Thread: The royal christening 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=026416
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Prince George was christened today.
I like the idea of the royals aiming to serve God in humility. The Queen seems to be genuine in her faith. I would like to think that Prince George will be brought up in the Christian faith, as the christening indicates.
What are your thoughts about this? Is it likely that the number of christenings will increase now that this example has been set?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
He's a cute baby. And no.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Christenings? Possibly not. Attempts to copy the royal Christening gown that will actually just look cheap and tacky? Quite possibly.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
It's just a bit more window dressing in the campaign to support the anachronistic royal family and indulge the tendency so many British people have to avoid being properly grown-up and taking responsibility as citizens for the sort of society we have.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's just a bit more window dressing in the campaign to support the anachronistic royal family and indulge the tendency so many British people have to avoid being properly grown-up and taking responsibility as citizens for the sort of society we have.
Or it could be a Christening.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's just a bit more window dressing in the campaign to support the anachronistic royal family and indulge the tendency so many British people have to avoid being properly grown-up and taking responsibility as citizens for the sort of society we have.
Or it could be a Christening.
That, too.
It's just a Christening for a baby. At another level it's a media event, and means other things.
[ 23. October 2013, 23:25: Message edited by: hatless ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I like the idea of the royals aiming to serve God in humility.
quote:
The duchess carried her newly christened son out of the chapel after the ceremony, and the guests then left for tea hosted by the Prince of Wales at Clarence House.
Attending a reception at Buckingham Palace after the event, the Queen told guests how much she had enjoyed the ceremony.
I'm sure there are lots of ways to describe having a ceremony presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury before returning to the palace where you live, but "humility" isn't a word that automatically springs to mind. This seems like projection.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Humility is relative.
(Insert your preferred joke here)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
I couldn't care less about that Christening... but for some reason I really loved how that Prince Whatever-He-Is-Called gives a kiss left and right on the cheek of his grandmother (I assume), steps back, and ... bows his head to the Queen.
Now, that is class, right there.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I couldn't care less about that Christening... but for some reason I really loved how that Prince Whatever-He-Is-Called gives a kiss left and right on the cheek of his grandmother (I assume), steps back, and ... bows his head to the Queen.
Now, that is class, right there.
In Argentina, the police do this in reverse: saluting their superior, then planting kisses on both cheeks. I have suggested this to my friends in the RCMP, but to date they have not embraced the practice.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Quick question [Tangent alert]
Why do Brits call it "Christening" when North Americans call it "baptism"?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Quick question [Tangent alert]
Why do Brits call it "Christening" when North Americans call it "baptism"?
If the dictionary is to believed, "Christening" goes way back to Middle English. I've seen it in older American texts, but it seems to have died out in North American English.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Is this a morse on Bishop Chartres' cope? I've never seen one quite like that (and don't know that I care to!).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Quick question [Tangent alert]
Why do Brits call it "Christening" when North Americans call it "baptism"?
Brits call it both, depending on churchmanship (lower church folk tend to prefer baptism IME), but 'Christening' is the lay/folk term. It's the anglo-saxon term.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Is this a morse on Bishop Chartres' cope? I've never seen one quite like that (and don't know that I care to!).
It's not a good look. There's more information about it here.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's just a bit more window dressing in the campaign to support the anachronistic royal family and indulge the tendency so many British people have to avoid being properly grown-up and taking responsibility as citizens for the sort of society we have.
I think I'd agree with that sentiment more if 'the anachronistic royal family' was replaced by 'religious belief'.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Unlike many of the baptisms in our church, at least at this one it is certain that at least some of the relatives are churchgoers and have some belief.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Quick question [Tangent alert]
Why do Brits call it "Christening" when North Americans call it "baptism"?
Brits call it both, depending on churchmanship (lower church folk tend to prefer baptism IME), but 'Christening' is the lay/folk term. It's the anglo-saxon term.
I had the impression that Christening was also used in a wider sense for giving thanks and naming (and hence primarily used when it wasn't baptism). So you could get
Christened and then much later Confirm it at Baptism.
Or Christened at Baptism and much later Confirmation.
Not sure if it's true or if it's only a misconception on my part.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I don't think so - baptism = christening in the church of England. And churches that do thanksgiving services don't use the term christening.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Quick question [Tangent alert]
Why do Brits call it "Christening" when North Americans call it "baptism"?
Brits call it both, depending on churchmanship (lower church folk tend to prefer baptism IME), but 'Christening' is the lay/folk term. It's the anglo-saxon term.
I had the impression that Christening was also used in a wider sense for giving thanks and naming (and hence primarily used when it wasn't baptism). So you could get
Christened and then much later Confirm it at Baptism.
Or Christened at Baptism and much later Confirmation.
Not sure if it's true or if it's only a misconception on my part.
No, christening is just another name for baptism, they are identical. Also, christening/baptism is not a naming ceremony - candidates are already named! Many babies who are christened/baptised are never confirmed anyway. There are thanksgiving services used by those who believe in credo-baptism but they are not called christenings.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, christening/baptism is not a naming ceremony - candidates are already named!
Although confusingly there is a practice of referring to the name given at birth as the "baptismal name". And even more confusingly there is the practice in some cultures of taking a new name at the time of baptism.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Both linguistically and liturgically this may be nonsense, but there's a sort of difference in usage. Babies tend to be christened. Adults tend to be baptised.
There was a strong impression in the past that until a baby had been baptised, he or she was not really named. This is partly a matter of traditional belief, folk religion, but it may also be a hang over from before the introduction of the registration of births, marriages and deaths. Before that time the first record of a new person is their entry in the baptismal register.
I had an elderly relative who, I was told, had the wrong name because the practice was that the butcher's delivery boy (on a bicycle) took the names down to the vicar the previous day, and he had got this little chap's wrong.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I had an elderly relative who, I was told, had the wrong name because the practice was that the butcher's delivery boy (on a bicycle) took the names down to the vicar the previous day, and he had got this little chap's wrong.
And once you've been christened 'Sausages' you're stuck with it....
(I seem to remember that makes up a chunk of the plot - if you can call it that - of Tristram Shandy)
[ 24. October 2013, 08:19: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm sure there are lots of ways to describe having a ceremony presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury before returning to the palace where you live, but "humility" isn't a word that automatically springs to mind. This seems like projection.
The ABC is a priest, is he not? Is there something about being part of a service he is leading that inherently precludes humility?
Also, plenty of people have post-baptism receptions at their home. Does it matter where their home happens to be, or how nice it is?
Or is it just that you think it's impossible to be humble while having more nice things than most people? In which case the majority of the world's population laughs at any pretensions of humility you or I might have.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Quick question [Tangent alert]
Why do Brits call it "Christening" when North Americans call it "baptism"?
In anglophone (and Anglican) Canada, older people (pre-BAS) use Christening, but clergy and post-1980 types will use baptism. AFAIK anglophone RCs have always used baptism. I have a vague perception that Presbyterians and Presbie-roots UCC members use Christening, but other UCC folk use baptism, but that might be a local (Ottawa valley) phenomenon.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's just a bit more window dressing in the campaign to support the anachronistic royal family and indulge the tendency so many British people have to avoid being properly grown-up and taking responsibility as citizens for the sort of society we have.
I assure you that it is not only the British who avoid "being properly grown-up" but fear that it is rather universal (I might except the Icelandics on this), and likely totally unconnected with royal families, anachronistic or otherwise-- I would blame television more than the monarchy. My recent visit to Argentina suggests that kings and queens are not required for adolescent citizen consciousness.
