Queen Coronation
Church of England

Without Christianity at its heart, the next Coronation will be empty ritual

 

In the week when Queen Elizabeth II reached a momentous landmark in her reign, it does feel rather inappropriate to be talking about what will happen once she is no longer with us. But this is exactly what the Christian think-tank Theos has been doing, and has published the results and analysis of a poll studying the public’s views on whether the expected coronation of King Charles III (or King George VII) should be an exclusively Christian affair, as it has been throughout English and British history.

The Queen is – as every coin issued by the Royal Mint reminds us – ‘Defender of the (Christian) Faith’. It is a title that she accepted at her Coronation in 1953, and has continued to honour with every fibre of her being, within the constraints of constitutional monarchy. Prince Charles, however, commented back in 1994 that he would rather be known as ‘Defender of Faith’, which led to a couple of decades of speculation that he is intending his coronation to be some sort of multicultural, multi-faith shindig.

In case anyone is still unsure if this remains the case, the Prince of Wales made his position crystal clear during an interview with Diane Louise Jordan on the BBC’s Sunday Hour back in February. He said:

No, I didn’t describe myself as a defender: I said I would rather be seen as ‘Defender of Faith’, all those years ago, because, as I tried to describe, I mind about the inclusion of other people’s faiths and their freedom to worship in this country. And it’s always seemed to me that, while at the same time being Defender of the Faith, you can also be protector of faiths. It was very interesting that 20 years or more after I mentioned this – which has been frequently misinterpreted – the Queen, in her Jubilee address to the faith leaders, said that as far as the role of the Church of England is concerned, it is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country. I think in that sense she was confirming what I was really trying to say – perhaps not very well – all those years ago. And so I think you have to see it as both. You have to come from your own Christian standpoint – in the case I have as Defender of the Faith – and ensuring that other people’s faiths can also be practised.

His Grace discussed the matter at length at the time, and concluded:

So when, by the Grace of God, Prince Charles swears the Coronation Oath, it will be upon the Holy Bible; not the Qur’an, the Guru Granth Sahib or the Bhagavad Gita. When he is anointed with holy oil, it will poured out by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with leaders of other faiths no doubt paying homage. When he is crowned King, he will, God willing, fulfil his spiritual vocation to “maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England”.

Of course, whether a metaphysically neutral Parliament permits him to keep his Oath remains to be seen.

We will have to wait and see if there is any public pressure targeted at our parliamentarians to change this historic ceremony when the time comes, but, judging by the results of the ComRes survey for Theos, any move to fundamentally change the nature of Charles’ coronation would not be in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the British population.

Their survey of 2,159 adults found that only 16 per cent thought that the coronation of the next monarch should be modified in any way. 12 per cent said that a Christian ceremony would alienate them. Just 18 per cent said that the ceremony should be multi-faith, and slightly more at 19 per cent thought that it should be secular. Jeremy Corbyn and his fellow republicans will be disappointed to see that only 9 per cent strongly agreed that the Coronation is pointless and should be abolished. And in case anyone was wondering if a Christian coronation might offend some minority faith groups, this simply isn’t the case: among respondents of every religion (and none), there was a significant majority in favour of Christianity remaining at the heart of the ceremony.

Despite what some liberal elites might say, we British are very proud of our national identity and history. Though our society has changed radically over recent decades, there are some traditions which are simply ‘off limits’. We refused to let go of sterling when much of Europe jumped into bed with the euro; our pints of milk will not become a litres – at least for now; we cling to our miles and we cherish our Monarchy. One of the most persuasive reasons why there is a good chance that we will leave the EU in two years time is the drive by Brussels bureaucrats to make us uniformly European, diluting our notions of Britishness and national identity.

To fundamentally change the Coronation ceremony would be to destroy part of our nation’s inheritance. It is a cornerstone of our Constitution: each time a new monarch is anointed and crowned we are reminded of where we have come from and what has brought us to where we are. It is a reminder that Christianity and our islands’ history are inextricably linked.

To remove all traces of Christianity from the Coronation would leave it hollow; devoid of much of its meaning and emptied of its solemnity, in much the same way that a secular ‘naming ceremony’ for a baby can never quite match the transcendent significance of a christening. We are likely – within the next decade or so – to see the present Prince of Wales enthroned in Westminster Abbey as King. He will make his vows before God at the behest of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He will be given a Bible, take communion, and declare his beliefs using the words of the Nicene Creed. Then, after being anointed with oil, he will be handed the Orb surmounted with a cross which represents the rule of Jesus over the world. He will also be given the Sceptre with the Dove, and the Sceptre of the Cross. These signify that his authority is subject to that of the Holy Spirit and to Christ. Finally, St Edward’s Crown, with the cross of Jesus at its apex, will be placed upon his head, and the congregation will cry, “God save the King!”

Take all of the above away, and the Coronation would be unrecognisable. Every aspect of the ceremony places God at the centre because for generations we have acknowledged that the Monarch – along with our political leaders – are in submission to God’s wisdom and authority: in Him they find their refuge and strength to govern. As secularism has swept across our land, much of this traditional reliance on God’s provision has been forgotten, but that does not stop the need for it. And perhaps no-one knows or understands that more than the Queen. She readily acknowledges that it is her Christian faith that has sustained her over the past 63 years. During her Christmas message in 2002, she said:

I know just how much I rely on my own faith to guide me through the good times and the bad. Each day is a new beginning, I know that the only way to live my life is to try to do what is right, to take the long view, to give of my best in all that the day brings, and to put my trust in God… I draw strength from the message of hope in the Christian gospel.

As we reflect on our Queen’s glorious longevity and accomplishments, it is important to consider continuity; what happens when her magnificent reign comes to an end. Rather than looking to push religion further out of the life of the nation, as some are attempting, we should rejoice in how the Christian Faith has shaped who we are, and how much we have benefitted from a monarch who long ago gave her life to Christ and seeks to serve him with all her mind and heart. And if we are wise, when the time come to anoint a new king, we will understand the manifest need to reaffirm its place at the heart of our nation.

  • Mike Stallard

    Oh dear.
    I am 76 and was brought up in the British Empire, under God, in an old fashioned, thrashing public school with a dad who was a Cof E vicar. The coronation expressed all that perfectly. Like most other people in the room back in the 1950s where we squinted at the TV, I was deeply moved – as was Her Majesty the Queen.
    Times have changed radically. The Cof E is dying on its feet. The BBC is firmly of the opinion that both Christianity and the monarchy are to be abandoned in favour of Republicanism and modern ways of scientific thought. I think most people follow their train of thought.
    And Prince Charles is not going to cut it as a male Princess Di is he.
    We oh so badly need a new approach and the most dangerous time for any government is when it tries to reform itself.

    • carl jacobs

      modern ways of scientific thought.

      Christianity has not been displaced by “modern ways of scientific thought.'” It’s been displaced by worship of the Self. Autonomy is the civic religion and God is the Great Heresy of the Age. For it is God who dares make claims on autonomous man.

      • Powerdaddy

        Edit.

        ‘God is the Great Hearsay of the Ages’.

