The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't know what you are talking about (not for the first time). It is utterly different. The monarch is not the religious head of the church. He or she is the Supreme Governor. The name was carefully chosen to show that the monarch is not responsible for religious matters of doctrine, tradition, ceremony etc. The job is to "conserve and maintain" the Church of England.

Well, in Denmark it is similar. The Queen is in a sense the head of the Danish state church, but not the leader.

 

[Estro Felino]

You don't know what you are talking about (not for the first time). It is utterly different. The monarch is not the religious head of the church. He or she is the Supreme Governor. The name was carefully chosen to show that the monarch is not responsible for religious matters of doctrine, tradition, ceremony etc. The job is to "conserve and maintain" the Church of England.

With all the utmost respect, that's exactly what I have said.
That's exactly what I meant by temporal leader of the Church of England.
There is difference between temporal and religious leader.

 

[exchemist]

Well, in Denmark it is similar. The Queen is in a sense the head of the Danish state church, but not the leader.

That's interesting. I didn't even know there was a Danish state church. But I suppose that, back at the Reformation, it was important for a church to have a powerful secular backer in order to survive the turmoil.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's interesting. I didn't even know there was a Danish state church. But I suppose that, back at the Reformation, it was important for a church to have a powerful secular backer in order to survive the turmoil.

We are a constitutional theocratic democratic representational monarchy. Yeah, but we are also over 2000 years old as a country so we have a long tradition just like England and the rest of your monarchy and all the rest.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah, but we are also over 2000 years old as a country so we have a long tradition just like England and the rest of your monarchy and all the rest.

Is it correct that you don't do coronations any more?

 

[exchemist]

We are a constitutional theocratic democratic representational monarchy. Yeah, but we are also over 2000 years old as a country so we have a long tradition just like England and the rest of your monarchy and all the rest.

Yes and you had a jolly good pop at taking over England too, if memory serves. Knut, Halfacnut, Partlicnut, Hardlicnut etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes and you had a jolly good pop at taking over England too, if memory serves. Knut, Halfacnut, Partlicnut, Hardlicnut etc.

Yeah, imagine the North Sea Empire, the Kalmar Union and then add the later British Empire. Europa would have been different.

 

[Elihoenai]

Yes, I do believe he is a Christian representative of a Nation.
And he is the temporal leader of a Christian Church.
He represents the unity of the Church of England.
The spiritual power is owned by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It's very similar to the RCC, but the difference is that the Pope owns both the temporal and the spiritual power of the Church of Rome.

Matthew 28:18

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.


The Anointing represents the Spiritual Power of the Monarch. As the Pope, the British Monarch is stated to have both Spiritual Power and Temporal Power Status.


The Coronation Liturgy

"... Throughout the known history of Coronations in England, the anointing has been a constant feature. Anointing emphasises the spiritual role of the Sovereign.

The Anointing is the most sacred part of the service, using the Ampulla and Spoon, the latter dating back to either Richard I or Henry II. The Ampulla was supplied for the Coronation of King Charles II in 1661 and is based on an earlier, smaller vessel, which in turn was based on a fourteenth-century legend in which the Virgin Mary appeared to Archbishop Thomas Becket and presented him with a golden eagle and a vial of oil for anointing future Kings of England.

As was the case in 1953, this ceremony will not be visible to those watching on television (or online, nor indeed for those people in the Abbey) due to the presence of a newly-commissioned screen that will be held around the Coronation Chair. It is The King’s only moment of privacy during the Service, as he contemplates how he is called by God. Canopies such as these can be traced back to the Old Testament. In the Middle Ages it was custom for Sovereigns to travel beneath such a canopy. In this context, it is to signify the presence of God over this covenant of anointing. In this Coronation it also symbolizes the embrace, enveloping power, and presence of God during this moment...."

The Coronation Liturgy: ‘Called to Serve’ | The Church of England

The coronation liturgy for HM King Charles III with commentary, commissioned and authorised by The Most Reverend & Right Honourable Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury.

www.churchofengland.org

 

[Elihoenai]

Tell that to the royal worshipers.

1 Samuel 8:5-7

5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.


Do you agree that Royal Worshippers are Idolaters? Worshipping Idols is an integral part of the Temporal/Earthly Kingdom.

Worship Must be Reserved only for Elohim/God.

 

[Elihoenai]

No, he's a mere mortal in his senior years - other than wealth, he's just another pensioner. I don't know about his personal practices or whether he considers himself "more spiritual than religious" these days. He seems to have an interest in all religions and reportedly wanted to change the oath to say "Defender of faith" (instead of "Defender of The Faith"), but whoever decides such things said no.

