Death of Queen Elizabeth II - Lying-in-State, Edinburgh and London

[Somebody]

So Queen Elizabeth could have had the Viaticum administered before dying?

I am not so sure she would consider herself High-Anglican (which is somewhat related to but not the same as Anglo-Catholic); also known as 'high church'. She isn't 'low church' either, so my best bet is that she could be considered 'Central'.

 

[crm2317]

Oh gosh, how very moving. I guess she had 4 grandsons and 4 granddaughters so the numbers work out well for it.

 

[Sunnystar]

All eight of Her Majesty’s grandchildren will take part in the vigil guarding the coffin it is now being reported.

William, Harry, Zara, Peter, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James will stand in silence for fifteen minutes on Saturday night.

Harry will be allowed to be in uniform.

That's great news! Do you have a link to the source?

 

[Somebody]

I'm not sure how the Queen could have been an Anglican and a Presbyterian at the same time as the two churches are very different from each other. You can't just change your religious thinking the minute you cross the border into another country.

They aren't that different... Of course, the Presbyterians don't have bishops etc but both are protestant denominations within Christianity. I've personally been a member (or a weekly attendee) of various denominations depending on the country I lived in and the local church communities available and while I might not agree with each and every thing in each of these churches, most churches have quite some flexibility as long as you share the core beliefs. So, I'm pretty sure that the queen's beliefs fitted both within the (very broad spectrum of the beliefs and traditions in the) Church of England as well as in the Church of Scotland.

The new King promised to uphold the Church of Scotland (not sure about the exact wording) while he is the new Supreme Governor of the Church of England. He expressed that his faith is firmly rooted in the CoE but I am quite sure he won't agree on each and everything with the archbishop for example.

 

[Kataryn]

The Scottish Parliament can vote what it likes. All of the realms - and Scotland isn't a realm, but part of a realm - have a law that says a Roman Catholic can't be the monarch. That law was past in the UK, Australia (and all six Aussie states), Canada, NZ and all the other realms as recently as 2015 when it was gazetted into law.

But wasn't it originally that a Catholic monarch would be dependant on Rome's decision and that the British parliaments didn't want that? The divide of power between church and monarch really gained traction when the monarchs in Europe gave large estates to the bishops, so there would be no inheritance problems when the bishop died. But then Rome saw its chance for political power. And some monarchs like the emperor used their power over the Pope to influence the politics in other countries. Like denying Henry VIII. the divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the emperor's aunt...



But is that a problem nowadays? I don't think so. So IMHO it is one of the old "traditions" that should be removed. In the multi-culti-countries of the Uk, it shouldn't matter if the monarch is Catholic or Greek-Orthodox or Protestant, as long as Religion is no topic in politics where the monarch has influence.

 

[Sun Lion]

That's great news! Do you have a link to the source?

Here is an article Sunnystar, though I think it is spreading across most outlets now -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ncluding-William-Harry-Westminster-vigil.html

Former Prime Minister Theresa May was on the livestream paying her respects last night amongst the crowd.

I’ve seen someone say some well-known figures have also been standing guard.

(Well known in Britain, not to me, I don’t remember who. They have done it without fanfare. More on that may come out in time.)

 

[Hallo girl]

Well if the person holding the sign was being peaceful the police had no business getting involved.

IMO the person was removed not because of the sign as such but that the holding of the sign at that particular place at that particular time could have caused a breach of the peace due to the reaction of the crowd. Same with the person who was arrested in Edinburgh, by shouting what he did at that particular time caused anger in the crowd and therefore was causing a breach of the peace. They might have all agreed with what he said but it was disrupting what was a solemn occasion and people objected.

IMO we need to look at the bigger picture and of course cause and effect.

 

[tommy100]

Well all MPs are allowed to enter as they please as Westminster Hall is part of the parliamentary estate. That has been criticised by some who point out everyone else has to wait hours in line. But that said, some of them, as with Theresa May, are clearly there for the right reasons and recognise the solemnity of the occasion

 

[Iain]

I'm not familiar with Protestant rituals but do Protestants even receive last rites?

Presbyterians don't recieve the last rites.

 

[Hallo girl]

Well all MPs are allowed to enter as they please as Westminster Hall is part of the parliamentary estate. That has been criticised by some who point out everyone else has to wait hours in line. But that said, some of them, as with Theresa May, are clearly there for the right reasons and recognise the solemnity of the occasion

And to be fair they are not stopping anyone else from coming in as they are following a second line, not jumping in ahead of people.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

But wasn't it originally that a Catholic monarch would be dependant on Rome's decision and that the British parliaments didn't want that? The divide of power between church and monarch really gained traction when the monarchs in Europe gave large estates to the bishops, so there would be no inheritance problems when the bishop died. But then Rome saw its chance for political power. And some monarchs like the emperor used their power over the Pope to influence the politics in other countries. Like denying Henry VIII. the divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the emperor's aunt...