        No thanks needed.

        🙂

        • carl jacobs

          No one is ever going to believe you are Jack if you keep this up.

          • Powerdaddy

            No one was ever supposed to…….
            Still, it was fun while it lasted.

  • David

    I totally agree with the thrust of this article. Without the Christian faith the west will die. Indeed without an exclusively Christian coronation the Monarchy is meaningless.

    The C of E is part of the process for ensuring religious freedom for all religions, because, Christianity recognises that becoming a Christian is a voluntary act. Therefore selecting ones faith, including atheism or Humanism, must be a personal choice.

    Personally I would die fighting from a ditch to preserve a Christian monarchy, which may soon be one of few remaining salients of our previously more widespread Christian faith. But hope springs eternal, for as the faith weakens in an increasingly godless, suicidal west, it spreads rapidly elsewhere in the world.
    To Christ will be the victory !

  • Dreadnaught

    If the recent performance of the CoE which does little more than lament its own demise is anything to go by, it will more than likely be insisting that we are a multifaith country rather than exert its own legitimate claim that we are a culturally Christian country. Instead of using this opportunity to restate its dominant authority to reinforce its status and presence it will continue to give a disproportionate spotlight and stage presence to appease Muslim sensitivities at risk of being sidelined.
    Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and others will get a mention in passing, but we all know that they are unlikely to take offence or take to the streets in a display of grievous hurt feelings at the audacity of the British to ignore the wonderful contributions made by followers of that particular cult.
    The CoE is the main contributor to its own marginalisation in the public square by beating the drum for multifaith equality in Britain, I don’t expect it’s chief executives to find a backbone any time soon.

    • dannybhoy

      it’s that ‘privilege’ thing I mentioned yesterday. We all like to be recognised and have access to influential groups or offices of power.
      But there’s always a price attached.

      • Dreadnaught

        I regard myself as privileged to have been born of British parents in Britain. People who have been granted that privilege by application need to show that they understand what it means to be British above all other affiliations of ethnicity or faith.

        • dannybhoy

          I was referring to your last little paragraph re the CofE.
          Privileged to be born of British parents in Britain?
          I will be pedantic and say that I am grateful to be born British of British parents. I love my country and I feel like I’m losing it. I would also say that I am a much better, happier and productive person (than I was), because of my faith in Christ Jesus.

          • Dreadnaught

            I am grateful for my freedom to be openly atheist it gives me great comfort to be unworried for myself in my demise. I have enjoyed a full life due in no small part to freedom from religious persecution. Like your self, I hate the thought of what kind of a country will be inherited by future generations. I’d happier if my daughters and their families moved to New Zealand right now.
            When the Arabs let loose on Israel, Europe will be changed for ever; and not for the best

          • dannybhoy

            “I am grateful for my freedom to be openly atheist it gives me great comfort to be unworried for myself in my demise.”

            Of course! The freedom to believe what you want without wishing to harm anyone is a precious thing, and as the American military say, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance…”

            My own demise will happen sometime in the next ten years, and it will either result in non existence, or a new eternal existence in the presence of God and serving Him as He decides.

  • Jon Sorensen

    Maybe “part of our nation’s inheritance” should be destroyed and updated to modern standards. Anyways “our islands’ history” has longer pagan history than Christian.

    It’s somewhat nice to see more inclusive approach. It would be really nice to see the defense of reason, logic and evidence, but it looks like [Anglican] faith needs the special privileged defense.

    • avi barzel

      All of humanity has a long Animist history, over 99 percent long. And what are “modern standards”? That future monarchs should meet through hook-ups, shack up rather than marry (unless it’s to flaunt same sex marriage) and insteaf of a crown, receive snazzy new tats on their nether regions? Perhaps the overwhelming preference for a traditional ceremony is a good indicator of what most think about the rumoured but hitherto unseen “modern standards.”

      • In Perfect Ignorance

        The Cambridges “shacked up” for a good few years before they finally tied the knot. And Ms Middleclass actually had the temerity to wear white to the wedding! Or was it “ivory”?

        • avi barzel

          Well, putting on a show of propriety is a minimum requirement for the job. I wouldn’t know such details; I am a monarchist, but have no interest in the private lives of royalty. Historically, royal families have been just as wild and dysfunctional as those of commoners, but if they rule well, stay within the law and show a proper facade, we have no need to pry, much less comment on.

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            I see. So you have no religious scruples about fornication, adultery and public scandal then?

            When it comes to putting on a show of propriety, the Royal Family are dismal failures. Two of the Queen’s four children are living in adulterous relationships. One other is shacked up with a woman who, depending on whether you accept the principle of divorce, is not his wife. The rumours of her husband’s flexible approach to his marriage vows are legion. One of her uncles preferred an adulterous liaison with an American rather than doing the job he was born to do. And another is alleged (on good evidence) to have had numerous extra-marital homosexual relationships,
            and have been a notorious drug-user.

            None of this particularly bothers me. The Royal Family is like any family and it’s perfectly reasonable to expect them to suffer from their fair share of scandal and heartbreak. In fact it makes them far more representative of the nation than they otherwise would be. But to maintain that they put on a show of propriety is a bit ridiculous.

            Our next king and queen will be unrepentant adulterers, at least according to the tenets of the CofE. Where’s the propriety in that?

          • avi barzel

            Shocking. I should pick up a tabloid now and again to keep up with your knowldge. Alas, none of the naughty boys and girls feel the weight of the Crown on their heads at this time. That tends change things. And besides, the Crown and the institution is bigger and more important then its temporary servants.

          • CliveM

            The National Enquirer strikes again!

          • avi barzel

            A grand publication to begin my education with. Things are worse than we thought. Apparently the whole Windsor/Saxe-Coburg dynasty is a race of Reptillians from Draco. That trumps divorces and extra-marital flings.

          • CliveM

            Bet Kate Middleton got a shock, the first time William got his kit out then.

          • avi barzel

            Or in shock from the snip-work on the royal equipment, she might have decided that the loons who say the Windsors are crypto-Jews in cahoots with Bilderbergs and such are right.

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            You’re contradicting yourself. If the Crown as an institution is bigger than its servants and it therefore doesn’t matter how they behave, there need be no requirement for them to behave with propriety.

            If you think wearing the crown means a monarch will suddenly become virtuous, can I ask how you account for Edward VIII, and Edward VII, and Charles II?

          • Hi

            I’d rather have the wonderful and fab Queen as head of state , over a president Blair or (even worse) Corbyn ….

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            I don’t disagree. But I also don’t demand that whoever’s on the Throne and her/his family have to be paragons of every virtue.

            They’re real people, not Disney androids. So what if Charles was bonking another man’s wife for so many years (and many would say he still is)? Who cares? It’s between him and the other people principally concerned in the affair.

            I don’t mind the monarchy. I do mind when Christians claim it as their own and demand that it represent them and them alone. The monarchy should represent us all, not just a self-satisfied and smug minority that thinks itself ever so much better than everyone else.

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            I don’t mind the monarchy. Anything is preferable to the nightmare prospect of a politician like Blair or Cameron as head of state.

