Ship of Fools: Churchmanship (Churchladyship?) of the Queen

Thread: Churchmanship (Churchladyship?) of the Queen Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024833

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Does anyone know where the Queen (of the UK and Commonwealth Realms) stands in terms of liturgical preferences? Although she is Supreme Governor of the C of E and a member of the Church of Scotland, she may not have much say in the planning of big public worship services she attends in either church. I have no idea how much say she has over what happens in her private worship with her family. Does anyone know anything that might indicate what vestments, prayer books, attitude towards and frequency of the Eucharist, smells and bells or lack thereof, etc., she prefers (if she even spends much time thinking about these things, which she may not)?

Disclaimer: I am a Roman Catholic in the US, so please forgive my relative ignorance of this topic.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

As far as I can figure out, the late Princess Margaret was the family spike. HM is MOTR, and is a fan of a good sermon. My royal visit arranging contacts inform me that she is an aficionada of Morning Prayer.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Yes, even way back in the 50s Morning Prayer was mentioned as her favourite public service. Philip was always up for reading one of the Lessons.

Biographies, authorized or not, mention that this is because she prefers to attend Holy Communion in her own parish church, privately*. Or because that service would be horrendously long in churches when she is in public.

*Private is a relative word: family, household, staff.

I also understand she likes the Church of Scotland, like her great-great-grandmother (who wasn't above introducing Anglican ritual to Craithie Church when it suited her).

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I don't think that Victoria would have introduced Anglican ritual to what was and is a Presbyterian church but she certainly provided much of the wherewithall for the building of a new (Presbyterian)parish church at Crathie and she accepted that the community chose its own minister and that she had no say over who would be the parish minister.
I think it was other members of the Royal family who offered the very unpresbyterian,altar-like STONE Holy table to the church and the parishioners who provided the various unpresbyterian busts of the Royal family which adorn the church.In matters of royalty the Church of Scotland is able to avoid the usual practices of Presbyterianism.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'd have thought Victoria would have been more in favour of introducing Presbyterian ritual (or lack thereof) to the C of E. She is known to have disapproved of 'Romanising tendencies'.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

When the Queen and her family celebrate Morning Prayer in private, are clergy always present? If so, how do they vest? What is the Queen's "parish church?" Is that sometimes just the chapel of whatever royal residence she is in? Does anyone know the liturgical "norm" at any of the churches the Queen considers to be her "parish church?" I am especially interested to know, when she is in England at least, if chasubles are the norm for Holy Communion anywhere she regularly worships, whether the service is 1662, a traditional use of Common Worship, or a more modern service, whether Holy Communion is every Sunday, and whether the host/bread or chalice are picked up at all, if not "elevated," during the words of institution, or merely touched or gestured to. I'm not an Anglican or Presbyterian and am not using this thread to criticize Anglicanism or Presbyterianism in any way - I'm just a Liturgical geek and curious.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Way back in 1980 I remember that talk was how she went to the launching of the ASB and unlike many clergy, she read the new liturgy flawlessly with no slip ups, like saying "quick" instead of living and so one. I have heard it rumoured that she once or twice made the sigh of the cross. I have heard it said that the Prince of Wales has been caught on video making it. His ex-brother-in-law did.

The Duke of Ediburgh frequently reads (or read) a lesson at Morning Prayer when the the royal couple were out and about on a Sunday.

The Queen never takes communion in public, I'm told, so that's why it's always MP when she's out.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Why is it that the Queen does not receive communion in public? Is it a recent trend or a monarchical tradition, and if it is the latter, does it predate the Reformation? I doubt it is for security reasons, since many elected officials receive in public (let's not make this a discussion about that!).

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'd have thought Victoria would have been more in favour of introducing Presbyterian ritual (or lack thereof) to the C of E. She is known to have disapproved of 'Romanising tendencies'.

