Will Charles Ever Reign?

[princess olga]

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".

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[Madame Royale]

...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.

 

[Skydragon]

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'!

 

[Avareenah]

Charles has already said he'll be "defender of all faiths".

Would someone please explain to me how this would be possible?

 

[Skydragon]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Royal Fan]

He should be Defender of the (Christian) Faith, while giving attention to ALL faiths does that make sense.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Kat]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

"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".

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.

 

[sirhon11234]

[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.

 

[Sister Morphine]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

[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.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[Royal Fan]

if he chooses Arthur or Philip as his "Roya"l name will there be a numeral?

 

[Sister Morphine]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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).

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

Had a quick look at Wiki, and I still can't see any difference.

Established Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In English history, the Established Church is the Church of England, the church which is established by the Government, supported by it, and of which the monarch is the titular head.."

"In a more general sense, the Established Church is the church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country.."

State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state."

"State religions are examples of the official or government-sanctioned establishment of religion, as distinct from theocracy."

There could well be some distinction that's significant to some, but I don't think I care enough to spend any more time on the subject, particularly since my attention is wandering to the new Bougainvillea I want to repot before nightfall.

 

[Queen Marie]

"Defender Of The Faith" certainly seems to have lost its meaning over a very short period of time. Less than a century ago, we wouldn't have been having this debate at all. We wouldn't dare!
I agree with comments made earlier that we are a much more self centered generation.
It would appear that 400 years of tradition, countless executions, wars and sacrifice made in it's name were for nothing. This generation forgets all too quickly.

But I'm not gonna start that again. Anything I say will most certainly be deleted!

Aside from this major little problem, Charles will make a great King. He certainly won't abdicate and neither will the Queen. The Queen sees abdication as a dereliction of duty, as she was brought up in the wake of the scandalous abdication of her uncle. I would imagine she has firmly passed this belief on to Charles.

 

[Skydragon]

We wouldn't dare!
I agree with comments made earlier that we are a much more self centered generation.
It would appear that 400 years of tradition, countless executions, wars and sacrifice made in it's name were for nothing. This generation forgets all too quickly.

Executions, wars and sacrifice, no wonder Charles wants to move away from that, what a glowing example, hardly something to be proud of?

There are many instances of todays generation being self centered, more than that, most people are now more aware.

I don't believe that Charles need to be religious in any way, to be a good King, perhaps it is time to remove defender of ??? from the ceremony altogether.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't believe that Charles need to be religious in any way, to be a good King, perhaps it is time to remove defender of ??? from the ceremony altogether.

Would the CofE need to be disestablished before they could do that?

 

[Skydragon]

I wouldn't have thought so, but it would not be the end of the world!

The CoE was disestablished in Wales in 1920, but The Queen is still their rightful monarch.

There is great hope from those who want it disestablished, with the current moves from the government to have elected representatives in the Lords, based on the American system. That would surely remove the Bishops.

 

[Sister Morphine]

< ed comments responding to previous now-deleted post - Warren >.

This is the 21st century, Charles should be a King for ALL people in England, even those who are not Anglican. He should serve, protect and defend ALL people in England, not just those who are Anglican. To say that he is only defending one group of people, only serving one group of people is to deny that other people exist within the realm. I don't see that making much sense, to be perfectly frank.

 

[Avareenah]

He won't be defending one group of people - he will be defending a faith.

Because a monarch professes a faith does not mean he/she cannot be a king/queen for all people.

 

[Skydragon]

He won't be defending one group of people - he will be defending a faith.
Because a monarch professes a faith does not mean he/she cannot be a king/queen for all people.

If he is defending a faith, that means he will be unable to defend those that do not have that particular faith. There are vast differences between many faiths and the coronation ceremony should be changed to include all people, with or without a faith.

 

[Avareenah]

That does not mean that at all -- an example: British Catholics -- do they feel the Queen is not theirs because she is aligned to the Church of England? Of course not.

 

[Skydragon]

That does not mean that at all -- an example: British Catholics -- do they feel the Queen is not theirs because she is aligned to the Church of England? Of course not.

So if Charles were to say he was the defender of the druids, you would be OK with that and feel that he was able to represent you.
As a defender of the faith, HM is unable to represent or speak for many of her subjects. She has been unable to reflect the changes in family unit's across the UK. The faith still denies some, (not all), divorced people the right to remarry in a church, dependent upon the whim of the local vicar.
Times, customs and the world has moved on since this vow was introduced, IMO, it is now time for Charles to have the chance to move on as well.