Charles and Camilla 2

[AmazonGrace]

Defender of all? What exactly is Charles defending?

[rosamundi]

3 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Defender of all? What exactly is Charles defending?

He's technically head of the Armed Forces and he gets given several items of regalia which are symbolic of the Monarch's role in defence of the realm. Admittedly, that role is now as symbolic as the sword he gets given.

In addition, one of his titles is Defender of the Faith. I don't think Lambeth Palace is envisaging a new holy war, but you never know.

[just_ordinary]

Most of those things stem from times when a king did indeed gather an army and actually joined them in battle. When his actions had significant impact on the religion of his people.
Allegiance goes in both directions. In theory they didn’t get the loyalty and privileges for nothing. That’s the fascinating part.
Those bits tie back to history so long ago. And there is so much more to learn than the condensed and simplified things we learn in school (sorry historian graduate here- I am obviously biased).

[AmazonGrace]

 

"I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God"

 

I don't even know what it means but it sounds very feodal.  What would a person have to do in order to pay true allegiance to Charles? And his heirs too... How does one go about paying true allegiance to William, George, etc.?

 

 

[prayawaythefundie]

24 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

What would a person have to do in order to pay true allegiance to Charles? And his heirs too... How does one go about paying true allegiance to William, George, etc.?

 

 

Not much, I think.  It says „according to law“ which basically means accepting him as head of state with almost no power, right? As for the heirs, that‘s probably only relevant in case Harry ever did gather an army to march on Buckingham Palace. 😆

Edited May 1, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[AmazonGrace]

If they ask for your firstborn, just say no.

[hoipolloi]

21 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

And his heirs too...

Wouldn't that include anyone in the line of succession, even Andrew?

 

[klein_roeschen]

On 5/1/2023 at 7:12 PM, just_ordinary said:

Most of those things stem from times when a king did indeed gather an army and actually joined them in battle. When his actions had significant impact on the religion of his people.
Allegiance goes in both directions. In theory they didn’t get the loyalty and privileges for nothing. That’s the fascinating part.
Those bits tie back to history so long ago. And there is so much more to learn than the condensed and simplified things we learn in school (sorry historian graduate here- I am obviously biased).

There may be a lot of history behind it and as a layperson with a heart for history, I love delving into it. But all of what you pointed out of the tradition is meaningless in a modern state. The kind today can't call in the men to fight for him in a war anymore. And the king today can't dictate anymore what religious practices his people have to practice. So defender of the faith is meaningless, because it only presents the Church of England and not all the other faiths and non- religious people in the UK. And the same with rewarding loyalities of his men.

And I find it fascinating how now with Charles a lot more people question traditions than under his mother's reign.

[Coconut Flan]

Now is the time to question.  The queen had a long stable history of being beloved and not many people wanted to take against the elderly woman who had been around as long as most people could remember.  Now they have a bit crotchety and possibly eccentric senior citizen starting a reign.  It's a lot easier to question that.  

[viii]

I mean, people were questioning before the Queen ever died. I have heard so many remark that they wish the crown would skip Charles and go straight to William. 

[prayawaythefundie]

17 minutes ago, viii said:

I mean, people were questioning before the Queen ever died. I have heard so many remark that they wish the crown would skip Charles and go straight to William. 

Those aren‘t the ones questioning the monarchy as an institution though. They only prefer William because he is younger and did not hurt beloved Diana. Depending on how long Charles will live and whether William screws up in his personal life, people might wish for the crown to go straight to George once he has grown up, especially if he is going to be fairly attractive.

Edited May 2, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[Dandruff]

49 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Now is the time to question.  The queen had a long stable history of being beloved and not many people wanted to take against the elderly woman who had been around as long as most people could remember.  Now they have a bit crotchety and possibly eccentric senior citizen starting a reign.  It's a lot easier to question that.  

I'm feeling a bit bad for Charles, not that I'm disagreeing about him being crotchety and possibly eccentric.  The top job there is one that I believe most would rather choose than be handed.  He, in particular, seems like he might have been a lot happier living a substantially quieter and less public life.

[viii]

It's interesting the perceptions we get from them. I agree that Charles has always seemed reluctant towards the throne and attention in general. I find that George seems to be the same way - he seems a lot more shy and reserved than either of his siblings, but again - that's just public perception. 

[hoipolloi]

6 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Wouldn't that include anyone in the line of succession, even Andrew?

Answering  my own question - yes, Andrew is #8 in the line of succession, according to this WaPo article

 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

5 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

And I find it fascinating how now with Charles a lot more people question traditions than under his mother's reign.