But is that a problem nowadays? I don't think so. So IMHO it is one of the old "traditions" that should be removed. In the multi-culti-countries of the Uk, it shouldn't matter if the monarch is Catholic or Greek-Orthodox or Protestant, as long as Religion is no topic in politics where the monarch has influence.

It should be removed because of what exactly?

 

[Iain]

I am not so sure she would consider herself High-Anglican (which is somewhat related to but not the same as Anglo-Catholic); also known as 'high church'. She isn't 'low church' either, so my best bet is that she could be considered 'Central'.

The late Queen is said to have preferred Presbyterian worship, as did Queen Victoria. The places the Queen worshipped in England, Windsor and Sandringham, are both Low Church Anglican.

 

[FigTree]

The late Queen is said to have preferred Presbyterian worship, as did Queen Victoria. The places the Queen worshipped in England, Windsor and Sandringham, are both Low Church Anglican.

There ain’t so much of the High Anglican stuff about anyway. Probably says a lot about her if she preferred Presbyterian worship. No fuss, bared back.

 

[FigTree]

But wasn't it originally that a Catholic monarch would be dependant on Rome's decision and that the British parliaments didn't want that? The divide of power between church and monarch really gained traction when the monarchs in Europe gave large estates to the bishops, so there would be no inheritance problems when the bishop died. But then Rome saw its chance for political power. And some monarchs like the emperor used their power over the Pope to influence the politics in other countries. Like denying Henry VIII. the divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the emperor's aunt...



But is that a problem nowadays? I don't think so. So IMHO it is one of the old "traditions" that should be removed. In the multi-culti-countries of the Uk, it shouldn't matter if the monarch is Catholic or Greek-Orthodox or Protestant, as long as Religion is no topic in politics where the monarch has influence.

No as far back as Charles II…who was a personal catholic…recognised that the Monarchs religion and the state were two different things and indeed the moves were to ensure that no monarchs religion could changed the religion of the state. But they still have the archaic rules about catholics. Even marrying a catholic. To be fair for all the innate savvy wisdom of Charles II his brother then came along and ruined it all. Which goes to show really a monarch is a personality cult and it’s only as good as the Person wearing the crown at any one time.

 

[Iain]

I'm pretty sure it's a protestant majority. The Census of 2011 showed 16% Catholic and 32% Church of Scotland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Scotland

Religious belief is on the decline as shown by the 2019 statistics produced by the Scottish Government ie over half of adults (56%) reported that they didn't belong to any religion.

The membership of the Catholic Church is just under 900,000 although this is reckoned to be underestimated. The membership of the Church of Scotland is just under 300,000.

In the census the majority of people left the religion question blank.

 

[Prinsara]

All eight of Her Majesty’s grandchildren will take part in the vigil guarding the coffin it is now being reported.

William, Harry, Zara, Peter, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James will stand in silence for fifteen minutes on Saturday night.

Harry will be allowed to be in uniform.

That's confusing. Why is he allowed now and not walking to Westminster?

 

[FigTree]

That's confusing. Why is he allowed now and not walking to Westminster?

Because Andrew is. If you let one. You let the other. It’s only right.

 

[Hallo girl]

Because Andrew is. If you let one. You let the other. It’s only right.

Does anybody really care what they wear other than themselves. It has become distraction

 

[Prinsara]

....and why is Andrew suddenly allowed after the past several days of not being?

 

[FigTree]

Does anybody really care what they wear other than themselves. It has become distraction

Don’t know. It all started at Philips funeral with a to do about it and then the Queen said…none of you.

Media have still harped on it. How much they themselves care…I don’t know.

But legally they have no right to wear their own uniforms as they are retired and they are no longer ceremonial heads of units so they don’t wear uniforms. Wearing them at the vigil is a kindness to both really. Although when it happened for the QM the then Lord a Linley was the only one not in uniform. No one cared.

 

[FigTree]

....and why is Andrew suddenly allowed after the past several days of not being?

Just this one. Who knows. Who really cares. I couldn’t care less what either of them wear or what any of the wear to be honest.

 

[Erin9]

All eight of Her Majesty’s grandchildren will take part in the vigil guarding the coffin it is now being reported.

William, Harry, Zara, Peter, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James will stand in silence for fifteen minutes on Saturday night.

Harry will be allowed to be in uniform.

Glad to hear it. I’m particularly glad the girls get to participate. I’m sure this is very meaningful to them.

 

[Katymcwaity]

Don’t know. It all started at Philips funeral with a to do about it and then the Queen said…none of you.

Media have still harped on it. How much they themselves care…I don’t know.

But legally they have no right to wear their own uniforms as they are retired and they are no longer ceremonial heads of units so they don’t wear uniforms. Wearing them at the vigil is a kindness to both really. Although when it happened for the QM the then Lord a Linley was the only one not in uniform. No one cared.

Exactly, well said. So much feverish speculation this week re the 3 controversial figures.

