|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The royal christening
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
But without God, how would they justify their office?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
...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...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Might be reading too much into it. I cross myself that way, and it's because I can't ever tell left from right.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
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 is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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 know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, I suppose you would be, wouldn't you?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