That is certainly the gist of what Owen Chadwick says in Volume 2 of his "The Victorian Church" and that she generally looked more favourably on how the CofS did its services than the CofE.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Does anyone know where the Queen (of the UK and Commonwealth Realms) stands in terms of liturgical preferences? Although she is Supreme Governor of the C of E and a member of the Church of Scotland, she may not have much say in the planning of big public worship services she attends in either church. I have no idea how much say she has over what happens in her private worship with her family. Does anyone know anything that might indicate what vestments, prayer books, attitude towards and frequency of the Eucharist, smells and bells or lack thereof, etc., she prefers (if she even spends much time thinking about these things, which she may not)?

I'm not sure how useful a question this is.

The Queen was born in 1926. She would have been spiritually formed in a different era from now.

"Old men who never cheated, never doubted,
Communicated monthly, sit and stare
At the new suburb stretched beyond the run-way
Where a young man lands hatless from the air."

She must to this day still feel that if the hatless young man had been less irresponsible, her own father would have lived longer.

We gain the distinct impression she is a person who keeps her own council. In recent years, her Christmas broadcasts have become more explicitly Christian. One suspects that she is a lot more concerned that her subjects should live Christian lives than what vestments her clergy wear or the differences between the CofE and the CofS.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why is it that the Queen does not receive communion in public? Is it a recent trend or a monarchical tradition, and if it is the latter, does it predate the Reformation? I doubt it is for security reasons, since many elected officials receive in public (let's not make this a discussion about that!).

Perhaps it is a combination not wishing to mix her personal spirituality overmuch with a public and official presence, and potentially make it uncomfortable for RC, Muslim, and Jewish subjects who could not communicate with her, but might well be able to join in many of the prayers at Matins or services of Thanksgiving.

Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :

It is terribly difficult to answer your very interesting questions stonespring because as Enoch rightly says “she keeps her own council”

The Queen is a unique individual both personally and in her position in British society. The Queen must play a multiplicity of roles of which her leadership role in the C of E is a major part

What is known for certain is that she is a devout Christian who takes her faith and leadership of faith very seriously.

For a slightly Catholic perspective on how the Queen views her faith and the ways she chooses to display it, is in the impression Pope John Paul II is said to have had – That when he and the Queen met, the Queen spoke not as a head of state, but as the leader of a Church.
This may seem a superfluous point, but I think it is instructive of the way the Queen views her Christian position.

For the style of Church(ladyship) the Queen has – The Oath she took at her Coronation on 2nd June 1953 goes as follows (lifted straight from Wikipedia)

quote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

My own speculation is that this Oath can be seen to go a long way to defining the Queen's view of how she should “do” religion. But remember: Her history shows that this Oath doesn't mean the Queen or the C of E doesn't respect those on the other side of the Tiber.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

I confess that when I said that Her Late Majesty introduced Anglican ritual into Craithie Church, I was thinking of the times that Princess Beatrice's children were baptised and she insisted that godparents be included in the Presbyterian ritual.

I have no questions about the spirituality of the present Queen; indeed this Canadian Catholic subject admires her greatly, and I recognise the care she takes in public not to be seen as excluding.

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

Anecdotes that have been relayed to me suggest the HM prefers a well-sung Choral Matins.

It may be notable that the Dean of the Chapels Royal is +London - a staunch BCP man, so I am told.

However, there may be a few traddy Anglo-Catholics amongst her Royal Chaplains (who I think preach once a year or so.) I'm pretty sure the most recent one is rather young, and trained at Staggers!

x

AV

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
It may be notable that the Dean of the Chapels Royal is +London - a staunch BCP man, so I am told.

Not necessarily notable. I think the Bishop of London is ex officio Dean of the Chapels Royal.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
The Queen never takes communion in public, I'm told, so that's why it's always MP when she's out.

With the notable exception of her Coronation, of course.

I seem to recall that they cut the Eucharistic portion of the ceremony out of the televised version, however.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

When I was a lay reader and in one church sat to the side in the altar area, our priest cautioned us lay readers to not idly eye people as they were receiving the elements, especially since from our vantage point we were in full view of their faces. He considered it a very private moment.

If you are the Queen, everyone is going to be scrutinizing your every move. Perhaps she feels that receiving communion is one of those moments she'd just like to reserve for herself.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

During the Coronation ceremony in 1953 the Queeen did indeed receive Communion (no doubt the pre Reformation ceremony would have been incorporated into a Mass).During the Communion she was covered over by a canopy,like those used at Corpus Christi,so that none of the televiewers could see.