A lot of traditions haven't been used in over 70 years, but are now relevant due to the Queen's death and the changing of the guard. I think one reason to have a modest coronation is that the next coronation is probably less than 30 years away. Depending on how long people live and the monarchy is still here, they will have more coronations in the next 70 years then they did in the last 70 years.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Bluebirdbluebell

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

A lot of traditions haven't been used in over 70 years, but are now relevant due to the Queen's death and the changing of the guard. I think one reason to have a modest coronation is that the next coronation is probably less than 30 years away. Depending on how long people live and the monarchy is still here, they will have more coronations in the next 70 years then they did in the last 70 years.

If the next coronation is in 30 years, William will be in his 70s when he ascends the throne, and George will be 40 when he becomes POW. If William reigns for a similar amount of time, then a third 70 year old will ascend the throne (George). I’m not sure the public will support three consecutive 70 year old kings and their expensive coronations. 

[rosamundi]

8 hours ago, viii said:

I mean, people were questioning before the Queen ever died. I have heard so many remark that they wish the crown would skip Charles and go straight to William. 

Which displays an impressively fundamental misunderstanding of how hereditary monarchy works. 😁

I do think a lot more people are questioning the role of the monarchy - some people had been "let's reconsider after the Queen dies, seems only fair," and now, especially with the coronation landing in the middle of a cost of living crisis, more people are asking if a monarchy, or the type of monarchy we have, is appropriate for a 21st century, multi-faith society.

It will be interesting to see if people's opinions from this survey (apologies, it links to a PDF, I couldn't find a web page with it on) change as they age through the cohorts. Currently 36% of 18-35 year olds think Britain should have an elected head of state, dropping to 29% of 36-49 year olds, 22% of 50-64 year olds and 15% of 65+. Will the opinion of the 18-35 year olds change as they get older, or will it remain the same? We should, eventually, reach a point where a majority of people think we should have an elected head of state, and if we get any sort of electoral/parliamentary reform during the next Parliament, then the role of the monarchy could be part of that reform (if the Church of England just becomes another denomination, rather than the official state religion with the King as its head, do we really need to have a religious ceremony where the King receives his temporal and spiritual authority to rule?)

Basically, what we need is root and branch reform of the entire social and political system, starting with getting rid of First Past the Post voting, and reform of the House of Lords, but it's not going to happen under the Conservatives and I'm not sure it would happen under Labour either.

[viii]

8 hours ago, rosamundi said:

Which displays an impressively fundamental misunderstanding of how hereditary monarchy works. 😁

I know. I had to do SO much explaining and even then some people didn't get it. Or they think Charles should retire. Again - it doesn't work like that! 

[hoipolloi]

Havenʻt watched the whole thing yet, but this CBC interview with Princess Anne is setting off sparks for various reasons.

ETA: Among many comments, she thinks C3 will be a good monarch, a "slimmed down" monarchy isnʻt really happening, and she essentially dismissed the need to deal with the role of slavery in the history of monarchy.

Quote

Told the king, in the wake of British media reports questioning the monarchy’s ties to the slave trade, offered “new” and “tacit support” into researching the affiliation, she replied: “Well you know more than I do. I rather suspect that was the media’s interpretation of that particular deal. Who knows who came up with that idea?”

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by hoipolloi

[viii]

I know Anne is heavily favoured but I've always found her to be a shitty person from the public perception she gives. Never been a fan. 

[prayawaythefundie]

Anne never came across warm and kind. She’s popular for working a lot and not giving a **** about being popular.

Edited May 3, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[tabitha2]

Well. She is a straight shooter. I believe her.

Edited May 3, 2023 by tabitha2

[viii]

53 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Well. She is a straight shooter. I believe her.

Believe her in what? That she's a dick? Yeah, I believe her too. 

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Well. She is a straight shooter. I believe her.

If Anne were a straight shooter, she’d say:

”Yes, the monarchy had close ties to slavery and profited enormously from it. Five minutes of “research” would tell you that, there’s no need for a huge study. At the very least, we should return the jewels we stole to their original owners.” 
 

She’ll never say that, so she is not a straight shooter, imo.

[Jackie3]

On 4/29/2023 at 10:49 AM, Coconut Flan said:

I like to watch the clothes and yes sometimes snark on them.  With the amount of money the BRF women spend on clothes, they should look at a minimum properly fitted and approrpriate.  I don't think one can make an entire personality assessment based on apparel.  It's tough to comment much on a navy or black suit.  

Yes, true. I feel this way about Camilla. Married to a billionaire, with plenty of money for a stylist, and her clothes are so ugly and ill-fitting!