            I think the Queen does a decent enough job, and when Charles’s time finally comes, he’ll do a decent enough job too. So I’m more than happy to keep the monarchy as it is.

            The problem is that I don’t see how it can carry on in its current form. The Royal
            Family is getting more and more middle class with every successive generation. There isn’t much that distinguishes Prince William from a thousand other Hooray Henrys just like him. And his wife is so bland as to be virtually invisible. That’s why she’s never bleached her hair in the fashion universal to her age group. If she did, she’d fade into the cream coloured Palace walls and disappear from view altogether.

            So how will Mr and Mrs Dull-as-Ditchwater manage to maintain the atmosphere of detached and sparkly majesty that’s made the Queen’s reign what it has been? Camilla might be able to pull it off because she isn’t afraid to ram one of her husband’s dead grandmother’s supermassive sparkly tiaras on her head and parade about festooned in precious stones. And her husband is always sharply dressed and loaded down with medals and all the other trappings the Royals use to stand out from the crowd.

            But what about William and especialluy Kate, who never wears anything even remotely sparkly apart from a dead woman’s ring? Their look is “greige High Street chic”. How can a monarchy that depends on projecting an image of royalty and splendour survive with two peahens representing it?

            When the revolution comes, it won’t be because of royal excess or conspicuous consumption. It will be because we’re all bored with Mr and Mrs Vanilla-Dullard-Blanding and the perfect camouflage that means you just can’t see them against the background.

        • Sam

          Dude

          Confession : I couldn’t tell you what Kate was wearing at the wedding. My draw was dropped-probably like most heterosexual men and lesbians- the moment Pippa showed her beauty to the world….

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            Beguiled by a shapely butt, eh? It can’t have been the poor girl’s face. Not much to admire there.

            So how you doin’ with the lust thing then? Am I right in assuming you’re Jewish? Does the Jewish God allow more leeway than His Christian avatar when shapely butts are at stake? I sure hope so for your sake.

            If you were a Christian, it would be straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect £200. Unless you purchase forgiveness by flagellating yourself, or reciting nine novenas while pricking your tongue with a bodkin, or plucking out your eyes to prevent you from ever ogling a plain girl’s pretty arse again, you’re toast.

            So how do Jews gain divine forgiveness? Through prayer? Or does it have something to do with those strange little black boxes you strap to your foreheads?

            Excuse my ignorance, but as Pippa is officially outraged (and unofficially pleased that at long last the dowdy little sister is getting some air time), I feel you owe her an explanation.

          • Sam

            Of course we have modesty rules…. but Pipa is a babe , so one simply acknowledges the fact. Like appreciating the visual beauty of a piece of artwork. So lust doesn’t come into dirt. Besides which YOU mentioned her buttocks , not I.

            The black boxes are called Tefillin, worn during prayer as per the Torah . They’re put on the head and ran as symbols of brain and heart , with both in service to God (at least that’s the explanation in my tradition).

          • Anton

            Where did you get that view of how Christians deal with sin from?

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            From church. Sinners disobey God’s rules and get punished for it by eternal roasting over a naked flame. The only way out is to grovel on your knees, and repent, and inflict penance on yourself, either in the form of stultifyingly dull, repetitive prayer, or if you don’t fancy that, or don’t have the time, by a quick scourging.

            That’s Christianity in a nutshell, isn’t it? You believe we live in a punitive autocracy where all attempts at disobedience are punished by a God who cannot be avoided or ignored, just submitted to.

          • Anton

            I’m glad to inform you that that’s not Christianity. Those who believe in Jesus Christ get their sins forgiven; when God looks at them he sees only Jesus, the one man never to commit a sin. Given the way we have mucked up the world, which belongs to God because he made it, that is a stunning thing – and impossible if Jesus had not voluntarily sacrificed himself for us, the same as you see the platoon leader do in many good war films.

            No amount of repeating prayers or self-flagellation can atone for your sins. But Jesus’ sacrifice can – and did, if you choose to believe it.

            Those who believe get remade fro the inside pout. It is an awesome and sometimes painful process, but always worth it.

      • Jon Sorensen

        modern standards = equal rights, no discrimination, freedom of speech and religion etc. When she became queen not all humans in British empire had a right to vote for example.

        Most people prefer modern standards over the old…

        • Dreadnaught

          I don’t think you have quite got the hang of this monarchy thing have you?

          • CliveM

            Clearly not indigenous

          • Jon Sorensen

            Not sure what you mean; monarchy or not; modern standards are in.

          • Inspector General

            Modern standards were well in during the Victorian age, of course. They were modern for the time. If you equate your modern with as it was during the last 40 years, you have the loss of a homogeneous population to deal with. Having your daughter cut by some black witch of a granny in the east end of London is among what passes for modern now…

          • Jon Sorensen

            Victoria had a bigger empire and diverse population to rule, and her own problems. Things are a lot better now that moderns standards are in place.

        • Busy Mum

          It is the notion of the ‘right to vote’ that has wrecked our democracy.
          Voting is a privilege, not a right.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I guess it depends on your point of view; global or local, but in UK it seem to be a right. I’m not sure how right to vote has wrecked your democracy…

        • avi barzel

          So, exactly how does the Monarchy impede these “modern standards”? We can still goof around pretending we are all equal, we can elect sleazy pols based on how much Free Stuff they toss at us and hand out “rights” like candy just for the asking, until the whole crazy house crashes down to the foundations. Funny, isn’t it, how it’s the “modern” folk, those who fret over “sustainability” can’t see how unsustainable this trajectory is and that the end of the free ride is nigh. See if insisting on your rights…not to mention “rights” of millions of primitive mendicants knocking at your door… and voting goodies for yourself will work out when the larder is bare.

          The advantage of monarchies is that they are a repository of wealth and talent, with a keen interest in good governance and that they offer what no other estate can provide; long-term stability. This is why people chose, yes chose, kings and nobility for millenia. Only a monarchy can unify and instil loyalty, distribute resources and project force in periods of want or chaos. And so, the institution of Monarchy waits politely to resume its role as we amuse and spend ourselves into oblivion. Hopefully they, and the Commonwealth, will still be around when this brief golden age we take for granted ends.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I don’t get your anti-democracy rant. You seem to want someone else to control and hold your money as a solution.

            You claim that monarchies “are a repository of wealth and talent”. History has shown this to be wrong. Nation has more talent than a single family. You are also wrong that “only a monarchy can unify and instil loyalty, distribute resources and project force in periods of want or chaos”. Other systems have done this too.

            Monarchy impede “modern standards” of religious equality for example.

  • Anton

    I cannot rid myself of the feeling that The Queen has heard something similar to what King Josiah heard long ago: Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord… you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place (from 2 Kings 22). Does anybody else suspect that?

