Thread: Church-going habits of the British Royal Family 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=025240
Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on
:
I read this about the Easter church-going habits of the British Royal Family:
"The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall were not present also at today’s service. Traditionally, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall rarely attend and spend the day in private at either Clarence House or Highgrove; along with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, who also haven’t attended the service for the past few years."
How is this ALLOWED?! I was shocked.
Has the Prince of Wales or his offspring ever given statements about why they do not attend Easter services?
Does it have anything to do with Charles' divorce?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
They are only copying the habits of the great majority of their subjects, and indeed most modern people. In fact, if they are like the slight majority of Britons their age they don't even believe in God.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
There's a similar kerfuffle when it's noted how rarely American presidents attend church services. In part its because few congregations are willing to put up with the security circus that would be involved with regular presidential attendance. (Bomb-sniffing dogs going over the church building beforehand, sharpshooters in all corners of the sanctuary, snipers on the roof, metal detectors, security cordon, etc.)
I don't know what kind of security measures are involved in protecting members of the British royal family, but if they're comparable to what's involved in protecting the U.S. President that could be part of the answer right there.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Given that the Queen is a regular attender, security is unlikely to be the issue. Besides, the Royal family have private chapels and access to chaplains if required.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It's one of those ironies that the most frequent church-goer among recent presidents was probably Bill Clinton, while that darling of the Church right, Reagan, was the one least likely to darken the door of a church on Sunday.
[ 01. April 2013, 17:57: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
What's the context for the quote? When it says 'not present' I presume that means not present for the service at Windsor? If that's the case, they could have gone elsewhere (Clarence House is some way from Windsor).
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Do any of our basilomaniacs know if Clarence House or Highgrove currently have chapels? Clarence House once housed an Orthodox chapel for the Romanov wife of Prince Alfred, but I gather it was dismantled.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The personal faith of various British monarchs has fluctuated widely - just like that of anyone else.
When you say how is it 'ALLOWED' are you saying that church attendance should be compulsory for royalty?
The Queen is personally very devout and I would imagine she'd be found in church most Sundays irrespective of whether her role was 'Defender of the Faith' and so on.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a similar kerfuffle when it's noted how rarely American presidents attend church services.
But the President isn't the figurehead of an established Church. I think that is why lilyswinburn is suggesting that it should be compulsory for the Queen and the next in line to attend church on Easter Sunday.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
Isn't the British monarch also the titular head of the Church? if so, it seems like attending services would be mandatory. Of course, if I'm mistaken then it's really no one's business but theirs. Of course, it's still no one's business, since it's the QUEEN who would be head, not her kids/grandkids. and she apparently is a regular churchgoer.
i read somewhere (perhaps even on the Ship) that Charles and his kids have certain Orthodox leanings.. if true, then perhaps they are waiting to celebrate with us on May 5: ;-)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
A friend of mine used to be a canon at St. George's Windsor.
He often went 'up the hill' to the castle to celebrate HC within.
She (Betty) takes it seriously but prefers HC in private while her public appearances are at Choral mattins there and at Sandringham.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
i read somewhere (perhaps even on the Ship) that Charles and his kids have certain Orthodox leanings.. if true, then perhaps they are waiting to celebrate with us on May 5: ;-)
Charles and his father do (have Orthodox leanings), but I'm not sure about William and Harry. Prince Phillip converted from Greek Orthodoxy when he married the Queen, but both he and Charles are still regular visitors to Mount Athos.
You may notice that when Prince Phillip crosses himself, he does it the Orthodox was (r to l) instead of the latin way (l to r).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
As a subject of Queen Elizabeth II, I am, perhaps, just about, entitled to have a view on whether members of the royal family should or should not attend church. Those who are not her subjects are no more entitled to have or express any view on the subject than I am to comment on whether or not President Obama does or whether George W Bush did.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Think of it this way, Enoch. We aren't so much demanding that you change the rules or make the Royals attend regular church services; we just don't have an established Church of our own, so we are genuinely curious about how that works. Maybe we are coming off like buttinskis, but you can see why someone would be curious.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think our former Colonial friends are entitled to wonder how these things, 'work' in practice, Enoch. I'm not offended, perplexed or put-out by their asking about this. Heck, I've asked questions of Americans about their Constitution and way of doing things that they would probably think naive or ill-informed ...
And they'd be right ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But I don't think that these questions here are either. They're perfectly legitimate.
Having the monarch as titular head of the Church is pretty wierd, let's face it. Such a state of affairs only came about to secure Henry VIII's divorce from Katherine of Aragon and because, in the absence of a Pope somebody had to do it ...