In any case, archbishops of Canterbury have for the past thousand or so years functioned as chaplains to the head of state, and I daresay that Abp Welby didn't mind having an excuse to avoid GAFCON. Indeed, families of all classes wishing the archbishop's presence might check his foreign appointments calendar and help him out with invitations to baptisms on the Isle of Sheppey. He might even want to make himself free for a shipmeet.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I appreciate the difficulties in this, but in my church (CofE), it's explicit that a christening is a public event, with vows made in public, before and in the presence of the local congregation who make promises to help the parents and godparents in their duties.
There is no such thing as a 'private christening', only one from which the people of the church have been deliberately excluded.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I appreciate the difficulties in this, but in my church (CofE), it's explicit that a christening is a public event, with vows made in public, before and in the presence of the local congregation who make promises to help the parents and godparents in their duties.
There is no such thing as a 'private christening', only one from which the people of the church have been deliberately excluded.
Having IRL many years ago touched the security world, it is difficult to underestimate the need for such things. In any case, I would compare it more to a baptism/christening held in an institutional chaplaincy setting, such as a military base or prison, where general access by the outside public is limited. Or to one of the very rare households where there is a private chapel and attendance at services features a congregation of family, friends, and employees. In these places there is no walk-in congregation, but the people of the church are there as the public, and doing their part.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
When I was a lad, many years ago, church people used to to refer to christenings and everyone else in the village to "getting the baby done". I do not recall anybody ever saying that the latest member of the family was being baptised on Sunday.
It was also usual in those days for christenings to take place at a private service on Sunday afternoons. It is much better that it is now the norm (in the CofE - I can't speak for other denominations) for baptisms to take place at the main Sunday service. I never understood how baptism could be seen as welcoming a new member of the Church when other members of the Church were conspicuous by their absence.
Board members in the UK will no doubt remember David Beckham's penetrating observation on the subject - "I'm going to get Brooklyn christened but I don't know which religion yet".
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, christening/baptism is not a naming ceremony - candidates are already named!
But centuries ago, it was, as I understand it. When baptisms typically occured within days of birth, it was the time when the name was conferred or announced.
As for "baptismal names," that can either mean the name given at baptism or the name used at baptism.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In anglophone (and Anglican) Canada, older people (pre-BAS) use Christening, but clergy and post-1980 types will use baptism. AFAIK anglophone RCs have always used baptism. I have a vague perception that Presbyterians and Presbie-roots UCC members use Christening, but other UCC folk use baptism, but that might be a local (Ottawa valley) phenomenon.
I've never heard American Presbyterians use "christening." In fact, the only Americans that I've ever heard use "christening" rather than "baptism" are the occasional Episcopalians and a few Baptists who think that by saying "christening," they're denying that what's happening with the baby is really baptism.
"Christening gown," however, is common.
[ 24. October 2013, 13:17: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Re: Baptism or Christening: I believe that the 1979 prayer book revised and emphasized the service of baptism and particularly eschewed the use of the word christening.
Ships are christened, babies are Baptised.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Quick question [Tangent alert]
Why do Brits call it "Christening" when North Americans call it "baptism"?
In anglophone (and Anglican) Canada, older people (pre-BAS) use Christening, but clergy and post-1980 types will use baptism. AFAIK anglophone RCs have always used baptism. I have a vague perception that Presbyterians and Presbie-roots UCC members use Christening, but other UCC folk use baptism, but that might be a local (Ottawa valley) phenomenon.
I was born in the 1980's and will be around for the United Church's centenary, but while the United Church's dialect has many, many Scots terms (Minister, Session, manse, etc) it's baptism. Sessions approve baptisms. Our three service books, Celebrate God's Presence, The Service Book 1970 and the Book of Common Order all call or called it baptism and never used any other term.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
A Private Baptism
Well, not really: the Chapel Royal is a proper working church. And it wasn't just members of the royal family present, there were six choirmen and the Children of the Chapel Royal (trebles to you and me) plus the Organist (Andrew Gant) and sub-organist.
At the moment Prince George's parents are based at Clarence House which is more-or-less part of St James's Palace - the Chapel Royal is therefore, in effect, their parish church.
And if you go to the communion on a Sunday it is not uncommon to find the Prince of Wales there...
[ 24. October 2013, 16:02: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
In western Canada, the term "to christen" has morphed into a celebration with alcohol. As in "we're christening my new chesterfield and ottoman, if you can drop by".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's become common in the UK, also. In fact, you can christen practically anything, even a bottle of whisky!
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
Our minister (presbyterian) insists that there is a great difference between christening and baptism, referring to christening as a naming ceremony for the child's family, whereas baptism is acceptance into the church family.
I'm not quite so fervent about it, but the Gospels tell the story (in English translations, anyway) of the 'baptism' of Jesus. I don't know when the term 'christening' first came into use, but clearly much later. A christening can be private, but a baptism is an open ceremony where the whole congregation promises to care for the child. So I always say 'baptism' on the grounds of historical usage and the fact that it is an inclusive event within the greater Christian community.
Maybe someone with more scholarly knowledge can straighten me out on this.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In western Canada, the term "to christen" has morphed into a celebration with alcohol. As in "we're christening my new chesterfield and ottoman, if you can drop by".
When I was a school-boy, if you turned up at school in a brand new pair of shoes, your "mates" would "Christen" them by stamping on your feet.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, christening/baptism is not a naming ceremony - candidates are already named!
However, if you registered your child with the wrong name at birth, you can give them a new name at a baptism, as long as it's within 12 months of the original registration.
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
I wonder if this will cause an increase in the popularity of semi-private baptisims among American Episcopalians? Scratch an Episcopalian and you will often find an Anglophile, and American Anglophiles go gaga over the British Royal Family in a way that actual Brits find weird. So I expect lots of American Episcopalians to ask if they can have a family ceremony like the Royal Family rather than having their kid baptized at the main Sunday Eucharist. My current vicar is certain to say "no" to these requests because he's very much a 1960s type, and also a West Virginian with not a trace of Anglophilia in his soul. Also, yes, we will see imitations of the baptismal gown.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
However, if you registered your child with the wrong name at birth, you can give them a new name at a baptism, as long as it's within 12 months of the original registration.
The old view, in all the text books forty years ago, was that:-
a. One could change one's surname by deed, statutory declaration, or if female, by marriage.
b. One could not change a Christian name given at baptism at all. One could add an additional Christian name at confirmation, but that would be an extra name, not a replacement.
I can't remember whether the text books said anything at all about whether people who had never been baptised could change their first names.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I wonder if this will cause an increase in the popularity of semi-private baptisims among American Episcopalians? Scratch an Episcopalian and you will often find an Anglophile, and American Anglophiles go gaga over the British Royal Family in a way that actual Brits find weird. So I expect lots of American Episcopalians to ask if they can have a family ceremony like the Royal Family rather than having their kid baptized at the main Sunday Eucharist...
I doubt it -- except for those who own their own palaces with private chapels (in other words, no one).
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
In my experience (I'm American and Episcopalian) it seems people use the word "christening" when they perceive it as a social nicety and "baptism" when they perceive it as initiation into the Body of Christ.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
However, if you registered your child with the wrong name at birth, you can give them a new name at a baptism, as long as it's within 12 months of the original registration.
The old view, in all the text books forty years ago, was that:-
a. One could change one's surname by deed, statutory declaration, or if female, by marriage.
b. One could not change a Christian name given at baptism at all. One could add an additional Christian name at confirmation, but that would be an extra name, not a replacement.
I can't remember whether the text books said anything at all about whether people who had never been baptised could change their first names.
In England you have no government-mandated name. You can call yourself anything you want, as long as its not a deliberate attempt to pass yourself off as someone you aren't.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It's the same in the United States— there's just a lot of paperwork involved to change your name on government forms and the like.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
It was nicely done, with a short memdia moment.