    • David

      You may well be right.
      It is the case I think that now that the nation has turned its gaze away from God, He will not rush to its aid as in WW2, and Dunkirk particularly. God doesn’t curse nations, but nations curse themselves, when they turn away from Him. It is an old, old story repeated many times in the OT.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    we should rejoice in how the Christian Faith has shaped who we are

    This article reasons, quite soberly to my mind, that Britain’s Muslim population will be 26 million by 2051. That likelihood and the ‘catastrophic collapse’ in British Christianity mean that, during King William V’s reign, Islam will succeed Christianity as our main religion. What use a Muslim nation will have for a Christian king remains to be seen; not much, I expect. In any event, if we elect to sit back and do nothing to shape our future beyond praying and hoping for the best, it is highly probable that Prince George will not succeed his father, and it will be the Muslim faith shaping ‘who we are’.

    her magnificent reign

    To Muslims, the Queen’s reign must indeed seem magnificent as it has laid the foundations for an Islamic Britain. For Christians, it has been the greatest disaster in the history of Christianity in these islands.

    • Inspector General

      Tough times ahead for the indigenous, JR, but let’s look to the good.

      It is argued strongly that the astonishing success of the SNP and the resultant one party state they have can trace its origins back to one film. ‘Braveheart’.

      It goes without saying that Islam is loathed by everyone in England, including those who would rather face a lifetime of muteness than admit to it, and a similar nationalistic spirit that has gripped the Scots must happen to the white English. No doubt about it.

      The path of the future is one of twists we can’t see, but we can see that one clear enough. There is also another. A low level civil war of the type that existed (still exists?) in the north of Ireland.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Inspector General—Yes, my fingers and toes are crossed for an outbreak of white English/British solidarity; it’s our one and only hope. However, having made so much progress with their programme of race and faith replacement, the Establishment may be in no mood to admit defeat with the finishing post in sight. Who knows what the traitor class is capable of? In the short term, much hangs on the upcoming elections in France and the success of the Front National.

        • Inspector General

          It’s already happening, that man. UKIP goes from strength to strength. And now that the Labour party has walked into the study and shot itself, we can see the resulting disaffected flocking to the cause…

          • Phil R

            “And now that the Labour party has walked into the study and shot itself”

            LOL

            You are on form this evening. This and other comments this evening is just what I needed after a long day.

    • Jon Sorensen

      Less religion is better for the society. Maybe good times are ahead…

      • Dreadnaught

        tell that to the muslims.

        • Jon Sorensen

          hmmm… it seem to apply to all religions

      • Inspector General

        Good times? You’re living it, now. Of course, when a million economically inactive refugees come over, there’s going to be a little less spending money as taxes will need to rise…

        • Jon Sorensen

          Even in that case we privileged westerners are still well off and have good times. Something more dramatic has to happen than tax raise to ruin our lives.

    • Dreadnaught

      Not just for Christians as it been a disaster – the Country no longer recognises itself as being ethnically caucasian British.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Dreadnaught—Oh, quite. I’m just ramming the point home for Gillan’s sake.

  • In Perfect Ignorance

    What’s all the fuss about? People clearly want to retain the monarchy and all the flim flam that goes with it.

    There’s no question of there not being a coronation when the Queen finally pops her clogs, and Charles jumps into them with unseemly (yet perfectly comprehensible) haste. And there’s no question of the ceremony being a secular New Labour love-in with affirmations instead of oaths and the crosses on the regalia being replaced with gold and diamond-encrusted Happy Humans.

    The CofE is still established, so Christianity is still the religion of the State, therefore it stands to reason that coronations will be Christian ceremonies. A Christian coronation will have no special significance for me, but why should it? I don’t get to dictate the form of state ceremonial. Whatever form it takes is fine by me if a majority supports it, which is clearly the case in this instance.

    If (or perhaps when) the Church is disestablished, things may have to change. As the State will have no longer have an interest in promoting any single religion, a Christian coronation will no longer be appropriate.

    No other European monarchy bothers with one any more. An inauguration ceremony such as they have in the Netherlands is all that’s required to mark the start of a new reign.

    The recent inauguration of the Dutch king was as ceremonious and solemn as anyone could reasonably require. The new queen got to dress up in her best sparklers and she and her husband both looked as regal as any of our royals ever do. Same thing for the new king and queen of Spain.

    Throughout the Dutch ceremony, the crown stayed firmly on its cushion, which the king may well have been grateful for, considering that it looks like it weighs a ton and must be very uncomfortable to wear. I wonder if anyone has ever thought of asking our Queen whether she might prefer not to have to wear half a ton of bullion on her head? Left to her own devices, I’m sure she’d much rather drive to the State Opening in her muddy old Landrover wearing a tweed skirt and sensible brogues. All she’d have on her head would be a silk scarf. Now that would mollify the Muslim contingent, wouldn’t it? Someone should seriously suggest it.

  • sarky

    Surely the monarchy should represent ALL its people and not just the small christian minority. As for the coronation being an empty ritual, it already will be for the majority (just like christenings and funerals)

    • Inspector General

      Sarky, forgive the Inspector but there is an article of BBC online and for some reason he thought of you. “The chicken that lived for 18 months without a head”. Can you provide any suggestion as to why he did that…

      • He does make a valid point. Some just attend these liturgies and rituals because they … er … admire them.

        • Inspector General

          You find fault that one admires the worship of God in this way?

          • When all that is involved is admiration for the spectacle absent a faith or understanding in what liturgy actually signifies, yes. Don’t you?

          • Inspector General

            Have you teamed up with Len?

          • Not at all. Len dismisses liturgy whereas Jack regards if as our faith being actively expressed and, as a Catholic, the sacraments as actual channels of sanctifying grace.

          • dannybhoy

            Jack
            last night the wife an I attended our local Churches Together meeting. Our Catholic Zen Buddhist priest was there..

          • There’s no such thing as a Catholic Zen Buddhist priest. Does he have a parish and a bishop to whom he is responsible or is he freelance?

          • dannybhoy

            No he has a Bishop Jack, but it seems to me that not only has he lost his way, he is instructing others in a wrong way. Not that I condemn him himself, but his Bishop needs to spend tome with him to see why and where he has departed from the faith.

          • Mr M. has some words on how a parish dies:

            https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/watching-a-parish-die/

            “Father is your typical V II product: oily ceremonious, utterly unmanly (though not effeminate), and speaking in a sanctimonious, slow, low tone voice. You know the type. The love child of Uriah Heep and McDonald’s.”

          • dannybhoy

            My observation is that whether a Catholic priest or a single vicar the pressures of keeping a parish going is far more difficult for a single man than a married one.
            Ideally a woman brings warmth, love, caring and communication into the situation, and provides her man with support and wise counsel.
            Stress and loneliness because one has no spouse to support you can lead to all sorts of problems..

            Look at 1st Timothy 3. St Paul starts by saying…

            “A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a
            teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

            (Douay-Rheims)

          • There are arguments for and against a celibate priesthood. However, you do know Saint Paul was referring to and speaking against more irregular relationships at the time rather than commending or requiring a man be married? So far as we know, Saint Paul was not married.

          • dannybhoy

            Jacko,
            He is laying out to Timothy the basic requirements of a bishop/elder/deacon.
            The first believers were mainly Jewish, so no polygamy there..
            !st Peter 3 is all about husbands and wives..
            !st Peter 5 ” So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:”

          • Not all the early Christians were Jews and there were real issues about the Mosaic Law and the Christian path for gentiles. You’re not seriously suggesting that Saint Paul made it a requirement for priests to be married, are you?