 

[Sister Morphine]

While I understand allowing Andrew to wear military dress means also extending that courtesy to Harry, in my mind, there's a world of difference between the two. Harry chose to step down from being a working royal, he wasn't forced to step down because of appalling and frankly revolting circumstances.

Harry should be allowed the courtesy, not Andrew. Yes, I know that means it won't be equitable, but sometimes equitable isn't right.

 

[Heavs]

But wasn't it originally that a Catholic monarch would be dependant on Rome's decision and that the British parliaments didn't want that? The divide of power between church and monarch really gained traction when the monarchs in Europe gave large estates to the bishops, so there would be no inheritance problems when the bishop died. But then Rome saw its chance for political power. And some monarchs like the emperor used their power over the Pope to influence the politics in other countries. Like denying Henry VIII. the divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the emperor's aunt...



But is that a problem nowadays? I don't think so. So IMHO it is one of the old "traditions" that should be removed. In the multi-culti-countries of the Uk, it shouldn't matter if the monarch is Catholic or Greek-Orthodox or Protestant, as long as Religion is no topic in politics where the monarch has influence.

It's still a legal issue where an UK Monarch is expected to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That's the key issue. A Roman Catholic for example cannot be head of a different denomination, even though the COE itself is a very broad church and mainstream to highish Anglican liturgy is almost the same as RC liturgy the theology and mindset are different in my experience and that's before you get into discussion of sacraments.

I don't think a preference for high or low church is good or bad, neither is a mix and match approach to whichever church is on hand but, legally speaking it's not just about "tradition". And HM did have some influence over the COE - there are stories of her telling choirs who didn't have royal permission to use red cassocks to dye them or get new ones.

Of course, if/when the COE is disestablished and the monarch is no longer SG is when they will be "allowed" to be of a different denomination officially (in England) but when that happens the monarchy will go through a huge amount of other changes because as we've seen there's a lot of CofE deeply embedded in the current processes.

 

[Heavs]

While I understand allowing Andrew to wear military dress means also extending that courtesy to Harry, in my mind, there's a world of difference between the two. Harry chose to step down from being a working royal, he wasn't forced to step down because of appalling and frankly revolting circumstances.

Harry should be allowed the courtesy, not Andrew. Yes, I know that means it won't be equitable, but sometimes equitable isn't right.

Well technically it is Andrew who has the "right" since he retired and Harry who does not because he resigned. That's where the issue comes in. Harry's offenses aren't as appalling as Andrew's alleged crimes but it's not about that. Neither will be wearing their former ceremonial ranks.

Frankly both should be ashamed for this repeatedly coming up both at Philip's and HM's funerals and I don't think anyone cares as much as they do.

I'm just glad that the granddaughters are going to be able to stand vigil, to me that's the important part.

 

[Prinsara]

Andrew seemed relatively respectable and calm doing it in a suit in Scotland, so I can't figure out why the change was deemed necessary.

I'm glad the granddaughters are doing it, too, but I worry it might get too emotional for Bea and Eugenie and maybe Louise. And maybe even moreso James.

 

[HRHHermione]

Well technically it is Andrew who has the "right" since he retired and Harry who does not because he resigned. That's where the issue comes in. Harry's offenses aren't as appalling as Andrew's alleged crimes but it's not about that. Neither will be wearing their former ceremonial ranks.



Frankly both should be ashamed for this repeatedly coming up both at Philip's and HM's funerals and I don't think anyone cares as much as they do.



I'm just glad that the granddaughters are going to be able to stand vigil, to me that's the important part.

It really is very frustrating that it came up so repeatedly. It’s only an issue because they’ve made it one. There are times to recognize when something isn’t about you and this is one of those times.

 

[TLLK]

The Prince and Princess of Wales will be visiting with the troops from the Commonwealth nations who will be participating in the ceremonies for the Queen's funeral on Monday.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1570556877725134848

On Friday, Prince William & Princess Kate will visit Army Training Center Pirbright to meet with troops from the Commonwealth who will take part in Queen's funeral.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But wasn't it originally that a Catholic monarch would be dependant on Rome's decision and that the British parliaments didn't want that? The divide of power between church and monarch really gained traction when the monarchs in Europe gave large estates to the bishops, so there would be no inheritance problems when the bishop died. But then Rome saw its chance for political power. And some monarchs like the emperor used their power over the Pope to influence the politics in other countries. Like denying Henry VIII. the divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the emperor's aunt...



But is that a problem nowadays? I don't think so. So IMHO it is one of the old "traditions" that should be removed. In the multi-culti-countries of the Uk, it shouldn't matter if the monarch is Catholic or Greek-Orthodox or Protestant, as long as Religion is no topic in politics where the monarch has influence.

The reason why the monarch MUST be Anglican or at least 'in communion with the CoE' is because they aren't just a secular Head of State but the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. To have a Roman Catholic in that position makes as much sense as having a CoE as Pope.

The title DEFENDER of the FAITH is one that even last week Charles promised to observe and one that HM took very seriously.