Now if this had happened at say Westminster Abbey , or any CofE church the security would have been stifling and well it would have been messey.
And with this select congregation the prom,ises will be followed up on. HM the Queen is an firm believer and I also believe HRH the Prince of Wales is.
And when will we ever see 4 monarchs and successors in the same photo again ? Not in my lifetime .
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
And when will we ever see 4 monarchs and successors in the same photo again ? Not in my lifetime .
The last time it happened was in the mid-1890s, when the future Edward VIII was baptized in the presence of his father, later George V, his grandfather, later Edward VII, and Queen Victoria.
That was almost a hundred twenty years ago. Maybe in another hundred twenty years, it will happen again.
Moo
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Actually the last time it happened was in 1896: although not at the baptism there is a picture of Queen Victoria with her heir (Edward VII), his heir (George V) and BOTH of his heirs (Edward VIII and George VI) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
[Tangent:
A constitution of Archbishop Peckham (ob. 1292) directs that "ministers shall take care not to permit wanton names to be given to children baptized, and if otherwise it be done, the same shall be changed by the bishop at confirmation."
So if you brought baby Betty to be baptized, the priest was to name her Elizabeth.
End tangent]
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
And when will we ever see 4 monarchs and successors in the same photo again ? Not in my lifetime .
The last time it happened was in the mid-1890s, when the future Edward VIII was baptized in the presence of his father, later George V, his grandfather, later Edward VII, and Queen Victoria.
That was almost a hundred twenty years ago. Maybe in another hundred twenty years, it will happen again.
Moo
Not ever according to Christopher Lee, former BBC royal correspondent in the New Statesman. The monarchy is doomed he recons. As soon as the Queen is gone there won't be much interest in the rest of 'em. Current celebrity couple will be middle aged before he's on the thrown and we'll have had enough of them by then.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
People were saying the same thing in the 70's about Chuck. Unless George is an only child and a complete pillock, this celebrity family is not going anywhere.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
The Act of Settlement is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
...I also believe HRH the Prince of Wales is.
Just what is it that he believes in? I don't see much evidence of that (aka fruit) in some of his public pronouncements and behaviour.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A Private Baptism
Well, not really: the Chapel Royal is a proper working church.
Erm, so I would have been able to walk in off the street and take part/watch?
I think not. It's restricted entry, therefore it's private, not public.
Pity, Billie and Katy missed a good opportunity to prove that they are different.
To be honest, it was the usual stuff we get with the Royal Family complete with news presenters putting on the usual silly "Royal family grin" when they are mentioned. George Alagiah you're above all that!
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Exclamation Mark (referring to the Prince of Wales)
Just what is it that he believes in? I don't see much evidence of that (aka fruit) in some of his public pronouncements and behaviour.
Seeing that you describe yourself as a "Turbulent Priest" one might be tempted to ask of which religion - you certainly show little "fruit" yourself, at least not of the Christian Charity variety. Perhaps a re-reading of Matthew chapter 7 may re-fresh your memory.
In any case, not only are none of us perfect, but bearing in mind the goldfish bowl the man has lived in all his life you have to search long and hard for evidence of him either behaving badly towards members of the public or of being gratuitously rude.
quote:
Erm, so I would have been able to walk in off the street and take part/watch? I think not. It's restricted entry, therefore it's private, not public.
Entrance was restricted because of security concerns: and do you really want a situation where someone wielding a knife (or worse) got in to start having a go?
In any case, as pointed out above, there were choristers, choirmen, director of music, etc: and in the case of the musicians all appointed on MERIT - you can't buy yourself musical ability.
quote:
Pity, Billie and Katy missed a good opportunity to prove that they are different.
Gosh, you really are a cross-patch this morning!
For the record "Billie" is generally accepted to be a female name: "Billy" is the male variant - and in any case it is well documented that the person in question is known as William or Will. Likewise his wife is usually called by either her given name of Catherine or Kate (should be spelled Cate, really)
quote:
To be honest, it was the usual stuff we get with the Royal Family complete with news presenters putting on the usual silly "Royal family grin" when they are mentioned. George Alagiah you're above all that!
It is unfair to blame the Royal Family for the rictus grins and fawning attitude of news presenters - not their fault if people behave in a foolish manner around them.
But in this instance it just may be that people are pleased to see a young couple with a young baby who are happy and proud to be celebrating one of life's milestone events with their immediate family - ever thought of that?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A Private Baptism
Well, not really: the Chapel Royal is a proper working church.
Erm, so I would have been able to walk in off the street and take part/watch?
I think not. It's restricted entry, therefore it's private, not public.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/TheChapelsRoyal/Services.aspx
you may well not have been able to go to yesterday's *private* service in a proper working church, but there's nothing stopping you ordinarily...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
you may well not have been able to go to yesterday's *private* service in a proper working church, but there's nothing stopping you ordinarily...
Which is exactly the point we're all making. If we attend the chapel 'ordinarily', being barred from a public declaration of faith in our own church is against the intention of the Service of Baptism.
Again, I appreciate the difficulties. However, a baptism is not a private party to which only a few are invited.
[ 25. October 2013, 09:41: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Exclamation Mark (referring to the Prince of Wales)
Just what is it that he believes in? I don't see much evidence of that (aka fruit) in some of his public pronouncements and behaviour.
1. Seeing that you describe yourself as a "Turbulent Priest" one might be tempted to ask of which religion - you certainly show little "fruit" yourself, at least not of the Christian Charity variety. Perhaps a re-reading of Matthew chapter 7 may re-fresh your memory.
2. In any case, not only are none of us perfect, but bearing in mind the goldfish bowl the man has lived in all his life you have to search long and hard for evidence of him either behaving badly towards members of the public or of being gratuitously rude.
3. Entrance was restricted because of security concerns: and do you really want a situation where someone wielding a knife (or worse) got in to start having a go?
In any case, as pointed out above, there were choristers, choirmen, director of music, etc: and in the case of the musicians all appointed on MERIT - you can't buy yourself musical ability.
4. quote:
Pity, Billie and Katy missed a good opportunity to prove that they are different.
Gosh, you really are a cross-patch this morning!
5. It is unfair to blame the Royal Family for the rictus grins and fawning attitude of news presenters - not their fault if people behave in a foolish manner around them.
But in this instance it just may be that people are pleased to see a young couple with a young baby who are happy and proud to be celebrating one of life's milestone events with their immediate family - ever thought of that?
Thanks - here's a few thoughts in response. It's a matter of being concerned about the event and the presentation of the same .... here goes.
1. Your interpretation of Matthew 7 may or may not be the same as mine. I wouldn't see anything in Jesus' words that precludes me from speaking out against or stopping someone whose behaviour causes harm to himself and/or to others. I do though bear in mind, as you suggest, my own "planks" of which I'm painfully aware.
"Priest" refers to a broad understanding of the term. Denominations aren't important, being a follower of Christ - is. I'll leave it to Him and others here to assess the fruit of my life.
2. Well, there was the instance of his comments about people getting above themselves in looking to improve their lot. You could add his written interventions and notes to politicians and then there's the matter of his attitude to his marriage. Of course what most people won't have on record is his comments about working people at a private meeting in Cambridge ..... but then again I happened to be there.
He has chosen to be a public figure: the responsibilities come with the rights IMHO.
3. Ah, I see. It's pretty well managed elsewhere on other occasions. What's the difference here?
It's "public" because you have a choir and musicians? Chosen by whom?
No, whatever way you look at it its a restricted guest list, entry by invite only. It's a private function. I'm happy for it to be so if that is what is required but not happy when you try to defend the indefensible.