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

Royal worship always strikes me as old-fashioned Low-of-middle in copes. I always get the impression the preference is for simplified 1662, adapted in a 1928 sort of direction.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

With regard to the Queen's Chapel, St.George's in Windsor, the Chasuble is worn at the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
Furthermore,there is every Sunday a Sung Eucharist at 11.45,preceeded by Choral Mattins at 10.45.

Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :

quote:
it's always MP when she's out.

Aren't the grander of the acts of worship she attends more accurately described as posh anthem sandwiches loosely based on Morning Prayer?

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mettabhavana:

quote:
it's always MP when she's out.
Aren't the grander of the acts of worship she attends more accurately described as posh anthem sandwiches loosely based on Morning Prayer?

That pretty much describes it well.

Perhaps we can coin the term "anthymn sandwich."

[ 21. June 2012, 15:20: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
When I was a lay reader and in one church sat to the side in the altar area, our priest cautioned us lay readers to not idly eye people as they were receiving the elements, especially since from our vantage point we were in full view of their faces. He considered it a very private moment.

This is off-topic, but I make a point of looking directly at the distribution and reception of communion, because as long as God is exposed how can I do anything else but look at Him? (Yet another quote of mine that can be easily taken out of context. [Smile]

) It's like getting a bit of the beatific vision on Earth and I don't want to miss out on a second of it.

That said, I am curious if the rest of the congregation receives communion at a coronation, or only the monarch? Also, is the whole BCP Holy Communion service done, or is it like the traditional BCP service of communion for the sick, where basically just the words of institution are said? Or is it something in between?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Order of Service for the 1953 Coronation is here.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

It's interesting that the rubrics unambiguously refer to the Altar, a word that I don't think occurs in the BCP (certainly not to refer to the Lord's Table).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

So it seems at the coronation only the Queen, the Prince Consort, the Archbishop, the Dean of Westminster, and the Bishops Assistant receive communion. Although a coronation is a very special service, does it not seem to go against the spirit of the Reformation to have a service of Holy Communion where all who are initiated into the Church and after hearing the exhortation feel able to come forward and receive are not allowed to do so?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So it seems at the coronation only the Queen, the Prince Consort, the Archbishop, the Dean of Westminster, and the Bishops Assistant receive communion. Although a coronation is a very special service, does it not seem to go against the spirit of the Reformation to have a service of Holy Communion where all who are initiated into the Church and after hearing the exhortation feel able to come forward and receive are not allowed to do so?

Possible answers:
1) you speak as if this is a bad thing;
2) as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, HM is the interpreter of the Reformation and, having approved of this procedure, clearly deems that it is in the spirit of the settlement;
3) as the coronation service has as its focus the act of anointing, the Communion service may be interpreted as having a role of supporting that sacramental act and its recipient and ministers; and that others should take the opportunity for spiritual communion at the time, or have received earlier that day, or the day following, in prayerful support.

A further complication is that many of Her Majesty's ministers and subjects are not in communion with her, and a general communion at the Coronation would underline the division between these two groups.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So it seems at the coronation only the Queen, the Prince Consort, the Archbishop, the Dean of Westminster, and the Bishops Assistant receive communion. Although a coronation is a very special service, does it not seem to go against the spirit of the Reformation to have a service of Holy Communion where all who are initiated into the Church and after hearing the exhortation feel able to come forward and receive are not allowed to do so?

I'd have thought that the sheer logistical practicalities would make it near impossible for 'everyone' to communicate - quite apart from the question whether all present would be eligible.

Perhaps it should be seen as a demonstration of the fact that the Queen (and with the Duke of Edinburgh - the family also) is a communicant member of the Church of England, consistent with that element of her coronation oath. I.e. she receives the sacrament at that point in her role as sovereign, and not just as a Christian person coming to communion.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I apologize for the provocative language concerning what the Reformation meant or not. It's not my place to talk about that, and especially not in a Liturgy forum.