After the Coronation the Monarch is elevated from being a Mere Mortal to Elohim's/God's Spiritual and Temporal Representative.


The Coronation Liturgy

"...As was the case in 1953, this ceremony will not be visible to those watching on television (or online, nor indeed for those people in the Abbey) due to the presence of a newly-commissioned screen that will be held around the Coronation Chair. It is The King’s only moment of privacy during the Service, as he contemplates how he is called by God. Canopies such as these can be traced back to the Old Testament. In the Middle Ages it was custom for Sovereigns to travel beneath such a canopy. In this context, it is to signify the presence of God over this covenant of anointing. In this Coronation it also symbolizes the embrace, enveloping power, and presence of God during this moment...."

The Coronation Liturgy: ‘Called to Serve’ | The Church of England

The coronation liturgy for HM King Charles III with commentary, commissioned and authorised by The Most Reverend & Right Honourable Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury.

www.churchofengland.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it correct that you don't do coronations any more?

I don't know. I mean I think we do, but in practice the following is going to happen.
The old one dies, the premiere minister takes to the new one onto the royal balcony of the royal palace and proclaims to the people.
The Queen is dead. Long live the King.

Nothing about new and old, because the monarchy is eternal as an institution. Hope it makes sense.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't know. I mean I think we do, but in practice the following is going to happen.
The old one dies, the premiere minister takes to the new one onto the royal balcony of the royal palace and proclaims to the people.
The Queen is dead. Long live the King.

So not a coronation (religious) ceremony, then? I was just trying to check what the article I linked to previously (#12) claimed when it said "Denmark, Sweden and Norway had all deemed the archaic practice [coronation] unnecessary by 1906". Here Charles is already king, it happened automatically on his mother's death and was formally confirmed by the accession council a few days afterwards. But we're still going to have this extravagant, religious ceremony.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So not a coronation (religious) ceremony, then? I was just trying to check what the article I linked to previously (#12) claimed when it said "Denmark, Sweden and Norway had all deemed the archaic practice [coronation] unnecessary by 1906". Here Charles is already king, it happened automatically on his mother's death and was formally confirmed by the accession council a few days afterwards. But we're still going to have this extravagant, religious ceremony.

Well, I learned something new. Remember we are weird. We are secular, yet religious because we have a state church.

 

[Revoltingest]

So not a coronation (religious) ceremony, then? I was just trying to check what the article I linked to previously (#12) claimed when it said "Denmark, Sweden and Norway had all deemed the archaic practice [coronation] unnecessary by 1906". Here Charles is already king, it happened automatically on his mother's death and was formally confirmed by the accession council a few days afterwards. But we're still going to have this extravagant, religious ceremony.

Do the still shower the new king in the blood
of a sacrificed heathen? Or was it a virgin?

 

[exchemist]

1 Samuel 8:5-7

5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.


Do you agree that Royal Worshippers are Idolaters? Worshipping Idols is an integral part of the Temporal/Earthly Kingdom.

Worship Must be Reserved only for Elohim/God.

Don't be silly. There are no "royal worshippers".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do the still shower the new king in the blood
of a sacrificed heathen? Or was it a virgin?

No, we find a libertarian and you are on the short list. Even when a joke is a joke is relative, oh great one. Or was that me? I can't figure out what the objective reasonable is? Can you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't be silly. There are no "royal worshippers".

You might find a few ones. Remember Kings are from God in some versions.

 

[ratiocinator]

Do the still shower the new king in the blood
of a sacrificed heathen? Or was it a virgin?

Just oil... I think .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the monarchy will remain so long as the amount of tourism revenue they generate exceeds their expense to tax payers. If and when net profits dwindle, that will be the beginning of its end.

You don't need to actually have a royal family to have royal tourism.

Versailles gets an order of magnitude more tourists than Buckingham Palace.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Charles I think is a decent bloke, his poor marriage notwithstanding, - and has actually been about 30 years ahead of his time when it comes to his crusades for protecting the environment and respecting nature. So I'm willing to let him be king and see what he can make of it.

IMO, the mere fact he would accept the position of king tells us that he is most certainly not "a decent bloke."

I don't agree with Louis Antoine de Saint-Just on all (or most) things, but I do think he had a point when he said "no one can reign innocently."

I certainly hope that this is the last coronation we see for a monarch of Canada. You folks can do what you want, but the idea of an unelected, absentee head of state whose position is tied to the leadership of one particular Protestant denomination is an affront to the shared values of Canada and good governance generally.