4. I was behaving, for once! I was coming in off a short run. Far worse and aimed at the body when I come in off a long one, I'll have you know.
5. Life isn't fair. They may not welcome it but do little to stop it. Kindness and encouragement (to name but two are ok) but in today's world deference to a position (not a person) is long overdue for removal.
I'm very pleased for them as new parents who clearly love their child. They obviously show it and it's great that they get together as a family to celebrate. I'm just sad that they missed a golden opportunity to be more inclusive and give us a picture of a monarchy that might (just) be workable later in the century.
I just wish sometimes our news programmes would feature a young family with really tough lives who love their children as much as William and Catherine do and who are working their socks off to get somewhere.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Prince George's parents seem to be very much more in touch with the scientific/naturalistic** truths of today. The young are increasingly likely not to believe in God/god/s.
A friend told me the other day that apparently Kate had to be confirmed before she could marry William. To me that makes her sound like a thoroughly down-to-earth girl, who did not feel that she 'suffered' in any way from not having gone through this ritual at a younger age. If they decided on the christening not believing in God, ;Holy Spirit', etc, well, good for them. I hope they will have already realised thatGeorge must learn about non-belief, and the role religious beliefs have played throughout history. If that could be considered hypocritical by some, well, that's too bad, since there is no God out there anyway!
Prince George looks like a contented baby the photographs will be lovely and for the present - and for quite a few years to come - I actually very strongly support such events in the CofE, the traditions etc until there is a sufficiently strong, solid non-religious system to take its place.
**because I get pulled up on these adjectives!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
But without God, how would they justify their office?
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
All right. I see that British shipmates regard the "christening" as a formal but not a theological event; much as we regard christening a ship. However I have not found any reference to the "baptism" as to when that occurs. Is it done to infants or only adults?
And when in either ceremony does the name given become legal/official?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... you have to search long and hard for evidence of him either behaving badly towards members of the public ...
No you don't. He did his best to get Professor Ernst sacked from Exeter University. Shabby behaviour, even if you make allowances for HRH not being all that bright.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
All right. I see that British shipmates regard the "christening" as a formal but not a theological event; much as we regard christening a ship. However I have not found any reference to the "baptism" as to when that occurs. Is it done to infants or only adults?
And when in either ceremony does the name given become legal/official?
I don't think you've got it; Christenings *are* baptisms so very much theological - although as has been noted it tends to be called a baptism if it's done as an adult. A christening is a baptism in terms of words, actions and intent, which is presumably why you're struggling to pull the two words apart, it's just that someone coming to it outside infancy is unlikely to ask if they can be "christened."
Second question, in neither - unlike marriage where the Incumbent of a CofE church is also the state registrar, all babies' names are registered at the register office, which is where birth certificates are issued, and where the name becomes legal. Typically this would be before the christening in any case.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Truth and authenticity are important to those who believe in God, SusanDoris. Are you suggesting that they are not important to atheists, or that the vows of confirmation and christening were not taken seriously?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
L'organist: quote:
Seeing that you describe yourself as a "Turbulent Priest" one might be tempted to ask of which religion - you certainly show little "fruit" yourself, at least not of the Christian Charity variety. Perhaps a re-reading of Matthew chapter 7 may re-fresh your memory.
In any case, not only are none of us perfect, but bearing in mind the goldfish bowl the man has lived in all his life you have to search long and hard for evidence of him either behaving badly towards members of the public or of being gratuitously rude.
(Ahem. Isn't Pyx_e our "Turbulent Priest"?)
Anyway, I agree with L'organist. you can't have it both ways. Since they've agreed to carry on the family business, it's going to be a different business and life than most people have. Yes, for your average Christian CoE family the christening would be a parish-wide event open to anyone who wants to come to church. But since there are any number of uncharitable people out there who are just panting to see the royals fail in any way by word or deed, in order to have a happy and stress-free spiritual occasion, the service was limited to an intimate number. Just because their lives are mostly in a fishbowl and their business is mainly to encourage and honor their countrymen and members of the Commonwealth, as far as I can see, doesn't mean to me that all aspects of their lives have to be edifying examples and subject to the approval by all. I'm glad they had a happy day. And unless I hear on authority that William and family aren't personally Christian, I'll assume they have Christian beliefs.
Anyway, adorable baby. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
1. Ahem. Isn't Pyx_e our "Turbulent Priest"?)
2. Anyway, I agree with L'organist. you can't have it both ways.
3. But since there are any number of uncharitable people out there who are just panting to see the royals fail in any way by word or deed, in order to have a happy and stress-free spiritual occasion, the service was limited to an intimate number.
4. I'm glad they had a happy day. And unless I hear on authority that William and family aren't personally Christian, I'll assume they have Christian beliefs.
1. We are more than one. It's not a trademark
2. I don't see that I'm trying to have things in more than one way.
3. True. But it wouldn't be quite so bad if they didn't keep trying to maintain that they are likely to be canonised soon. The same standards don't seem to apply to them as to others - as witness the recent removal of a parking ticket from Andrew Mountbatten's car.
4. I'm glad too: a new baby and loving parents must be supported. But they are hardly representative of so many families - they won't have to suffer the indignity of state interrogation over benefits that many couples I know have to. Try doing that with a new child. William won't have to be one of hundreds applying for a dead end job either: his degree from St Andrews wont cut much ice as a cleaner for MacDonalds.
As regards their belief - that again is private but then again, not so. It's possible that William will one day be King and he will be required (on the basis of what we have today), to make certain declarations about his faith and to lead the Church of England. If he doesn't believe then people will want to know about it.
Should we assume that they do believe unless we hear otherwise or should we assume that they don't believe unless we hear otherwise?
The latter works best for me.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The same standards don't seem to apply to them as to others - as witness the recent removal of a parking ticket from Andrew Mountbatten's car.
or the planting of a bomb in "Dickie Mountbatten's" boat. The same standards don't apply to them as to others right across the board, good and bad. I still wouldn't want to be them even if it got me off every parking ticket between now and the end of time.
By the way, surely it's Andrew Windsor if it's anything other than the Duke of York, what with them taking the Queen's name, not Philip's... Remarkably forward thinking in some ways, our Royal Family...
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I appreciate the difficulties in this, but in my church (CofE), it's explicit that a christening is a public event, with vows made in public, before and in the presence of the local congregation who make promises to help the parents and godparents in their duties.
There is no such thing as a 'private christening', only one from which the people of the church have been deliberately excluded.
My niece had her child christened on a Saturday afternoon in a C of E church, not during the normal Sunday service. Whilst in theory the public might have wandered in, it was to all intents and purposes a short private ceremony, the only attendants being friends and relatives of the parents. I was told by relatives that it was the priest's preferred option for those who weren't members of the church, I'm guessing because the church was in a rough area and she didn't want large groups of noisy working class heathens cluttering up the Sunday morning service. So private christening services don't seem to be restricted to the privileged few.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Exclamation Mark
He has chosen to be a public figure: the responsibilities come with the rights IMHO.
Aaah - I can see it now: little Charles coming out of the womb in 1948 with a burning desire to learn to speak so he could lisp "Please Mummy, may I be a public figure?".
quote:
...then there's the matter of his attitude to his marriage...
Obviously you're a close friend of HRH's and he chose you to unburden himself to when his first marriage was in difficulties - what a privilege.
No? Then how on earth do you know what his "attitude" was to his marriage. ALL marriages are, at heart, like Africa: dark and mysterious with plenty of good and bad in them. Sometimes the good outweighs the bad, othertimes not.
quote:
...the instance of his comments about people getting above themselves in looking to improve their lot...