That doesn't mean that the Monarch tends to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs, any more than they actually intervene in the process of government. The last time a British sovereign overturned something going through Parliament was in the reign of Queen Victoria. It remains a possibility ... just ...
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
It was Queen Anne who last vetoed legislation, although Victoria did enjoy interfering with the appointment of bishops.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - I thought there was something that Queen Victoria vetoed but I can't remember what it was now ...
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a subject of Queen Elizabeth II, I am, perhaps, just about, entitled to have a view on whether members of the royal family should or should not attend church. Those who are not her subjects are no more entitled to have or express any view on the subject than I am to comment on whether or not President Obama does or whether George W Bush did.
This is a free Ship, and anyone is entitled to express opinions on anything they want (so long as the Ship's 10 C.'s are observed)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - I thought there was something that Queen Victoria vetoed but I can't remember what it was now ...
I seem to recall that references to female homosexuality didn't make it into legislation because Queen Victoria thought it was impossible.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - I thought there was something that Queen Victoria vetoed but I can't remember what it was now ...
I seem to recall that references to female homosexuality didn't make it into legislation because Queen Victoria thought it was impossible.
A myth I'm afraid!
As for the royal family's churchgoing habits, only the Queen is the governor of the CoE, therefore it doesn't matter to me what the others do. They all have access to private chapels and chaplains, and given the younger members' less positive experiences with the press, I wouldn't be surprised if they take this option.
Didn't Prince William do the Alpha course?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - I thought there was something that Queen Victoria vetoed but I can't remember what it was now ...
I seem to recall that references to female homosexuality didn't make it into legislation because Queen Victoria thought it was impossible.
If I recall the specifics correctly, a prohibition parallel to that on sodomy was omitted from the act on the grounds that nobody was prepared to discuss it or explain it to Her Majesty. This is likely urban legend, and researchers suspect that it never crossed drafter Henry Labouchere's mind and that there was no female-female equivalent in law to buggery, a practice frowned on at the time.
Monarchs tend to be genealogically inclined and Queen Victoria was familiar with many family trees and their odd sprouts and branches and was likely quite aware of same-sex behaviour.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a subject of Queen Elizabeth II, I am, perhaps, just about, entitled to have a view on whether members of the royal family should or should not attend church.
Yes, but aren't there much more important things to have opinions about? Like, say, the state of the economy or her shoes or something? I do believe that God is the only one who really gets to have an opinion on our church attendance (and then I believe that She really doesn't give a flying fig).
That's just my opinion, though, as a sibling in Christ and beloved child of God.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. They all have access to private chapels and chaplains, and given the younger members' less positive experiences with the press, I wouldn't be surprised if they take this option.
2. Didn't Prince William do the Alpha course?
1. They don't seem to
2. An urban myth methinks
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. They all have access to private chapels and chaplains, and given the younger members' less positive experiences with the press, I wouldn't be surprised if they take this option.
2. Didn't Prince William do the Alpha course?
1. They don't seem to
2. An urban myth methinks
With regards to private chapels, we wouldn't know either way, it being private.
Posted by Alf Wiedersehen (# 17421) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - I thought there was something that Queen Victoria vetoed but I can't remember what it was now ...
I seem to recall that references to female homosexuality didn't make it into legislation because Queen Victoria thought it was impossible.
This is the correct answer. Lesbianism was never illegal in the U.K. Progressive, what?!
Well, at least that is what our Sociology teacher used to enjoy telling us regualarly.
EDIT: having read some further posts on this thread, I stand corrected. Never did like sociology anyway.
[ 01. April 2013, 23:25: Message edited by: Alf Wiedersehen ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
We know a bit about private chapels as such information becomes known from time to time. The film on the reconstruction of Windsor Castle has a brief view of the Queen's private chapel there (as well as the bigger S George's Chapel); Princess Margaret had one as well and apparently the chapel at Buckingham Palace. At Sandringham and Balmoral, they apparently use the local parish church. As well as the Ecclesiastical Household, the members of which deliver sermons at the palace chapels, I gather that +Richard of London as well as various Archbishops of Canterbury provide pastoral care.
I have no idea what the young princes do for religious practice but I imagine that whatever they do, they keep well away from the press.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - I thought there was something that Queen Victoria vetoed but I can't remember what it was now ...
I seem to recall that references to female homosexuality didn't make it into legislation because Queen Victoria thought it was impossible.
If I recall the specifics correctly, a prohibition parallel to that on sodomy was omitted from the act on the grounds that nobody was prepared to discuss it or explain it to Her Majesty. This is likely urban legend, and researchers suspect that it never crossed drafter Henry Labouchere's mind and that there was no female-female equivalent in law to buggery, a practice frowned on at the time.
