The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

[exchemist]

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.

Well, I can certainly see the point about an absentee head of state that is not even of your nationality. But I'm speaking as a UK citizen.

 

[exchemist]

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.

It's a far better palace, of course.

 

[ChristineM]

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

Not all of them

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

1 Kings 1:34-45

Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon king.
And all the people rejoiced and said:
God save the King! Long live the King! God save the King!
May the King live for ever. Amen. Hallelujah.


On 6 May 2023 Christian King Charles III will be Crowned in a Coronation Ceremony symbolising Christian Spiritual and Temporal Powers.

The last Coronation we had in England was almost 70 years ago with the Crowning of Christian Queen Elizabeth II.

Zadok the Priest

What are you thoughts on the Coronation? Do you think King Charles III has Real Christian Spiritual and Temporal Powers? Do you believe that King Charles III is a practising Christian? Is the British Crown Christian and not necessarily the Monarch that sits on the Throne? Given that British King is head of the Church of England, does this mean that the King must be a Christian?
​

I think that the trouble with this is that our Monarch’s current role is as symbol and ambassador to “its kingdom” (we pay it to do this) and that “its kingdom” today consists of democratic nations, with religious freedom.

It is difficult to justify why we cannot opt out from paying towards the Monarchy if it is only to represent members of the Anglo-Christian faith and I wonder how many taxpayers would continue to contribute to it if they where given the option not to.

That said, the Monarch is good at its current job (as symbol and ambassador) and it is far from credible that our elected politicians would be better at it than the King.

I say that politicians should stick to politics, bishops to the Church and the Monarch to its symbolic role as ambassador to “its kingdom”, with all its rich and beautiful diversity.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Revoltingest]

Not all of them

Shush, you!
I'm trying to provoke here.

 

[ChristineM]

Shush, you!
I'm trying to provoke here.

Success, You provoked..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a far better palace, of course.

It also doesn't have Buckingham's issue of having big chunks of the palace being off-limits to tourists because they're currently housing royal family living space or royal staff offices.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a role you cannot choose.
I mean, if the monarch intends to convert to another religion, other than Christianity, he/she should abdicate.
So his/her religion is Christianity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I can certainly see the point about an absentee head of state that is not even of your nationality. But I'm speaking as a UK citizen.

The absentee part is just one element that makes the monarchy offensive.

What values do you want your country to express? The monarchy is a symbolic expression of one set of values; are they values that you share?

Do you want to live in a country where wealth and social station are determined by heredity instead of merit? Where the national identity is tied to one particular Christian denomination? Where the people have no say in who governs them?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a role you cannot choose.
I mean, if the monarch intends to convert to another religion, other than Christianity, he/she should abdicate.
So his/her religion is Christianity.

Traditionally, the British monarch is seen as chosen by God.

If the nation is supposedly Christian, it seems strange to second-guess God's choice of monarch.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I say that politicians should stick to politics, bishops to the Church and the Monarch to its symbolic role as ambassador to “its kingdom”, with all its rich and beautiful diversity.

But the monarchy is inherently political (as is the Church). You can't have clean divisions between things that inherently overlap.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

But the monarchy is inherently political (as is the Church). You can't have clean divisions between things that inherently overlap.

Officially, our Monarchy is no longer political; its political powers were removed in the late 1600s and early 1700s. Today, its political involvement is symbolic. Officially, this separation in roles already is.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Officially, our Monarchy is no longer political; its political powers were removed in the late 1600s and early 1700s. Today, its political involvement is symbolic. Officially, this separation in roles already is.

Humbly,
Hermit

I'm not even talking about the monarch's legal power over legislation and governments (though you're fooling yourself if you think this is gone entirely; there are plenty of examples in other Commonwealth realms of where the monarch's remaining legal power has had real effects very recently).

I was mainly thinking about the symbolism of the monarchy. It represents traditionalism and conservatism, which are definitely a political position. The existence of the mo archy also certainly expresses a position on the political question of republicanism vs. monarchism.

 

[exchemist]

The absentee part is just one element that makes the monarchy offensive.

What values do you want your country to express? The monarchy is a symbolic expression of one set of values; are they values that you share?

Do you want to live in a country where wealth and social station are determined by heredity instead of merit? Where the national identity is tied to one particular Christian denomination? Where the people have no say in who governs them?

Come off it. You know how the British constitution works.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

It didn’t end well for Harald Hadrada. But then it didn’t end well for Harold Godwinson either. Centuries of resisting the Vikings, only to get conquered by Norsemen from Normandy

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Come off it. You know how the British constitution works.

What's that supposed to mean?

Edit: I get the sense that you missed my point.

 

[exchemist]

It didn’t end well for Harald Hadrada. But then it didn’t end well for Harold Godwinson either. Centuries of resisting the Vikings, only to get conquered by Norsemen from Normandy

And then by the Dutch in 1689.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I was mainly thinking about the symbolism of the monarchy. It represents traditionalism and conservatism, which are definitely a political position. The existence of the mo archy also certainly expresses a position on the political question of republicanism vs. monarchism.

I think it useful to separate our Monarch’s current, official role and purpose from what monarchies in general symbolise to people:

a) Our Monarch’s current, official role = domestically and internationally, ceremonially represent and promote the nation.

b) What having a monarchy in general represents to people = traditionalism, conservatism, colonialism, etc.

With that distinction in mind, what I say is that it is not obvious to me that the current, official role that our Monarch holds would be carried out any better by an elected politician. On the contrary! Judging by the sort of politicians we have to choose from; I’d much rather have the royals as ambassadors and ceremonial representatives of our nation than I would a politician in form of a president.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it useful to separate our Monarch’s current, official role and purpose from what monarchies in general symbolise to people:

a) Our Monarch’s current, official role = domestically and internationally, ceremonially represent and promote the nation.

b) What having a monarchy in general represents to people = traditionalism, conservatism, colonialism, etc.

With that distinction in mind, what I say is that it is not obvious to me that the current, official role that our Monarch holds would be carried out any better by an elected politician. On the contrary! Judging by the sort of politicians we have to choose from; I’d much rather have the royals as ambassadors and ceremonial representatives of our nation than I would a politician in form of a president.

Humbly,
Hermit

I think it's a bit disingenuous to ignore the baggage and history of monarchy, but if we want to only look at the official role of the monarch, then we need to recognize that the monarch's official role is head of state of fifteen different countries without - officially, at least - no preference or favouritism between them.

In practice, there's a ridiculous conflict of interest here. As a Canadian, I can recall several stories of the Queen promoting British industries to the detriment of those industries in Canada and other Commonwealth Realms.

Personally, I think the job of promoting a nation would be much better suited to someone whose loyalties are to that one nation above all others.

 

[Augustus]

Come off it. You know how the British constitution works.

Some people like to play this silly game where they pretend Charles could just start ruling like Henry VIII if he wanted to, so the people don't really have any power and are dependent on the benevolence of the Royal family for their rights.