I think you are referring to a memo to one of his staff in which the Prince wrote:
quote:
People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Is it wrong to point out that hard work and talent are required for certain things? Have you seen the auditions for The X Factor or Britain's Got Talent recently? And would you disagree that it requires a certain degree of intellectual capacity to run a large enterprise successfully?
Don't make the mistake of thinking that equality of opportunity can be translated into all areas at all levels because it can't: for example, you can't make someone who is tone deaf a virtuoso violinist or someone who lacks the ability to process large amounts of information forensically into a high court judge. To pretend that it can be otherwise is not only naive but, unless you have the capacity of a young child, dishonest.
As for giving people opportunities, I don't think you can accuse the person who founded The Prince's Trust of not trying to help young people to fulfil their potential in life.
As for the musicians at the Chapel Royal: the Children of the Chapel Royal (junior choristers) are chosen at voice trials where young boys are tested on pitch and rhythmic ability. Such trials are open to all, they do not have to be able to read music; if selected they are educated free of charge at the City of London school as part of their choral scholarships which are paid for by The Queen.
Adult choirmen are selected by audition: vacancies are advertised in The Church Times. The post of Organist & Master of the Children has recently been combined with Composer in Residence - again, advertised and open to all - the current post-holder is Andrew Gant.
SusanDoris
Catherine Middleton didn't "have" to get confirmed before she married Prince William - she chose to.
Although not weekly attendees, when the Middleton family lived in South End they went to St Andrew's Church (which is also the chapel of Bradfield College) from time to time. As a boarder Catherine attended chapel at school at Marlborough but it is no longer customary for all boarders to automatically be confirmed.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
So private christening services don't seem to be restricted to the privileged few.
Indeed not - the last 3 or so I've been to were Saturday afternoons without the congregation. As, indeed, was my own 30 odd years ago - not that I remember it. I do remember my brother's in 1983 though. Saturday afternoon, family and friends only.
I take the point it's not strictly *private* though, in that anyone could have wandered in off the street had they felt so inclined, it's just that if you don't advertise it....
But then, none of the Christenings I've mentioned were that of the heir to the throne. As usual, and I say it as a member, what the CofE says, and what the CofE actually does at a local level are not the same thing at all.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
...and some more:
Andrew Mountbatten - I assume you mean the Duke of York?
The surname of the royal family is Mountbatten-Windsor - declared to be so in 1960.
The parking ticket was issued while police protection officers were with the car: HRH did nothing about it because he wasn't there.
You prefer to assume that the royal couple don't believe until you "hear otherwise" - how very odd, bearing in mind they are both confirmed members of the Church of England. On the whole, communicant members of the CofE are assumed to hold Christian beliefs - though obviously not in your neck of the woods. Perhaps you should write to them and ask them to issue a statement on the matter?
FYI it is now common for "private" baptisms to take place on Sunday afternoons, just like in the old days. While clergy may prefer them to be part of the main Sunday service this is often not possible with families no longer all living in the same place and most people not having the luxury of a spare room.
And in villages with small churches it often happens that space is an issue...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
My niece had her child christened on a Saturday afternoon in a C of E church, not during the normal Sunday service. Whilst in theory the public might have wandered in, it was to all intents and purposes a short private ceremony, the only attendants being friends and relatives of the parents. I was told by relatives that it was the priest's preferred option for those who weren't members of the church, I'm guessing because the church was in a rough area and she didn't want large groups of noisy working class heathens cluttering up the Sunday morning service. So private christening services don't seem to be restricted to the privileged few.
Then I'm going to suggest the priest was doing it wrong. In my shack, baptisms are public events. And we make enough racket on our own, thanks.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
My own children were baptised at a public service, although not the main one since distance precluded ANY of the Godparents making it to that.
We also had water from the Jordan.
ALL the Godparents are communicant churchgoers.
Now for a bit of boasting: our family Baptism robe is older than the royals'! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...and some more:
Andrew Mountbatten - I assume you mean the Duke of York?
The surname of the royal family is Mountbatten-Windsor - declared to be so in 1960.
The parking ticket was issued while police protection officers were with the car: HRH did nothing about it because he wasn't there.
You prefer to assume that the royal couple don't believe until you "hear otherwise" - how very odd, bearing in mind they are both confirmed members of the Church of England. On the whole, communicant members of the CofE are assumed to hold Christian beliefs - though obviously not in your neck of the woods. Perhaps you should write to them and ask them to issue a statement on the matter?
FYI it is now common for "private" baptisms to take place on Sunday afternoons, just like in the old days. While clergy may prefer them to be part of the main Sunday service this is often not possible with families no longer all living in the same place and most people not having the luxury of a spare room.
And in villages with small churches it often happens that space is an issue...
Well, you have come in off the long run!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Prince George's parents seem to be very much more in touch with the scientific/naturalistic** truths of today. The young are increasingly likely not to believe in God/god/s.
A friend told me the other day that apparently Kate had to be confirmed before she could marry William. To me that makes her sound like a thoroughly down-to-earth girl, who did not feel that she 'suffered' in any way from not having gone through this ritual at a younger age. If they decided on the christening not believing in God, ;Holy Spirit', etc, well, good for them. I hope they will have already realised thatGeorge must learn about non-belief, and the role religious beliefs have played throughout history. If that could be considered hypocritical by some, well, that's too bad, since there is no God out there anyway!
Prince George looks like a contented baby the photographs will be lovely and for the present - and for quite a few years to come - I actually very strongly support such events in the CofE, the traditions etc until there is a sufficiently strong, solid non-religious system to take its place.
**because I get pulled up on these adjectives!
Kate didn't have to get confirmed, she actually chose to do so.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
...I also believe HRH the Prince of Wales is.
Just what is it that he believes in? I don't see much evidence of that (aka fruit) in some of his public pronouncements and behaviour.
Well Charles crosses himself in the Greek Orthodox way, which suggests some agreement with that church...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Well Charles crosses himself in the Greek Orthodox way, which suggests some agreement with that church...
People often forget that his other grandmother was in later life an Orthodox nun. I've heard it said that there's a widespread belief in Greece that he is secretly Orthodox, or at least an Orthodox fellow traveller.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Might be reading too much into it. I cross myself that way, and it's because I can't ever tell left from right.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I've heard Prince Chuck takes holidays at Mount Athos. His desire to be crowned "Defender of Faith" would seem to imply that he isn't entirely Orthodox quite yet.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've heard Prince Chuck takes holidays at Mount Athos. His desire to be crowned "Defender of Faith" would seem to imply that he isn't entirely Orthodox quite yet.
Surely it would be the other way around? If he wanted to be 'Defender of the Faith', that would imply he was solidly Anglican.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've heard Prince Chuck takes holidays at Mount Athos. His desire to be crowned "Defender of Faith" would seem to imply that he isn't entirely Orthodox quite yet.
Surely it would be the other way around? If he wanted to be 'Defender of the Faith', that would imply he was solidly Anglican.
I dunno. "Defender of Faith" sounds like more of a liberal Protestant sentiment to me.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've heard Prince Chuck takes holidays at Mount Athos. His desire to be crowned "Defender of Faith" would seem to imply that he isn't entirely Orthodox quite yet.
Surely it would be the other way around? If he wanted to be 'Defender of the Faith', that would imply he was solidly Anglican.
I dunno. "Defender of Faith" sounds like more of a liberal Protestant sentiment to me.
'Defender of the Faith' specifically refers to the CoE, is what I meant.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've heard Prince Chuck takes holidays at Mount Athos. His desire to be crowned "Defender of Faith" would seem to imply that he isn't entirely Orthodox quite yet.