Monarchs tend to be genealogically inclined and Queen Victoria was familiar with many family trees and their odd sprouts and branches and was likely quite aware of same-sex behaviour.
One of her daughters - Princess Louise, the Duchess of Argyll -- is widely presumed to have been lesbian, or possibly, in today's vocabulary, non-sexual. Her husband, son of one of her closest friends, certainly was gay, and was widely known to be so. It would have been astounding if the Queen had not known this.
The tradition of many (sometimes married) gay men being involved in the royal household, which was still current at least until the late QUeen Mother's death, had been in place at least since the time of Edward VII, and may well date to earlier. And the monarchs (with the possibly exception of George V, who wasn't the brightest candle on the cake) were probably well aware.
John
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - I thought there was something that Queen Victoria vetoed but I can't remember what it was now ...
There's a cunning difference between Royal Assent and Queen's Consent. Royal Assent is the official constitutional role of the monarch as Crown in Parliament without which no proposal becomes an Act and therefore law. That hasn't been refused since the reign of Queen Anne.
Queen's Consent, however, is something which is necessary if any Bill has personal implications for the monarch, usually relating to the property holdings of the Crown Estates. (And there is an equivalent called Prince of Wales's Consent if a Bill may affect the Duchy of Cornwall.) Consent has to be secured and announced in Parliament during a bill's passage. It is the job of the civil service Bill Manager to make sure that all of this happens at the right time. Ministers probably have no clue about what's going on.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What's the context for the quote? When it says 'not present' I presume that means not present for the service at Windsor? If that's the case, they could have gone elsewhere (Clarence House is some way from Windsor).
AFAIK the Easter service at Windsor and the Christmas morning service at Sandringham are the only times when the Queen's private attendance at church is a news event. As Head of the Church it's important that she's seen on these key dates and the other royals will be those who are staying with her over the holidays. At Christmas this is most of them but at Easter, in recent years anyway, it seems to be Yorks, Wessex's and Anne and her husband who accompany her to the Easter service. Charles could be at Balmoral, or Highgrove, or just about anywhere I suppose.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - I thought there was something that Queen Victoria vetoed but I can't remember what it was now ...
I seem to recall that references to female homosexuality didn't make it into legislation because Queen Victoria thought it was impossible.
Not true. It's an urban myth. No monarch since the English Civil War has prevented an act of Parliament from going through. If she had, it could well have caused a revolution or, at the very least, Parliament would have forced her to abdicate.
ETA: This is what mythbusters have to say on the subject
[ 02. April 2013, 11:04: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, I think you'll find that Queen Anne did veto something or other- but admittedly that was 300 years ago. (Always a soft spot for her, not because of this, but because she was such great supporter of the CofE.)
As for George V and homosexuality- well, yes, of course he knew about it (apart from anything else, he had been a serving naval officer). But, as he said when he was told of Lord Beauchamp's resignation, "I thought men like that shot themselves."
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I thought that one of the very few requirements for being an Anglican was that you had to take communion on Easter Day. Therefore I would have hoped that the future Supreme Governor (not "Head" please; there can only be one Head of the Church) of the CoE had received at Easter. If he wishes to keep that away form the Press, then good for him.
Betts: quote:
You may notice that when Prince Phillip crosses himself, he does it the Orthodox was (r to l) instead of the latin way (l to r).
That is the way I was taught to cross myself, as I was taught by an Orthodox Priest. He explained that, since the penitent thief was on Christ's right, touching your right side first showed you were penitent. He added, if you you went left first you showed you were unrepentant and still RC!
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
The security surrounding royal church visits is a remarkable pain in the arse. My great aunt attended Crathie church near Balmoral where the royal family attend when they're up there. The security when they attended was such a pain in the arse that she used to get the minister to let her know when they were coming so she could avoid it.
However when she died we did get a lovely condolence letter from the queen's flunkies mentioning how nice a fellow member of the congregation she had been.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Wouldn't that be the very definition of a "Right Royal Pain in the Arse"
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I'll refrain from the obvious smutty comment about members of the House of Windsor who were Not As Other Men...though there is a very amusing story in Cecil Beaton's (posthumously published) 1960s diaries about one of Queen Victoria's grandsons and his weekly visits to a chap called Simon Fleet.
Back to George V, I believe that he was for a while churchwarden at Sandringham, having accepted the post on condition that 'I wouldn't
have to take the bag round or anything like that, would I?' And George III was I think a churchwarden of St Martin in the Fields, for some reason.
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
The parish church at Sandringham (as attended by HM QE2) is inside the security cordon around the estate, and hence most of the attendees are generally people who live there or are staying and/or working on the estate.