The practice of limiting reception of communion to the principal clergy, the monarch, and the monarchy's spouse could indeed predate the reformation, as does, I imagine, much of the corporation rite. I don't feel comfortable with it, since I think the Eucharist is always for everyone unless sin, needed catechesis and baptism, or schism get in the way, but I understand the symbolism and how people could believe differently.

Back to the OP - how much say does Her Majesty have in what her royal chaplains do in terms of liturgy? Even if she has a lot of sway, how often does she use it and how often does she let them decide things on their own?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

As far as I can guess, HM's preferences are well-known to her intimates and chaplains are likely to address them-- she's been doing this for sixty years and they'd have to be pretty thick not to have figured this out by now.

She appears to be a person of thoughtfulness and moderation and would likely not object to the details of how chaplains arrange things if they reflected the same approach (e.g., if a maniple appeared as a sign of the diaconal nature of clerical service, that would be one thing; if an example of look-at-me flamboyance, perhaps another). I would imagine that her assessments, if negative or if she wanted to reserve her opinion, would be conveyed with dry wit to the Bishop of London as Dean of the Chapels Royal. Henry VIII had pesky preachers sent off to serve the Lord in the swampy fens or the further reaches of Wales, and they likely counted themselves lucky to be thus inspired in their ministry rather than to populate the cells in the Tower.

Refecting further on my previous post, I do not think that she would want to see underlined the division between Anglican and non-Anglican subjects at an act which has at its centre the unity of her people and states. I understand Stonespring's point, but the optimal situation at a Eucharist is not always the best for a particular one nor is a necessary one (another example might be a nuptial Mass where the bride and groom, and perhaps the immediate family communicate, and a spiritual communion made by others).

It may be that Charles or William will want to see the Communion service done privately before the coronation ceremony. Who knows?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So it seems at the coronation only the Queen, the Prince Consort, the Archbishop, the Dean of Westminster, and the Bishops Assistant receive communion. Although a coronation is a very special service, does it not seem to go against the spirit of the Reformation to have a service of Holy Communion where all who are initiated into the Church and after hearing the exhortation feel able to come forward and receive are not allowed to do so?
I'd have thought that the sheer logistical practicalities would make it near impossible for 'everyone' to communicate - quite apart from the question whether all present would be eligible.

As an anti-royalist perhaps it's not appropriate of me to comment. But on the general principle of offering communion to all or not, there has been a big shift in the C of E (and other churches presumably) since 1953. I remember an episcopal consecration in St Paul's Cathedral in the mid-70s when the congregation (apart perhaps from the families of the candidates) were forbidden communion. Many nuptial masses until quite recently used to offer communion only to the couple.
The C of E still seems to have a problem with the logistics of communicating large numbers of people. But it is quite possible to do so reverently (and in both kinds) with a bit of planning.
I would have thought that non-Christian (or Christians with conscientious objections) guests at the coronation would have the common sense not to be offended.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

The coronation service already lasts a number of hours without adding in the potential communion of 5-6000 people.

I wonder whether there is also any significance that the coronation ceremonial is the responsibility of the Earl Marshal, the Duke of Norfolk, who is a Roman Catholic.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

5 to 6 thousand? How many does Westminster Abbey hold? Anyway with enough communion stations for 100-200 communicants each it shouldn't add more than a few minutes to the length of the service.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

2) as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, HM is the interpreter of the Reformation

Oooooooooh that's high! [Yipee]

It reminds me of the remark attributed to Pope Pius IX: "We ARE Tradition"!

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
5 to 6 thousand? How many does Westminster Abbey hold? Anyway with enough communion stations for 100-200 communicants each it shouldn't add more than a few minutes to the length of the service.

According to wikipedia it was actually 8,000. I think they put a lot of temporary galleries in. For example, if you look here at about 1:30 you can see some rather scary looking galleries high above the west door. Anyway I doubt if the CofE really did stations in 1953.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Angloid writes:

quote:
I would have thought that non-Christian (or Christians with conscientious objections) guests at the coronation would have the common sense not to be offended.

Indeed, and I would hope that we would have the common sense not to needlessly offend them.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Angloid writes:

quote:
I would have thought that non-Christian (or Christians with conscientious objections) guests at the coronation would have the common sense not to be offended.
Indeed, and I would hope that we would have the common sense not to needlessly offend them.