Surely it would be the other way around? If he wanted to be 'Defender of the Faith', that would imply he was solidly Anglican.
I dunno. "Defender of Faith" sounds like more of a liberal Protestant sentiment to me.
As I recall, "Defender of the Faith" was a label? title? given to Henry VIII by the pope who liked his opposition to Martin Luther. I believe ol' Henry dropped a notch with Rome a while later. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Did I imagine this or am I correct in recalling that at some point HRH Prince Charles made some sort of public comment that if he did become king he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith" as he felt this to be a better reflection of modern, multicultural Britain?
Or did someone else say it?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Might be reading too much into it. I cross myself that way, and it's because I can't ever tell left from right.
Same here. Maybe it's a Lutheran thing. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Did I imagine this or am I correct in recalling that at some point HRH Prince Charles made some sort of public comment that if he did become king he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith" as he felt this to be a better reflection of modern, multicultural Britain?
Or did someone else say it?
It's definitely associated with him (I think it came from some interview)
this page has a second hand reference (in the text, it also has video).
Personally while a good Hindu/Atheist/Pastafarian prince might well want to change it, I can also imagine a good Christian man who is a prince considering his prince role (even divinely ordained, possibly democratically contracted) to be impartial.
So I don't think feelings about the title really says anything about the man's faith directly (it does suggest he won't be in favour of an inquisition, or a Pastafarian takeover).
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But without God, how would they justify their office?
I can't imagine that God (i.e. the imagined God) plays much of a part in their daily lives. I
should be astonished if they pray daily, consult God before taking decisions, or think that said God is keeping a special eye on them. I don't think they have to justify their office in terms of God, it is because of the way things are in this country - and it's one of those things that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the system, the formalities, the conventions, work, and unless a system is voted for which does all that the present system does, but very, very much better, then it has to stay in place.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Truth and authenticity are important to those who believe in God, SusanDoris. Are you suggesting that they are not important to atheists, or that the vows of confirmation and christening were not taken seriously?
Yes of course, truth and authenticity are very important to atheists too. If I had known more when young, or had come to know any philosophy or the idea that non-belief was a 'good thing', then I would not have been confirmed. But it was the done thing then; I would have been firmly directed against questioning that it was so.
I would nod in approval if I heard that Kate made a practical, conventional decision to be confirmed since for the present, that was the way to keep things on track. Even if she believes in some vague, God/force/power, then she can't possibly think that some dire consequence will follow her being confirmed* for practical reasons!
*ditto for the couple to have George christened in Cof E
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But without God, how would they justify their office?
I can't imagine that God (i.e. the imagined God) plays much of a part in their daily lives. I
should be astonished if they pray daily, consult God before taking decisions, or think that said God is keeping a special eye on them. I don't think they have to justify their office in terms of God, it is because of the way things are in this country - and it's one of those things that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the system, the formalities, the conventions, work, and unless a system is voted for which does all that the present system does, but very, very much better, then it has to stay in place.
I am often surprised how it is the most unlikely people who have the strongest sense of God's presence, so I have long ago learned not to make assumptions of any sort in this respect.
As far as Charles' Orthodoxy goes, he is the (I think) fifth cousin of S Elizabeth of Russia-- perhaps the whiff of incense will soon be sensed at Highgrove, a precursor to kontakia at Canterbury???
With respect to Zach82's reference to God being necessary to their office, I once heard a Canadian political scientist deliver a presentation on the monarchy as a republican institution, simply being a peculiar way of selecting a president in a parliamentary state.
Reviewing other postings on the private and exclusive nature of the baptism in question, I still think that my understanding of it as a ceremony performed in a chaplaincy in a restricted access institution, such as a correctional facility, is still a very good way to understand the set up.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes of course, truth and authenticity are very important to atheists too. If I had known more when young, or had come to know any philosophy or the idea that non-belief was a 'good thing', then I would not have been confirmed. But it was the done thing then; I would have been firmly directed against questioning that it was so.
I would nod in approval if I heard that Kate made a practical, conventional decision to be confirmed since for the present, that was the way to keep things on track. Even if she believes in some vague, God/force/power, then she can't possibly think that some dire consequence will follow her being confirmed* for practical reasons!
*ditto for the couple to have George christened in Cof E
You would nod in approval if they were being disingenuous, 'going through the motions' for the sake of tradition, but shake your head in disapproval if they were genuinely making the vows in the belief that they stood in the presence of the living God?
That doesn't follow on from giving importance to truth and authenticity.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've heard Prince Chuck takes holidays at Mount Athos. His desire to be crowned "Defender of Faith" would seem to imply that he isn't entirely Orthodox quite yet.
I don't think it is appropriate for a foreigner to refer to our next head of state in this way. You wouldn't like it if I referred to O'Barmy or Joe Bide-a-wee.
We can mock our own rulers in ways that it is not appropriate for us to mock other peoples'.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've heard Prince Chuck takes holidays at Mount Athos. His desire to be crowned "Defender of Faith" would seem to imply that he isn't entirely Orthodox quite yet.
I don't think it is appropriate for a foreigner to refer to our next head of state in this way. You wouldn't like it if I referred to O'Barmy or Joe Bide-a-wee.
We can mock our own rulers in ways that it is not appropriate for us to mock other peoples'.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
The religious leanings of the Prince of Wales looking reasonably clear to me from his actions and public pronouncements. He is basically a liturgically traditionalist Anglican (he is not only a patron of the Prayer Book Society but reputedly says the BCP offices daily — which is more than many Anglican priests, for shame!). Like his grandmother and his late aunt, but in contrast to his mother, he is higher than not and reasonably comfortable with very high Anglo-Catholic liturgy (he has I believe visited Walsingham in both personal and official capacities and there are pictures of him at S. Silas Kentish Town). Outside the Church of England, the Prince has wide religious interests, certainly including Orthodoxy (the Mount Athos connection has been mentioned, as has the Russian family connection, but I think his personal links to Romania include churches as well). He is also famous interested in mysticism.
Broadly speaking, HRH's religious views would not stand out amongst those of Baby Boomers in an upper-middle class Aff Cath type parish. Similarly, his mothers would not seem very different from those of the OAP set in a BCP Mattins and stay behind parish. This is certainly not to denigrate either of them: they both come across as very sincere Anglican Christians and, in their own way, as very representative of their respective generations. If TRH the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge do not choose to discuss their religious views in public, that is also very typical of their generation.
With all that said, it is generally true that, since the first Elizabeth, English (and later British) monarchs have not seen fit to make windows into the souls of their subjects. I see no reason why that basic courtesy should not be returned.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Did I imagine this or am I correct in recalling that at some point HRH Prince Charles made some sort of public comment that if he did become king he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith" as he felt this to be a better reflection of modern, multicultural Britain?
Or did someone else say it?
I thought he said 'defender of faiths' but things have moved on since then, and if he chose that, there would be a great many people, including me:), calling for '... and no faith' too.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, I suppose you would be, wouldn't you?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You would nod in approval if they were being disingenuous, 'going through the motions' for the sake of tradition, but shake your head in disapproval if they were genuinely making the vows in the belief that they stood in the presence of the living God?
That doesn't follow on from giving importance to truth and authenticity.
It's not so much approve or disapprove, I would be disappointed if they preferred the idea of a living God to all the wealth of knowledge about the universe to which they have access. I would fully understand and support ttheir decision to be disingenuous at present.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Susan, care to keep it on the level of a tabloid and not turn yet another thread into a discussion of how ignorant theism is and how wonderful, intelligent, and open minded you are for not being taken in by the silly superstition most of us here suffer from? Just as a personal favor?
