmother of Europe' - so long as these monarchs ruled there would be fewer wars in Europe. Kaiser was the grandson of Victoria,

That was the third and last Kaiser, Wilhelm II.

Under the 3 Kaisers, Prussia, and then what was effectively Germany during the process of its coalescence, fought a number of wars: the Austro-Prussian war, the Franco-Prussian war and finally WW1. So I'm not clear how you can argue these monarchs were a force for peace.

The wars were not of course started by them, but by politicians. One can more plausibly argue that the nature of the head of state made absolutely no difference.

 

[ChristineM]

Nontheless, I doubt Europe would have suffered the calamities it did had it not abolished monarchies.
And catagorically, had USA remained in the Commonwealth there would not be the massive slave trade to the southern states, the Civil War or World War 1 and 2.

Clairvoyance is a wonderful thing, pitty it's only guesswork.

I am pretty sure the slave trade would have continued considering it was mostly organised by brits under royal rule.

As to the American civil war I don't know, perhaps another war far more deadly would have occurred... Who knows, certainly not you.

As i understand it most wars in Europe have occurred due to one monarch attempting to take the property of another.

 

[Elihoenai]

Waste of time and money, even more so when the country is in so much difficulty.




He can give archbishop a jolly good ticking off if it suits him



Not really, but he puts on a show to keep his surfs happy



Id like to see a non christian head of state. I don't think the constitution allows it.



Again i think the constitution insists the head is at least Anglican in upbringing

If a person is a Serf this has been Ordained by Elohim/God in subjection to the Monarch.

That's correct, The British Constitution is a Christian Constitution. To be the Supreme Head of the Church of England you Must be a Christian.

 

[Elihoenai]

Catholics are forbidden from becoming the monarch. AFAIK, other religions and atheists aren't.

The first part about Roman Catholics is True. The second part about other Religions and Atheists is False. You Must be a Church of England Christian to be Monarch.


Succession

"...Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.

The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession...."

Succession

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the...

www.royal.uk

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a person is a Serf this has been Ordained by Elohim/God in subjection to the Monarch.

That's correct, The British Constitution is a Christian Constitution. To be the Supreme Head of the Church of England you Must be a Christian.

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.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't know or care - the royal family is free entertainment for this American! And they are pretty entertaining. As for whether or not Charles is a Christian, that's between him and God. I don't bother myself about him or really anyone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The first part about Roman Catholics is True. The second part about other Religions and Atheists is False. You Must be a Church of England Christian to be Monarch.


Succession

"...Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.

The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession...."

Succession

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the...

www.royal.uk

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.

 

[Kathryn]

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.

 

[ChristineM]

If a person is a Serf this has been Ordained by Elohim/God in subjection to the Monarch.

That's correct, The British Constitution is a Christian Constitution. To be the Supreme Head of the Church of England you Must be a Christian.

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.
.

 

[Elihoenai]

Yes it was interesting that they had an Anglican consecration and communion.

I thought they didn't do a bad job of inclusion of other Christian denominations and other religions, though. I understand Charles arranged for the Chief Rabbi to stay at St. James's Palace so he could walk to the Abbey, it being Saturday.

I thought the choice of music was varied and generally in pretty good taste, apart from that Diana Ross tribute act, which felt out of place to me. A nice touch to have the Greek Orthodox chant, as a remembrance of his father.

I was pleased they chose Purcell's hymn tune "Westminster Abbey" (Christ is made the sure foundation), which is one of my favourites. Purcell was the Abbey organist. I've sung that hymn, in the Abbey, in Latin, when I was a schoolboy: Angularis fundamentum lapis Christus missus est: Angularis Fundamentum. Interesting that the metre of Purcell's tune fits the Latin as well as the English words. Perhaps they sang it in Latin in Purcell's day too, even though the Abbey was Anglican by that time.

The Royal Family are Anglicans and have been continually since 1558, therefore, it Must be an Anglican Service.

History of the Church of England

"...During the 16th-century English Reformation, which began under Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547), papal authority was abolished in England and the king became Supreme Head of the Church of England. Henry dissolved the monasteries and confiscated their assets. The church was briefly reunited with Rome during the reign of Mary I (1553–1558) but separated once again under Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). The Elizabethan Religious Settlement established the Church of England as a conservative Protestant church. During this time, the Book of Common Prayer was authorised as the church's official liturgy and the Thirty-nine Articles as a doctrinal statement. These continue to be important expressions of Anglicanism...."

History of the Church of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some Jews are not allowed to to take public transport no to Synagogue on the Sabbath and that's the reason for the stay at St James's Palace.


Yes, Elohim/God Inspiring music played. The time of the private Anointing Zadok the Priest being played:

Zadok the Priest - King Charles Coronation 2023

 

[Zwing]

​

What are you thoughts on the Coronation?​

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.

Do you think King Charles III has Real Christian Spiritual and Temporal Powers?

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.

Do you believe that King Charles III is a practising Christian?

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.

Is the British Crown Christian and not necessarily the Monarch that sits on the Throne?

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.