          • dannybhoy

            No I’m not saying that but it certainly seems to have been the norm. St Paul was called as an Apostle and he says in 1st Corinthians 9…
            “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
            3 This is my defence to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?”

            Here’s a Catholic perspective… (Shhh! I lifted it from a Catholic blog….)
            “Different Church Fathers say different things, but generally the only one I know believed to be a virgin was St John. St Peter was married (and had a daughter some say), and so were St Andrew, St Bartholomew and St
            Matthew according to the 4th Century Father Epiphanius. According to St Papias in the late 1st century the Apostle Philip was married too and had daughters (as well as a deacon by the same name in the NT) Judas the
            betrayer my have been married, since Psalm 108 was applied to him and it speaks of a man orphaning his kids and widowing his wife. Lastly. St Jude the Apostle, was married, that is assuming he is the same Jude that
            is one of the “brethren of the Lord,” since Hegesippus mentions Jude as having descendants.

            St John the Apostle seems to be universally recognized as a lifelong virgin, and 2 sources said so was his brother St James. According to Epiphanius the other Apostle named St James was also a life long virgin.
            We have no tradition that says St Thomas, St Mattias, St Simon the Zealot had wives, some of the Fathers like Tertullian assumed they were therefore eunuchs or continent.
            St Paul before his conversion was certainly married, though he is an apostle in more of a general sense.

            This book is where i got some of my sources: “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini http://books.google.com/books?id=Bc2…age&q=&f=false

          • dannybhoy

            And as for the introduction of a celibate priesthood, may I refer you to this website….
            https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church
            Regardless of their aims, is the actual historical sequence correct?

          • It’s a discipline and not a doctrine, Danny. It is legitimate to hold alternate opinions. On balance, Jack still favours celibacy for a number of reasons but a time may come when he changes his views.

          • dannybhoy

            Male and Female created He them..
            And He made the woman to be a helpmeet unto him..
            And the two shall become one flesh..
            Are you a better man without your wife Jack?
            I know I’m not.

          • Neither of us are Catholic priests, Danny.

          • dannybhoy

            Then did you choose ‘the better’ Jack?
            I think if God calls a man or woman to celibacy He gives them a special anointing and perhaps spiritual children.
            Most are not called to this life, and as I quoted to you here..

            https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church
            it seems that someone in the Church decided it was a good thing..

          • Future Church is a dissident organisation masquerading as Roman Catholic. Treat their articles with great care.

            Celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” is a gift, a call that is not granted to all but to some. Other people are called to marriage. Individuals in both vocations fall short but this does not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question were “not really called” to that vocation. The trials, struggles and sins of a priest doesn’t prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the trials, struggles and sins of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.

          • dannybhoy

            What about their timeline though Jack. Is it accurate or not?

          • dannybhoy

            “It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.”
            Yes I agree with that having been divorced and in the spiritual wilderness for about twenty years..
            That’s partly why I don’t rush to condemn others anymore..
            However I still think that very few are called to celibacy, and the human heart usually craves companionship..

          • Anton

            Some believe he was a widower; it has been asserted that rabbis were required to be married men and he had been a rabbi. While unproven, it certainly cannot be disproved.

            Whether an episkopos (which has a slightly different meaning today than in the NT, regrettably) MUST be a married man is a diversionary issue. The question is whether he MAY be, and 1 Tim 3 is crystal clear that married episkopoi should be the norm. Any church tradition in wihch they are not is counterscriptural.

          • “Counterscriptural” is something of an overstatement as the use of “should” is not demonstrated the text. Besides, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated – as well as practiced – by both Jesus and Paul.
            Paul endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (Cor: 7:8-9). It is only because of this “temptation to immorality” (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their “conjugal rights” (7:3). He specifically clarifies, “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another”(7:6-7).
            Paul makes a strong case for preferring celibacy to marriage, particularly for priests and religious: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34). Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

            Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, “better” than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, “If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy:

            “There are some eunuchs, who were so born from the mother’s womb, some were made so by men, and some have made themselves so for love of the kingdom of heaven; take this in, you whose hearts are large enough for it.” (Matt. 19:11–12).

          • Anton

            You are quoting general advice to Christians, but Paul is speaking *specifically* to Timothy about what it takes to be an episkopos. As you are complaining about “should”, the Greek word is “dei” and translates in context as “it is necessary that” an episkopos be “a man of one woman” and “must manage his family well and see that his children obey him”. Paul explains why: “if any man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he manage God’s church?” (from 1 Tim 3).

            I am uninterested in diversions about whether an episkopos MUST be a married man. The point is that this passage establishes without ambiguity that episkopoi should NORMALLY be married man, and seals it by giving the reason. Any other norm is therefore counter-scriptural, is it not?

          • No it doesn’t … it is advice about the character and status of those called to the priesthood at that time who might be married or have children. The general advice to Christians is just as applicable – assuming episkopos were to be Christians.

          • Anton

            And what other parts of the NT do you believe apply only at that time, and how do you decide which statements are for that generation only and which are for the lifetime of the church?

            A cynic might think that the answer is those statements which the Roman Catholic church has abrogated but, as to whether I believe that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

          • “And I tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
            The “Keys to the Kingdom” is an Old Testament reference to stewardship and delegating authority in the absence of the master to a chosen servant who governs on his behalf.

          • Anton

            Surely irrelevant? What other parts of the NT do you believe apply only at that time, and how do you decide which statements are for that generation only and which are for the lifetime of the church?

          • Irrelevant? Jack thinks not. The Church, in her wisdom and with the protection of the Holy Spirit, determines this and has the authority of Christ is so doing.

          • Anton

            How many times will you duck the question? What other parts of the NT do you believe apply only at that time, and how do you decide which statements are for that generation only and which are for the lifetime of the church?

          • Do Jack a favour! You seriously expect him to go through the New Testament verse by verse and list each teaching? Like that’s going to happen. The Catechism will answer your question.

          • Anton

            And you don’t know it well enough to answer? It’s rather important to know which bits of the New Testament supposedly don’t apply to Christians today, isn’t it?

          • Go on then, enlighten Jack.

          • Anton

            A Catholic is asking a non-Catholic about the Catholic catechism? Anybody would be forgiven for thinking you were ducking the question…

          • Inspector General

            It’s true then, what they said. Nobody expects the inquisition. Especially on Cranmer’s Anglican blog.

          • No inquisition is necessary, Inspector. It’s clear you are an apostate and heretic. That’s entirely up to you. Just stop pretending to be Roman Catholic. The Church is not a tribe – it’s a living, breathing faith.

          • Inspector General

            Be gone, sirrah…

          • Get thee behind Christ ….

          • Inspector General

            Judges like you will be judged particularly harshly…

          • You’re the one advocating ‘hang ’em high’ and show no mercy, Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            You need to rethink your entire ethos, Peter

          • At least he has one.