Hence not much extra security required for royal attendance there. Getting to the church is only slightly easier than getting within sight of the house.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'll have to do some digging, but I do have some vague recollection that I've read about Queen Victoria objecting to some legislation or other - not the lesbian issue something else - but I can't rightly remember what it was ... it may not have been that she vetoed anything but exercised royal prerogative in some way.
At any rate, I've had Americans tell me that we British aren't as 'free' as they are because we're subjects rather than citizens and that it's still feasible for a Monarch to over-rule legislation in some way - even if they don't.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... At any rate, I've had Americans tell me that we British aren't as 'free' as they are because we're subjects rather than citizens and that it's still feasible for a Monarch to over-rule legislation in some way - even if they don't.
Ah, but can they buy KinderEggs?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Members of the Royal family may not always attend church publically, but it highly likely (more than highly), that they that attend a service and receive communion on Easter Sunday. This is particuarly true of Prince Charles at Highgrove.
On January 1st 2000 the Prince asked a retired bishop who was a friend, confident, and one might also perhaps say confessor, to celebrate the Eucharist for him and Camilla. He felt it right to start the century, as it were, with the reception of Holy Communion. On the altar was a crucifix that had belonged to Queen Elizabeth I that was lent by the Queen Mother for the occasion. Charles and Camilla knelt side by side and received the sacrament. The service was held entirely at the request of the Prince.
People with an interest might well be amazed at how seriously Prince Charles takes his Christian faith. This has often been obscured by media spin on 'defender of faiths' and so on. He is an orthodox Anglican Christian. The late Fr Harry Williams CR who knew Charles well as a student, used to remark that there was just something in Charles that had he not had another destiny might well even have explored possible ordination.
I happen to know the clergy who prepared the younger princes for confirmation. William and Harry took it very seriously.
Prince Harry is a regular attender at church, and especially at prayers when on operations with his regiment.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Sebby that is fascinating to hear, thank you. I have heard similar things about Prince William from people who have known him personally (not about the Alpha Course).
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I thought that one of the very few requirements for being an Anglican was that you had to take communion on Easter Day. Therefore I would have hoped that the future Supreme Governor (not "Head" please; there can only be one Head of the Church) of the CoE had received at Easter. If he wishes to keep that away form the Press, then good for him.
But the service we're discusssing -- Easter 11:00 (or thereabouts) -- would be Matins at Sandringham. We've already (not necessarily on this thread) pointed out that the Queen doesn't receive communion in public except at her coronation.
We can assume she received communion earlier in the day privately, and we are therefore at liberty to assume that Prince CHarles and/or his sons did the same. And just as we can't know that she did, we can't know that they did or didn't. Not attending matins publicly is no indication one way or another.
And as the PRince of WAles isn't and his children aren't, so far, the Governor of the CofE, it really isn't our business what they did.
There have certainly been monarchs -- George IV and Queen Victoria some to mind at once -- whose performance of their role as Governor had absolutely no connection to their personal beliefs, if they had any. I see no reason why those afflicted with the said Governor ought to worry more about what the Prince of Wales does on Easter morning than those in their day who were subject to George IV or Queen Victoria.
John
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Just wanted to let you know that the Dutch queen Beatrix goes regularly to the Kloosterkerk church in The Hague. So there.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
.... There have certainly been monarchs -- George IV and Queen Victoria some to mind at once -- whose performance of their role as Governor had absolutely no connection to their personal beliefs, if they had any. I see no reason why those afflicted with the said Governor ought to worry more about what the Prince of Wales does on Easter morning than those in their day who were subject to George IV or Queen Victoria.
What is the accusation about Queen Victoria's personal beliefs please? The only one I've heard was that of the churches for which she was responsible, she preferred the Scottish one. I can see that there may be Anglo-Catholic shipmates that would consider this verging on unbelief, but if so, that would be another reason why I am not an Anglo-Catholic.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Queen Victoria's beliefs, as I understand, tended to eschew any firm statement of belief about anything. SHe was, if you will, the epitome of the "I'm English so of course I'm CofE" school that saw/sees proper behaviour and "doing the right thing" as the highest form of Christianity.
I don't quite think she followed her first Prime Minister who is reported to have said "Things have come to a pretty pass when a man's religion begins to interfere with his private life." Because like those against whom he was reacting, she thought it very important indeed what one did in one's private life. There's no evidence I've seen, though, that the right thing had anything to do with any particularly CHristian belief, much less any belief of the CofE.
The Anglo-Catholic thing is a bit of a red herring -- her religious beliefs were formed in the 1820s, long before the slightest hints of what became known as Anglo-Catholicism were to be found in the CofE.
John
[ 03. April 2013, 03:28: Message edited by: John Holding ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0