And I should hope that the administration of Holy Communion is not seen as an offense!

[ 22. June 2012, 01:32: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Angloid writes:

quote:
I would have thought that non-Christian (or Christians with conscientious objections) guests at the coronation would have the common sense not to be offended.
Indeed, and I would hope that we would have the common sense not to needlessly offend them.
And I should hope that the administration of Holy Communion is not seen as an offense!

To move from a communion-for-those-involved in the anointing to a general communion is a shift in what you want a coronation ceremony to be. As others have noted, there has been a generational change-- there was a time when only the bride & groom were communicated at a nuptial Mass, but now there is often a general communion.

When you move to a general communion at a coronation Mass, you do emphasize a divide between the ministers and subjects in communion, and those who are not. A religious rite for the head of state becomes a religious rite related to the head of state. If that's what you want to do, then I suppose that non-Xn, non-Anglican, guests will be couth in the way that they are at requiems and would not have thought otherwise. However, if there is to be a change at all for the next coronation, I suspect that it would be to have a private Eucharist before the event, rather than a general one during it, and possibly to have a more explicit role with respect to non-Xn religions, as Prince Charles' musings have suggested.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I have always assumed the Queen's churchmanship is orthodox medium pace. Going back through what are correctly the "House of Wettin" the ancesters a bit, I would assume that George VI was also orthodox medium pace. HM the QM was baptized and confirmed in Lowland Scottish parishes, so Orthodox Medium pace with a tendancy to swing to the High side. George V was "short church" - he was fond of 'Woodbine Willie.' Edward VII was High Church - attended ASMS in the 1870s, 80s, 90s. Queen Victoria was Low - Pietist Lutheran out of the C of E with a side of Schleiermacher type liberalism.

In short I tend to assume on the evidence provided that the Queen is devout, Middle to Low, and a thoroughly good sort!

PD

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
HM the QM was baptized and confirmed in Lowland Scottish parishes . . .

PD

The Queen Mother was baptized at All Saints, St Paul's Walden, Hertfordshire.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, further to PD's post, AIUI George V's churchmanship was pretty much what you'd expect of him (as a stamp-collecting, uxorious, shooting naval officer, IYSWIM). I believe that he got very cross with a chaplain who introduced anew hymnbook into one of the Chapels Royal without asking him ('I'm not Defender of the Faith for nothing!')and when asked to be one of the churchwardens at Sandringham accepted on condition that 'they wouldn't expect me to take the bag round or anything like that'. A decent and rather under-rated King.

[ 22. June 2012, 09:08: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Is there any relevant conclusion which can be drawn from the apparent high regard HM held for David Hope? She gave him (from memory and I'm on the train home) a KCVO, and honour given by her not on advice; IIRC, she showed respect in other ways as well.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is there any relevant conclusion which can be drawn from the apparent high regard HM held for David Hope? She gave him (from memory and I'm on the train home) a KCVO, and honour given by her not on advice; IIRC, she showed respect in other ways as well.

I think it's given to all Bishops of London.

I remember a book a few years ago called 'King's Bishop' which was about the bishops of London.

Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, HM is the interpreter of the Reformation

She's evidently been hiding her theological and ecclesiological skills under a bushel these sixty years! [Big Grin]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is there any relevant conclusion which can be drawn from the apparent high regard HM held for David Hope?

Possibly because Fr ++Hope is a thoroughly good egg and completely devoid of pomposity which would make him a refreshing change from so many of the prelates and lesser beings that HM comes into contact with.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

On one level I have a certain sympathy with George V's churchmanship. I get very irritable with clergymen who mess around with the Prayer Book and make the service longer. I tend to take the attitude that Church is Church, and I do not appreciate someone imposing his personal heresies on me.

PD

[ 22. June 2012, 16:58: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

One of the ways, Father, in which you have much in common with the late +Mervyn Southwark. ('Are you high church or low church, bishop?' 'Neither: short church')

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The late Queen Mother was confirmed in the Scottish Episcopal church in Forfar,Scotlandshire,or so the church would make out.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0