          • Inspector General

            Seriously, think about it…

          • Anton

            “It
            matters not how you worship but what you worship” – the Church Father Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.28, some 300 years after Christ.

          • Is that an infallible statement? Jack stands by his comment.

          • Anton

            Infallible be blowed – but wise.

          • What’s the context and background to the statement? This will indicate its wisdom.

        • Anton

          Yes, just like the freemasons who were at their most influential in the CoE around the time of the last coronation.

        • sarky

          Or for the p**s up afterwards. Which is true for the last couple of christenings I’ve been to.

          • Busy Mum

            Genuinely curious – why do you attend christenings?

          • sarky

            For the p**s up afterwards!!

            I have, however, turned down being a godparent, for obvious reasons.

          • Busy Mum

            Even more curious as to what went through someone’s head when they asked you to be a godparent!!

          • sarky

            Because I’m a fine upstanding citizen of means 🙂

          • DanJ0

            Bizarrely, I’m a god parent twice over!

          • sarky

            Really? I would have felt like a bit of a hypocrit stating that I would help the child come to god. Plus would have struggled renouncing the devil 😉

      • sarky

        ???????????

    • carl jacobs

      If it’s just an empty ritual, then why do it?

      • sarky

        Exactly!

      • dannybhoy

        Because it is expected of us..

    • Busy Mum

      The monarchy isn’t there to represent us – it’s there to reign over us,

      • Anton

        That ceased to be the case in the 17th century when parliament executed one king, ran the country for a decade, then invited his son to be king on its terms, not his. A generation later Walpole, the first Prime Minister, was the clear locus of power rather than the king. By the 1930s the king didn’t even have the power to marry his preferred choice of woman. The rights and wrongs of the Abdication Crisis are not the point I am making; any reign of the sovereign is purely symbolic today.

        • Busy Mum

          Yes – and it is because the reign is symbolic that we are in such a mess. The Commons now is as tyrannical as the Stuarts ever were; whereas those kings needed checking by Parliament, we now have a Commons that has no checks at all, having decimated the Lords as an independent body and having rendered meaningless the idea of the Royal Assent.

          • Anton

            The key to success is dispersal of power. Britain did it for several hundred years by means of crown vs parliament, then Lords vs Commons, and I agree that it is time for a further rebalancing so as to check the Commons. The Founding Fathers of the USA *deliberately* decided on a constitution in which power was kept divided, in order to minimise its abuse.

          • Busy Mum

            Agreed – but how does one go about it? I can hardly envisage the Commons voting to curb their own powers.

          • Lord Chatham

            You might start with a written Constitution – I.e. a list of inalienable rights that do not come from the Legislative branch and therefore, theoretically, can’t be taken away by it.

            It’s all good and well to speak of freedom of speech, or the free exercise of religion – but what really can those rights mean if a Legislative (or Judicial) body can redefine them at whim?

          • bluedog

            Easy, BM. Implement a federal constitution. Been saying it for years.

          • David

            Very true !

          • So what exactly did Charles I do that was so “tyrannical” as judged by the standards of his time?

          • Anton

            Dismiss parliament in favour of absolutism and insist on divine right.

          • Both acceptable according to the views of his time. And oaths of allegiance were taken to him as Monarch. You sure it didn’t have more to do with him marrying a Catholic?

            King Charles ordered a parliamentary adjournment in March 1629 and members held the Speaker down in his chair so that the ending of the session could be delayed long enough for resolutions against Catholicism, Arminianism and tonnage and poundage (its always about money hiding behind religion) to be acclaimed by the chamber. Understandably, this was too much for Charles. He dissolved Parliament and had nine parliamentary leaders imprisoned. Not wise – but then he was the King.

          • Anton

            I couldn’t care less about the views of the time. These people claimed to be Christian. If you claim to be Christian then you must accept biblical standards.

          • “Every soul must be submissive to its lawful superiors; authority comes from God only, and all authorities that hold sway are of his ordinance. Thus the man who opposes authority is a rebel against the ordinance of God, and rebels secure their own condemnation. “
            (Romans 13:1)

          • Anton

            Which has to be taken together with “We must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Moreover the precedent for kingship in ancient Israel is that the king himself was to be under the law. There were theological debates of a very high order about this kind of thing in 17th century England.

          • Hmm … Jack is sure there were ‘high order theological’ debates about this in a vain attempt to justify regicide.

          • Anton

            Jack is ducking the issue that Romans 13 needs to be taken with Acts 5, and that the king in Israel was himself under the law – and therefore able in principle to be tried. Those debates are outlined in Part 2 of Nick Spencer’s book Freedom and Order: history, politics and the English Bible and it is rash to dismiss them without acquaintance. As a counter-example to your position, every Nazi could claim that in committing genocide he was “just obeying orders” in a chain of command running up to their country’s undisputed leader. So that’s OK then?

            Once a war broke out – as often, by gradual escalation – then the loser was always going to get axed, and it was Charles.

          • Busy Mum

            Oh, you Jacobite – in a rush and just picked this up in passing – no time for a protestant/RC debate right now…!

      • sarky

        I think that time is long gone.

        • Busy Mum

          Yes – see my reply to Anton.

        • Inspector General

          The Queen is head of state. Able to dismiss a government if it comes to it, and with the sworn allegiance of the armed services too, oh ignorant fellow…

          • sarky

            And back in the real world….

  • Owl

    Let’s face it. Only a very small minority of leftist minded people wish to see change.
    They just make the most noise, like empty drums.
    The vast majority of Brits, of any religion or none, want to keep the traditional stability of the monarchy.
    This is the “real” reality!

    • Anton

      Yes, but it’s like John Major’s comment that England is old maids cycling through the morning mist to Holy Communion. It’s not preserved without discipline and effort.

      • Owl

        Agreed but never forget the “silent majority” at the heart of Britain.

        • Anton

          But how do they make any difference if they are silent in word and deed?

          • Owl

            Like an old steamship. Takes one hell of a long time and an enormous effort to get underway but then is virtually unstoppable.

          • Anton

            That didn’t even work in 1945. We needed the Americans to do D-Day with us against just the 1/3 of the Wehrmacht that didn’t go down on the Eastern front.

          • Owl

            I was refering to your “if they are silent in word and deed?”, not to a reenactment of WWII.

          • bluedog

            The outcome of wars can largely be determined by GDP matching, all other things being equal. In other words, God is on the side of the big battalions. In WW2, German GDP was lower than the combined GDP of Britain and France in 1938.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

            By seizing Czechoslovakia as well as the earlier acquisition of Austria, the balance changed. Once Poland was aggregated in 1939, the easy German victory over France in May 1940 was assured on this methodology. With the whole of northern Europe under German management, the UK was stuffed, it was only a matter of time as Churchill was intuitively aware.

            In the East, the acquisition of most of China and South-East Asia by Japan created a similarly over-whelming power bloc. British India was suddenly very vulnerable, as were the dominions of Aust. and NZ. It’s incredibly unfair to belittle British efforts as you seem to do, given the situation as it existed in say, early December 1941 and for at least two years subsequently. One is aware that the historian Anthony Beevor is currently promoting your own view. If Germany hadn’t invaded the USSR and if Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor, history could have been very different.