Given that British King is head of the Church of England, does this mean that the King must be a Christian?

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.

 

[Altfish]

It's silly, anachronistic, & wasteful.
But hey, it keeps the Brits & its subservient countries (eg, Australia, Canucksitan) happy.

Not all Brits!
I can't stand the Royals, I spent yesterday on trains, anything to stay away from the TV. I was far from the only one.

 

[exchemist]

The Royal Family are Anglicans and have been continually since 1558, therefore, it Must be an Anglican Service.

History of the Church of England

"...During the 16th-century English Reformation, which began under Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547), papal authority was abolished in England and the king became Supreme Head of the Church of England. Henry dissolved the monasteries and confiscated their assets. The church was briefly reunited with Rome during the reign of Mary I (1553–1558) but separated once again under Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). The Elizabethan Religious Settlement established the Church of England as a conservative Protestant church. During this time, the Book of Common Prayer was authorised as the church's official liturgy and the Thirty-nine Articles as a doctrinal statement. These continue to be important expressions of Anglicanism...."

History of the Church of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some Jews are not allowed to to take public transport no to Synagogue on the Sabbath and that's the reason for the stay at St James's Palace.


Yes, Elohim/God Inspiring music played. The time of the private Anointing Zadok the Priest being played:

Zadok the Priest - King Charles Coronation 2023

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.

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.

 

[Zwing]

Im not well enough up on the constitution…

I know this is going to sound very un-American, but constitutions are only worth the power behind them. If that power can be defeated, then a constitution becomes just toilet paper. What I mean is, don’t get so wrapped up in the rule of law, because all laws are nothing but scratches on paper, inevitably dated to become impotent in the fullness of time. All the presumption of legal theory and the immutability of principles is simply based upon idealistic premises, based themselves upon a foundation of a particular moral system. Surely, you will remember what F. Nietzsche has indicated about systems of morality. If we learn anything from history, it is that every status quo is fated to change. If one thinks that the ‘liberally democratic republic’ (or indeed, the ‘constitutional monarchy’) will be the status quo of western society forever, then he is deluding himself. The only thing that we can be assured of in this world is eventual change, and Francis Fukuyama is utterly wrong in his well-known assessments of that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's silly, anachronistic, & wasteful.
But hey, it keeps the Brits & its subservient countries (eg, Australia, Canucksitan) happy.

Well, perhaps it is a bit silly, and maybe it's anachronistic, too. But I'm not 100% certain that it's wasteful. There's no question the trappings and palaces and crowned jewels and ceremonies bring in huge amounts of tourist money, which pays for quite a lot, actually.

But something else -- the Crown is something that the British people (perhaps less so Canadians, Australians and other Commonwealth countries) can gather round together, because it is non-political. What do you Americans have? Do you look to Trump or Biden as your rallying point? No, supporters of one hold the other in total anathema! The Supreme Court? Hardly -- it's as political as the Senate and House nowadays. The Constitution? Nope, one side is busily trying to tear that to pieces. The flag, maybe, but that doesn't seem like much in the end, and the South still likes waving around that other flag.

Sure, there were a few anti-monarchical protesters, but how many compared to the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of supporters lining the Mall in the rain for days for just a glimpse? And in every pub in every Commonwealth nation, people watching and cheering (and spending money). Or for the military, who playing their part in the ceremonies got to see nothing of those ceremonies except each other -- did you hear the cheer in the garden of Buckingham Palace? They were more than enthusiastic.

Today, Rishi Sunak is Prime Minister, but tomorrow it may well be a Liberal or Labour PM -- but both of them report to the same Monarch, who does not interfere but retains the right to advise and to warn. That is powerfully symbolic, a testament that in a Constitutional Monarchy, the government doesn't rule the people, the government REPORTS to the King, who represents the people.

And speaking of wasteful, the typical swearing in of a U.S. President costs about $100 million -- and you do it every 4 years! The last time there was a coronation was 7 decades ago,, when I was just 5 years old.

 

[ChristineM]

I know this is going to sound very un-American, but constitutions are only worth the power behind them. If that power can be defeated, then a constitution becomes just toilet paper. What I mean is, don’t get so wrapped up in the rule of law, because all laws are nothing but scratches on paper, inevitably dated to become impotent in the fullness of time. If we learn anything from history, it is that every status quo is fated to change. If one thinks that liberally democratic republic will be the status quo of western society forwever, then he is deluding himself. The only thing that we can be assured of in this world is eventual change, and Francis Fukuyama is utterly wrong in his well-known assessments.

The British constitution is a little different than most, it doesn't exist as an entity but is scattered in several papers and is not codified. Any of the rules and laws can be changed as required. For example it was unconstitutional for a monarch to marry a Catholic until quite recently.

 

[exchemist]

Well, perhaps it is a bit silly, and maybe it's anachronistic, too. But I'm not 100% certain that it's wasteful. There's no question the trappings and palaces and crowned jewels and ceremonies bring in huge amounts of tourist money, which pays for quite a lot, actually.