[ 26. October 2013, 15:02: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The Prince of Wales is very definitely someone who has a personal faith, as is HM The Queen.
After the fire at Windsor Castle, the thing that caused her the most pain was that her personal, private chapel had been gutted and she lost not only the chapel but her own prayer books.
The Prince prays the daily offices - a habit he got into very young. And yes, as mentioned up-thread, his paternal grandmother was a nun - in fact she founded her own order.
And I'm with Enoch in wincing at people using "Chuck" to refer to the Prince: in any case, in the UK "chuck" refers either to a type of steak or is a word meaning to throw; the diminuitive for Charles is Charlie.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Well put L'Organist
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... I would be disappointed if they preferred the idea of a living God to all the wealth of knowledge about the universe to which they have access. ...
Most of us do not regard these as in any sort of conflict with each other, yet alone either/or alternatives.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... I would be disappointed if they preferred the idea of a living God to all the wealth of knowledge about the universe to which they have access. ...
Most of us do not regard these as in any sort of conflict with each other, yet alone either/or alternatives.
Exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Similarly, his mothers would not seem very different from those of the OAP set in a BCP Mattins and stay behind parish. This is certainly not to denigrate either of them: they both come across as very sincere Anglican Christians and, in their own way, as very representative of their respective generations.
Seems worth pointing out that the prince's mother is both an Anglican and a Presbyterian. She has different roles in the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, but she does have a role in each.
And while I'm sure she might lean more Anglican, as it were, given that she has spent more of her life in England and in Anglican churches, I have read on more than one occasion that she does have an affinity for Scottish Presbyterianism.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But without God, how would they justify their office?
I can't imagine that God (i.e. the imagined God) plays much of a part in their daily lives. I
should be astonished if they pray daily, consult God before taking decisions, or think that said God is keeping a special eye on them. I don't think they have to justify their office in terms of God, it is because of the way things are in this country - and it's one of those things that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the system, the formalities, the conventions, work, and unless a system is voted for which does all that the present system does, but very, very much better, then it has to stay in place.
It is well-known that the Queen and Prince Charles pray daily. For someone who loves facts so much, that seems like an oddly easily-discovered fact to miss (as is the fact that Kate chose to be confirmed). Why do you imagine that the Royal family aren't particularly religious, when the Queen in particular is known for her genuine faith and how she certainly does justify her office in terms of God?
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
... he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faith" ...
I hope I didn't misunderstand him, but I took that to mean that he would defend the right of people of all faiths to practise those faiths without fear or favour. I don't see it as detracting from his own faith as an Anglican (and future head of the Church of England).
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Zach82, Enoch and Nick TamenMy apologies. In fact, I agree with S. Bacchus's post as quoted in Nick Tamen's post.
I do not question whether the Queen or Prince Charles pray daily; whatever they choose to do is their right and must be upheld in a secular society. I was thinking in terms of William and Kate and the younger generation.
Piglet I agree with your view about supporting faiths. Do you agree that this term should include 'all faiths and none?]
Bearing in mind recent census results, a monarch who did not support those with no faith would be ignoring a large number of people.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It's not so much approve or disapprove, I would be disappointed if they preferred the idea of a living God to all the wealth of knowledge about the universe to which they have access.
That's a lovely false dichotomy you're constructing there. Shame if anything happened to it.
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on
:
Until 1837 there was no civil registration of births in England only the ecclesiastical registration of baptisms. In other words until baptism there was no legal record of a child's name. I am sure that is why 'Christening' became thought of as name giving ceremony.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
... he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faith" ...
I hope I didn't misunderstand him, but I took that to mean that he would defend the right of people of all faiths to practise those faiths without fear or favour. I don't see it as detracting from his own faith as an Anglican (and future head of the Church of England).
That's certainly how I understood it. Supporting religious freedom does not lead to a diminution of one's own faith or spirituality...well not in my experience.
And yes, Susan Doris that support would include "...and none"!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
... he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faith" ...
I hope I didn't misunderstand him, but I took that to mean that he would defend the right of people of all faiths to practise those faiths without fear or favour. I don't see it as detracting from his own faith as an Anglican (and future head of the Church of England).
That's certainly how I understood it. Supporting religious freedom does not lead to a diminution of one's own faith or spirituality...well not in my experience.
And yes, Susan Doris that support would include "...and none"!
But we already have freedom of religion in the UK, so it's not clear what changing the title from 'Defender of the Faith' to Defender of Faith' would bring to the table. Different faith communities will do what they do, people with no faith will carry on their way, and nothing will be any different.
It would be interesting to see a baby prince or princess given an ecumenical - or even an interfaith plus humanist - christening ceremony, but Prince Charles isn't suggesting anything as radical as that at all. Yawn!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
And yes, Susan Doris that support would include "...and none"!
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't think it does. The statement of the Prince of Wales that caused all the controversy was that he wanted to be defender of 'faith' or possibly 'faiths', rather than the more specific, 'the faith'. If it implies anything, 'defender of faith' or 'faiths' implies a belief that it's a lot better to believe in something - even anything - than nothing. So I don't think it does include "... and none".
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But we already have freedom of religion in the UK, so it's not clear what changing the title from 'Defender of the Faith' to Defender of Faith' would bring to the table. Different faith communities will do what they do, people with no faith will carry on their way, and nothing will be any different.
It would be interesting to see a baby prince or princess given an ecumenical - or even an interfaith plus humanist - christening ceremony, but Prince Charles isn't suggesting anything as radical as that at all. Yawn!
There has to be a line drawn somewhere, doesn't there? A christening includes the word 'Christ'. A humanist who saw authenticity as important would surely object to Christ being included, and to any suggestion that it was a baptism into the Christian faith that they were encouraging. Rather, they might prefer a 'naming ceremony' in which God was not included (at least in words )....... Oh, I see that they do.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by Enoch
quote:
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't think it does. The statement of the Prince of Wales that caused all the controversy was that he wanted to be defender of 'faith' or possibly 'faiths', rather than the more specific, 'the faith'. If it implies anything, 'defender of faith' or 'faiths' implies a belief that it's a lot better to believe in something - even anything - than nothing. So I don't think it does include "... and none".
I realised my recollection of the statement was somewhat foggy....I honestly thought it was about upholding the right to religious freedom and HRH's commitment to that, which would include "and none". For me faith is central to life and existence, it's just that I'm also passionate about personal freedom in these matters, hence my take on my vague recollection of what I thought he said!
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... Piglet I agree with your view about supporting faiths. Do you agree that this term should include 'all faiths and none'?
Bearing in mind recent census results, a monarch who did not support those with no faith would be ignoring a large number of people.
I'm not sure that it needs to. We're talking about defending people's right to practise their faith (whatever it may be). Presumably if you have no faith, then you don't have anything to practise.
[ 28. October 2013, 02:01: Message edited by: piglet ]
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
I agree with piglet. People of no faith have nothing to practice and so there is nothing to defend.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
I'm not sure that it needs to. We're talking about defending people's right to practise their faith (whatever it may be). Presumably if you have no faith, then you don't have anything to practise.
I agree, the only proviso being that history teaches us about "forcible conversion" of both belief and praxis. (Quite recent history too, here in East Africa albeit not that common.)Granted it's usually from one religion to another but it could theoretically include atheists being coerced to believe: unlikely, I know but still possible.
But this point is beyond the remit of HRH's proposed title and the christening of Prince George. The heart of the matter being religious freedom to believe what you wish to believe and to live out your beliefs as seems best to you, which is possibly what the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were doing by baptising their son, whether in a public ceremony or a private one.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It would be interesting to see a baby prince or princess given an ecumenical - or even an interfaith plus humanist - christening ceremony, but Prince Charles isn't suggesting anything as radical as that at all. Yawn!