            It’s almost 1000 years since a hostile power forced a land battle in Britain; then and now it’s a very brief encounter. The RN and the RAF are everything, as they were in 1940.

          • Anton

            I think you might be assuming that I believe something I don’t (and didn’t say). Britain was incredibly brave to stand alone during the early years of the war – my favourite book on the European theatre is Chester Wilmot’s almost forgotten masterpiece The Struggle for Europe – but if you say that “With the whole of northern Europe under German management, the UK was stuffed, it was only a matter of time” then we are in fact in agreement. As for the outcome between France and Germany in 1940, I believe it was nothing to do with economics; economics tells in a war of attrition but the German campaign of May-June 1940 that defeated France was blitzkrieg. And the woeful French performance was, I believe, a hangover from the horror of 1914-18 and, as we Brits hadn’t been invaded in that earlier war, let us not rush to condemn.

            My main point is that Owl’s view, which in essence is that the Brits are tolerant but when they run out of patience then the people they have run out of patience with are in for an inevitable kicking, is untrue. This view – and I say this view, not Owl – is rooted in romanticism and pride, visible in Kipling’s verse:

            The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.

            But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.

            When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,

            And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing,’ my son, leave the Saxon alone.

            In short, silent majorities don’t count in politics if they never do anything – which is why many revolutions in history have been successfully enacted by a very small but dedicated proportion of a population – and I don’t believe that England’s silent majority have the moral fibre to roar as they did in 1940.

          • bluedog

            ‘I don’t believe that England’s silent majority have the moral fibre to roar as they did in 1940.’ The moot point. Alone among European nations the UK has not suffered mass casualties and rapine as a consequence of invasion and occupation in the 20th cent.. Of course the presence of a large Muslim demographic comes close, as we read. But the old nation is still intact, is alert to danger and watching anxiously, ready to answer the call.

          • Anton

            If only! The welfare state has literally de-moralised the country. Islam is rising as impending judgement on the effects of that, mainly catastrophic family breakdown. We do not have the national moral fibre that we once did and I say that with profound regret.

          • dannybhoy

            On the nail Anton. We English/British are pretty apathetic. That’s why successive governments have conned us into believing they know best and all we need to do is provide the taxes..

  • jsampson45

    It must offend God to administer an oath in His name to a titular monarch who has no power to keep it.

  • dannybhoy

    The next Coronation will officially mark the end of historic Great Britain and the beginning of the struggle for which cultural group will end up dominating this piece of real estate..
    Unless.. the new Monarch is willing to reassert the dominance of British history, British laws, values and traditions to which all other cultural traditions must conform….

  • Inspector General

    And let us take a look at the state of the Commonwealth, of which HM Queen is head, and which is probably an interesting subject when beheld by our EU masters…

    The Prime Minister of Australia is not, as the Inspector had been conned into thinking, Kevin bloody Wilson, but a fellow called Abbot. Mr Abbot is doing his best to fend off gay marriage, and under intense pressure has finally decided to suggest a referendum on the subject. Now the LGBTIA people don’t want that as the debate will ‘upset’ LGBTIA youth. We really are degenerating into a race of emasculated pansies with hurt feelings, if it’s possible for a plant to have hurt feelings…

    • dannybhoy

      Inspector,
      You have my full support to say what you want, but the thing is those gay people you refer to as ‘pansies’ or whatever, have parents. They might like Hannah have brothers and sisters who love and support them, and we have to recognise they are indeed people whom God loves even if He disapproves of their actions..
      So please, think that there, but for an accident of birth, goest Thou…

      • Inspector General

        Suggest you concentrate on one’s last sentence thereof, Danny Boy. You are beginning to show signs of pansification yourself…

        • dannybhoy

          That you might consider this as a possibility bothers me not one jot. As a heterosexual I can’t imagine what it might be like, but I do know they will have parents and possibly siblings.Those parents love their children and would want them to be happy. They no more could affect their being gay than they could their being heterosexual.

          • Inspector General

            You seem to have gone wrong tonight Danny. One merely opposes the continued degeneration of mankind and you drag Hannah into it. You’ve been got at somehow. Insidious all present propaganda, it seems…

            Think of the poor lad stranded with two gay men as parents thanks to the general malaise, who has the cleanest c__k in the street after bath night…

          • dannybhoy

            I mentioned Hannah because she had parents and brothers and sisters, Furthermore I have worked with homosexuals, observed them and communicated with them.
            I can also assure you that I know at least much as you do about the seamier side of the lifestyle and the language used,

          • Inspector General

            You didn’t mention they gave you one of their flags to wave…

          • dannybhoy

            They are human beings Inspector. No one is condoning the life style, only that God loves them and wishes that they will be reconciled to Himself in the same way as any other human being.

          • Inspector General

            Erroneous human beings, dear chap. They can queer in private now, but it’s not enough for the activists. they want the world to queer with them…

          • dannybhoy

            We’re all imperfect Inspector, and it is in the Church that we should find love and acceptance. That’s what I understand as the Church. Imperfect people accepted by a perfect Father,

          • Inspector General

            You can’t escape that easily. The world has seen times when being a Christian was in itself, an arrestable offence. If you want that to happen again, continue with your nonchalance. If PN is anything to go by, it really is us or them. And they’re out to make sure it’s not us…

          • dannybhoy

            What exactly do you mean?
            Do you mean that believing God loves homosexuals as much as He does any other sinner is wrong? That being homosexual is worse than a man who murders and eats other people, or a serial rapist or paedophile?

          • Inspector General

            We’re are talking about homosexual activists, of which Hannah is not, apparently, demanding that politicians chose between them and us. The way things are going, it is not going to be us, so persecution follows. We have had the gay cake slogan and the B&B business. How much longer is it before being a known Christian means going down on a list. That would include you, by the way…

          • dannybhoy

            I am a Christian. If I am to die for being a Christian I can only pray that I will be worthy and have His Grace to bear the death.
            Nothing worse than dying a fraud.

          • Phil R

            What a selfish attitude and it seems, typical of Christians today.

            The I’m all right Jack approach is not love.

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely.

          • Phil R

            I think you missed my point.

            If you do not confront evil in the world because your salvation is assured, you are not loving your neighbour.

          • dannybhoy

            Wot?
            I am saying that homosexuals are as much in need of salvation as any other. Not only that, they deserve to be treated with the same degree of respect as any other sinner. To denigrate them in the way that the Inspector does ignores that they have parents and possibly siblings who love and support them.
            What do you want me to do? Condemn them as being an especially evil kind of sinner, and therefore worthy of a good kicking?

          • Inspector General

            Yes Danny. You are obliged to condemn the activists therein. Nero conveniently blamed Christians for Rome’s fire, and these people will have no problem whatsoever blaming us for their unhappiness, which is manifold, and results from the unrealistic expectations of their chosen lifestyle.

          • dannybhoy

            I can and do argue against homosexuals who try to promote homosexuality as an equal and viable alternative to God’s order of male and female. That I reject that kind of activism still does not give me the right to vilify and mock them.