But something else -- the Crown is something that the British people (perhaps less so Canadians, Australians and other Commonwealth countries) can gather round together, because it is non-political. What do you Americans have? Do you look to Trump or Biden as your rallying point? No, supporters of one hold the other in total anathema! The Supreme Court? Hardly -- it's as political as the Senate and House nowadays. The Constitution? Nope, one side is busily trying to tear that to pieces. The flag, maybe, but that doesn't seem like much in the end, and the South still likes waving around that other flag.

Sure, there were a few anti-monarchical protesters, but how many compared to the hundreds and hundreds of supporters lining the Mall in the rain for days for just a glimpse? Or for the military, who playing their part in the ceremonies got to see nothing of those ceremonies except each other -- did you hear the cheer in the garden of Buckingham Palace? They were more than enthusiastic.

Today, Rishi Sunak is Prime Minister, but tomorrow it may well be a Liberal or Labour PM -- but both of them report to the same Monarch, who does not interfere but retains the right to advise and to warn. That is powerfully symbolic, a testament that in a Constitutional Monarchy, the government doesn't rule the people, the government REPORTS to the King, who represents the people.

And speaking of wasteful, the typical swearing in of a U.S. President costs about $100 million -- and you do it every 4 years! The last time there was a coronation was 7 decades ago,, when I was just 5 years old.

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the British monarchy. It may be a bit silly but every country needs a head of state and what are the options?

As yesterday's ceremony reminds us, Britain, and before that England, is a very old country with a history going back a thousand years. It is sometimes no bad thing to remind everyone of some of that history, since is it part of national identity. The chair was made for Edward I, the golden spurs were first presented to Richard Coeur de Lion, the crown jewels were made afresh for Charles II, after Cromwell melted down and sold the previous set, there was music commissioned for George II, George III and Edward VII, the state coach was made for George III, etc. And of course every monarch from Wiliam the Conqueror (on Christmas Day 1066) onward has been crowned at Westminster, though the current building dates from the c.13th (Henry III).

It also seems to me that while ritual and tradition are easy to ridicule as having no tangible utility, they add richness and a sense of belonging to the life of the nation. And as you say, it does not happen every day.

 

[Zwing]

something else -- the Crown is something that the British people (perhaps less so Canadians, Australians and other Commonwealth countries) can gather round together, because it is non-political. What do you Americans have? Do you look to Trump or Biden as your rallying point? No, supporters of one hold the other in total anathema!

That is a good point. Even though the monarch has no real power (over the government) in the U.K., he/she does represent a powerful symbol of “Britishness”. I think that the coordinate sign in the U.S. would not be the president, who is viewed, after all, as being a mere functionary in executing the will of the majority of the populace, with no symbolic value. Rather, the coordinate of the British monarch in America would probably be the American flag, which is why it has such an outsized significance in the common consciousness here.

 

[ratiocinator]

But something else -- the Crown is something that the British people (perhaps less so Canadians, Australians and other Commonwealth countries) can gather round together, because it is non-political.

Humm... Take a look at the article I linked in #12, only 9% of us "care a great deal" about the coronation while 64% of us "don’t care very much or care at all". Also:

British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

On eve of king’s coronation, survey shows only three in 10 Britons think monarchy is ‘very important’

www.theguardian.com

Sure, there were a few anti-monarchical protesters, but how many compared to the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of supporters lining the Mall in the rain for days for just a glimpse?

What about the vast numbers of the apathetic who did neither? As for the protesters, I did find it rather amusing that the government clampdown on protests with new laws and the subsequent low tolerance (read: massive overreaction) of the Met, gave them a vast amount of publicity they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Dozens of protesters arrested during Coronation

Republic CEO Graham Smith was among 52 detained in London, as protests were held around the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

Added to by the total numpty who is Deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, telling republicans to emigrate:

Anti-monarchists should leave UK, says Lee Anderson

Deputy chairman of the Conservative Party makes remarks after dozens of protestors were arrested by Met Police for offences

www.telegraph.co.uk

So much for freedom of speech. I think the country is more divided than ever.

#NotMyKing

 

[Augustus]

And speaking of wasteful, the typical swearing in of a U.S. President costs about $100 million -- and you do it every 4 years! The last time there was a coronation was 7 decades ago,, when I was just 5 years old.

Don't forget elections cost a lot of money too, I think the last UK general election cost the state over £100 million, so you must be looking at at least half that to elect some ceremonial figurehead as President (and they can't just run them at the same time as the GE as they don't run to fixed terms).

Not to mention the tedium and waste of an election campaign to choose someone without any meaningful power.

And their salary, residence, functions, ceremonies, etc.

People seem to think elected heads of state are cheap. Even France spends more on the President than Britain does on the Royals.

It may be a bit silly but every country needs a head of state and what are the options?

At least with the Royals then some like them, most don't care much either way, and some hate them. No matter who you elect, most people will hate them.

And the same people who whine the most about the Royals will be the ones who whine the most as soon as they elect someone they dislike, which will be basically every president.

"Oh it's so embarrassing to be British, I wish we were more cultured like the French. Racists, buffoons and corrupt philanderers would never get to be President there..."