What is "an ecumenical - or even an interfaith plus humanist - christening ceremony"? It seems to be oxymoronic.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
... Granted it's usually from one religion to another but it could theoretically include atheists being coerced to believe: unlikely, I know but still possible. ....
Atheists have a particularly bad record when it comes to coercing people to 'unbelieve', viz Russia from 1917 onwards, China, much of Eastern Europe after 1945 etc.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It would be interesting to see a baby prince or princess given an ecumenical - or even an interfaith plus humanist - christening ceremony, but Prince Charles isn't suggesting anything as radical as that at all. Yawn!
What is "an ecumenical - or even an interfaith plus humanist - christening ceremony"? It seems to be oxymoronic.
Not to mention utterly bloody pointless.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Atheists have a particularly bad record when it comes to coercing people to 'unbelieve', viz Russia from 1917 onwards, China, much of Eastern Europe after 1945 etc.
I know. I know someone who suffered horrendously under the regime in Bulgaria. His courage and and continuing faith were remarkable.he is still there working as a Christian minister.
Our ability as humans to try to control one another and destroy one another is heart-breaking.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I haven't followed the event with a great deal of attention, but picked up that the child acquired about twenty-seven god-parents.
God-parents are not part of my evangelical tradition, and I am constitutionally skeptical about the idea at a number of levels, but I am also prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
Do god-parents in fact have a good record, on the whole, of monitoring their god-children's spiritual welfare and development?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
On the topic of a Christening being inter-faith or even involving a humanist - utter rot.
You can't have inter-faith involvement because Baptism (Christening) is being initiated in the Christian faith: frankly I'm gobsmacked it was even suggested on this site - its more the sort of ignorant tosh I'd expect from The Daily Mirror.
As for ecumenical involvement: the RCs don't accept Anglican orders as valid, they don't therefore really believe that the CofE is a bona fide church: you can't have any ecumenical involvement with one party taking that attitude.
Similarly, those strands of Christianity that have "believers' baptism" tend not to hold with infant baptism and so wouldn't want to be associated.
And humanists don't acknowledge religion so WTF?
[Kaplan Corday]/B]
The Prince has 7 Godparents, all of whom should be Baptised themselves and, preferably, communicant members of the CofE.
They will have been asked to promise to help Prince George be brought up in the Christian faith: they will also have promised to pray for him and his parents and to help them ensure that he is later brought to a bishop to be confirmed.
Since the Duke and Duchess are both communicant members of the CofE he will, in any case, get a certain degree of religious formation at home: and at least one set of grandparents and the great-grandparents are regular churchgoing people.
And for those who might scoff at the idea of Prince William being a person of active belief: after the death of their mother, Prince Charles got Richard Chartres involved in the lives of the princes: Charles has a great respect for the Bishop of London and it is noticeable that it was him to confirmed the Duchess just before her wedding. Bishop Chartres is not someone who would have done that on a "going through the motions" basis: he will have prepared her thoroughly for confirmation, as he did the two princes - both of whom are quite at home with the communion service.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
On the topic of a Christening being inter-faith or even involving a humanist - utter rot.
You can't have inter-faith involvement because Baptism (Christening) is being initiated in the Christian faith: frankly I'm gobsmacked it was even suggested on this site - its more the sort of ignorant tosh I'd expect from The Daily Mirror.
Or the Mail. Well said.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Do god-parents in fact have a good record, on the whole, of monitoring their god-children's spiritual welfare and development?
Can't speak for others, but I certainly take it seriously with mine. Two (the RC two, as it happens) get quite a lot of good religious formation at home, so i cupport that; for the others, I see my role as a general and 'nudging' interest in their moral development, with a bit of explicit Christianity here and there and a role model of someone whom they like and respect (as I think they do) who is explicitly a Christian and shaped by his faith; and prayer for all of them, of course.
My wife was baptised in, I think, a Comngregational church, with the tradition that the congregation as a whole take on responsibility for the spiritual formation. I quite like that in theory but I think that in practical terms you do better to have- perhaps in addition- a couple of people who take particular responsibility for that particular child, on the basis that what is everybody's job often turns out to be nobody's. And of course in a rather geographically mobile society, godparents are more 'portable' than a particular congregation.
[ 28. October 2013, 10:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Regarding interfaith baptisms, my post was a response to a suggestion that the 'Defender of Faith' idea was about defending all faiths and none. AFAIK this concept already exists, in which case it would render the new title meaningless. I certainly wasn't proposing interfaith baptism as a wonderful idea, but implying that it would be just as pointless as this 'Defender of Faith' moniker. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ 28. October 2013, 10:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Sorry - irony meter must be on the blink today. I blame the St Jude storm.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
As for whether or not Godparents take their role seriously: well, choosing them for my own children it meant that most of the "pool" from which to choose likely shared our values, and all of my (as opposed to our" friends were regular churchgoers apart from those who go to synagogue.
So, Godparents were all chosen on the basis of not only friendship but faith: plus we did say when asking people to be Godparent that we expected them to be involved in ways other than Christmas and birthdays.
As for my own Godchildren, I've always tried to get to go and stay and take them to church - and I only agreed to be Godparent if I felt confident that they would be taken to church. I've always marked the anniversary of baptism, kept in regular contact and discussed faith with them. All bar one of my Godchildren are confirmed - the one who isn't is too young (5) at the moment.
End result is that when my own children had communion for the first time ALL the Godparents were there, plus my own Godchildren, and everyone took communion. My PP said it was a first for him!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
My godparents were my father and my grandmother! The christening had to be done quickly because my father worked in Jersey and we had to be back there three weeks after my birth - story here and so there was no time for me to wear the family christening robe either. That could well be what set me on the road to non-belief!!
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I haven't followed the event with a great deal of attention, but picked up that the child acquired about twenty-seven god-parents.
God-parents are not part of my evangelical tradition, and I am constitutionally skeptical about the idea at a number of levels, but I am also prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
Do god-parents in fact have a good record, on the whole, of monitoring their god-children's spiritual welfare and development?
In our family's experience, the record is 50-50: the RC godparents of one daughter were low-key but supportive of her at all times while the Baptist GP's of the other had nothing further to do with her at all.
And, just to add my note about "and none", ISTM that believing there is no Being outside our physical experience is still an act of faith, since the existence of this "outside" being is just as unprovable in the opposite sense.
The "Defender of Faith" could presumably support the "nones" in their belief, or at least act to promote their right to that belief against "all assaults of our enemies", just as he does for the most traditional Anglican.
Indeed, if the ruler did not promote that right to belief in "no particular thing", said ruler would not be a "Defender of Faith", since he would have moved towards being a "Defender of THE Faith" in the older sense.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
As far as William and catherine's spirituality is concerned, am I not correct in thinking that between them they wrote one of the prayers used in their marriage service?
quote:
"God our Father, we thank you for our families; for the love that we share and for the joy of our marriage.
In the busyness of each day keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love and energy. Strengthened by our union help us to serve and comfort those who suffer.
We ask this in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Amen."
Seems authentic to me - a modern and sincere prayer.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Yes, Mudfrog, they did write it. It was worked out between them during their preparation sessions with Richard Chartres.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I have heard from other sources about William and Catherine's own personal faith too. I may be a republican and opposed to their royal offices, but I have no doubt that they have sincere faith (of some kind).
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Jade Constable
I have heard from other sources about William and Catherine's own personal faith too. I may be a republican and opposed to their royal offices, but I have no doubt that they have sincere faith (of some kind).
Of some kind? Actually its pretty clear that the faith they have is described as "Christian" - or am I missing something?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0