          • Inspector General

            Good show, that man. Stand fast, what!

            The very survival of Christianity is dependant on us.

          • Phil R

            I have thought about what you wrote

            I think the inspector is right. We need tostand up for ourselves

          • dannybhoy

            The Inspector perhaps forgets that I do argue on other forums against homosexual propaganda, Stonewall etc. I also support the work of Coalition for Marriage, contact my MP or the CofE when these issues arise.
            So one might say I have been standing up for what I believe for some years now…
            What I object to on this particular blog is people who see themselves as Christians being harsh or rude to homosexuals who come onto the site with an opinion. My own experience is that gays and lesbians I have worked with often say that they knew they were different from a very young age. Some say that they can’t help themselves.
            They are not believed!
            Yet I know the sins I have struggled with in my Christian life.
            Lust and drink spring to mind, a lack of personal discipline is another.
            So what makes my sinful failings somehow more acceptable than a homosexual struggling with attractions to other men or women?
            Now there is a social aspect to this, which is why I support Coalition for Marriage. I am seriously worried about the equality propaganda that is gradually corrupting our sex education in schools. I actually believe there is a spiritual dimension to it, as young children now are starting to question their own sexual orientation. The growth industry of counselling and advocacy groups supporting ‘freedom’ makes these children more confused and susceptible to exploitation by evil men like these..

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gang-of-seven-evil-paedophiles-sent-to-prison-after-baby-and-child-rape-10497531

            So by all means let us stand up for our beliefs, but let’s not assume that being homosexual gives us ‘straights’ the right to verbally abuse them..

          • Inspector General

            You’re getting on in years, Danny. Have a care for young Christians out there…

          • Powerdaddy

            You? A known Christian? lol.

          • Inspector General

            One is now resigned to your ghastly presence haunting the Inspectorate…

          • Phil R

            . No one is condoning the life style

            Choice

  • chiefofsinners

    The problem with monarchy is monarchs. The extraordinary skill, intellect, humility and faith of our Queen is unlikely to be seen again this side of eternity. She is far too good to have ever been elected. But what will become of the monarchy once Charlie and his trusty steed take over? Which will last longer? The monarchy or the Labour Party?

    • “The problem with monarchy is monarchs.”

      It can occasionally arise with popes too.

      • chiefofsinners

        Burn the heretic!

        • Who? The Inspector? Let’s give him a bit more time.

          • chiefofsinners

            No, no, let’s give him eternity.

          • Hmm … there’s no escaping eternity for any of us.

          • carl jacobs

            The NFL season is starting tonight. I trust you are watching.

          • Anton

            Hurl that spheroid down the field!

          • carl jacobs

            It was a terrible game. The (relativity much more evil) bad guys won.

          • chiefofsinners

            Well, ’tis heartwarming to see this outbreak of good will towards the Inspector. I am sure he will reciprocate.

  • bluedog

    Have no fear, Your Grace, as the pressure from Islam grows the need for a cleansing re-affirmation of ancient values and identity will assume an ever greater importance. Downton Abbey will not be enough.

    If the Coronation is misconstrued as a re-affirmation of multi-culturalism, which is undoubtedly the preferred option of the secular elites, the Monarchy will fail. It is just possible that the survival instincts of the Royal Family will be aroused and that they will emerge as the focus of the resistance. Charles has a clear sense of history, as the Poundbury folly shows. It is just possible that Charles will disappoint his critics and become a doughty warrior for Christian Britain, if he ascends the throne. Of course, he may not, and it’s entirely possible that Charles will predecease his mother. But as things stand, this communicant believes an interventionist Charles may become the man of the hour.

    He’s certainly got more sense than his distant cousin Cameron.

    • Anton

      Some of his recent statements suggest that he nowadays takes seriously the bellicose parts of the Quran.

      • Being against Islam is not the same as being for Christ.

        • Anton

          Agreed but bluedog said that he might “emerge as the focus of the resistance” and it is fairly clear where the existential threat lies.

          • True but the existential threat exists primarily because of the spiritual vacuum caused by the abandonment of Christ. A Christian culture, absent faith in Christ, will eventually crumble. Any resistance will merely be secular.

          • Anton

            Well, we are headed for familiar territory… there aint no such thing as a Christian culture and there won’t be until Jesus returns to run the world, not just the church, in person.

          • Again true, but with leaders and an elite running our nation according to Christian precepts we at least stood a chance of success and, indeed, achieved great things. Following God’s design for us, i.e. natural law, actually works.

          • Anton

            It’s an effect at one remove. “Righteousness exalts a nation” (Proverbs 14:34) and we were a nation whose people had a relatively high standard of morality, because its people took the Bible seriously. No longer.

          • bluedog

            But the Common law is based on the values expressed in Mosaic Law. It follows that even secularists are governed by that inheritance, which is why the subversion of the CL by statute law instigated by the EU is so dangerous.

          • Anton

            There’s a huge difference between English Common Law and Mosaic Law. The biggest being the difference in land distribution between the Mosaic constitution and the feudal system which is the ancestor of Common Law.

          • bluedog

            I’m talking principally about the injunctions not to kill, not to steal, not to bear false witness.

          • dannybhoy

            And we do live in a secular culture.. The erosion of Christian influence in British society is I think due to the continued attacks on Biblical authority, the triumph of evolutionary thinking in science and education, the explosion in passive entertainment like tv and computer games and social media.
            All leading to a breakdown in family units, the responsibility and authority of parents, the ‘exposure’ of the failings of public figures, and a loss of respect for authority and social isolation.
            So there!

          • Anton

            If you look at my next comment below you’ll see that we largely agree.

          • dannybhoy

            I was backing up your statement!

          • Anton

            Great – I was confused because “so there!” is usually a signal of disagreement.

          • dannybhoy

            No I do have a tendency to go on a bit if I think it’s important, so I try to lighten the mood with a bit of humour at the end..
            (Which obviously confuses rather than amuses, so I shall stop it!)

  • David

    Some time ago Prince Charles, like many others, was clearly taken in with the multi-culti nonsense. But recently some of his remarks indicate that he now understands the risks attached to the more supremacist sections of the Koran. It looks as if he would press for a traditional Christian coronation. I hope so, as anything else would not only be meaningless, but a betrayal of both the Christian faith and the peace that all have enjoyed in these islands, since the Civil War, always under our evolving Common Law, which is roughly modelled upon Christian precepts. The monarchy will continue to serve us as a useful symbol of all those valuable things.

  • Peter Hoare

    As an Australian and a Royalist & a Christian I support the concept that the Coronation continue to be based on the Christian Faith. The Queen and therefore her successor is monarch of The United Kingdom as well as Australia & her other Realms and Territories, It is also worth noting that at the heart of the Coronation is the Holy Communion Service. The anointing and the crowning are the focuses of the Coronation. I hope that it will long continue to be a Christian Service for a Christian Monarch

    • dannybhoy

      So do we Aussie Bro, but there’s no guarantee that there will be. Things are changing very quickly in the mother country..
      I’m not sure that Holy Communion will be celebrated either.