William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
The issue with that is if a King William ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or at least protector of it as he is of the Church of Scotland or the King of Denmark is for the Lutheran Church of Denmark, it opens the way for the Roman Catholic church to be the national church again. Indeed in time if the RC church agreed to have women priests it could well see the Church of England merge back into the Roman Catholic church as if the monarch is not to be its Supreme Governor there is nothing to stop the Pope heading it again (with some of the more evangelical elements perhaps becoming Baptist or Pentecostal)
How on earth would following the Danes or Scots (or the Americans, Welsh or even the French) in not having our Head of State have a role in governing a church "open the way" for Catholicism (or Paganism) to become England's national church?
Because there are three fundamental obstacles: 1. The people of England. Do they want any institution to be a national church? 2. The Vatican. Which really, really, really has enough on its plate already without stepping into the political quagmire of becoming anyone's national church. 3. English Catholics. Who, in my experience, are roughly as diverse as the rest of England on almost everything. And that includes the fact that the overwhelming majority really, really, really, are more than delighted that the C of E is lumbered with the problems (and constantly leaking roofs) of being the national church.
Firstly, you are wrong. The Lutheran church of Denmark is the established church there which the Danish King is Supreme Authority of it. Just as in Scotland the monarch is protector of it.
Second in the US, Wales, France, the Netherlands etc the Roman Catholic church is now the largest church.
Third, by 42% to 29% English voters want the C of E to remain the established church
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
The issue with that is if a King William ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or at least protector of it as he is of the Church of Scotland or the King of Denmark is for the Lutheran Church of Denmark, it opens the way for the Roman Catholic church to be the national church again. Indeed in time if the RC church agreed to have women priests it could well see the Church of England merge back into the Roman Catholic church as if the monarch is not to be its Supreme Governor there is nothing to stop the Pope heading it again (with some of the more evangelical elements perhaps becoming Baptist or Pentecostal)
How on earth would following the Danes or Scots (or the Americans, Welsh or even the French) in not having our Head of State have a role in governing a church "open the way" for Catholicism (or Paganism) to become England's national church?
Because there are three fundamental obstacles: 1. The people of England. Do they want any institution to be a national church? 2. The Vatican. Which really, really, really has enough on its plate already without stepping into the political quagmire of becoming anyone's national church. 3. English Catholics. Who, in my experience, are roughly as diverse as the rest of England on almost everything. And that includes the fact that the overwhelming majority really, really, really, are more than delighted that the C of E is lumbered with the problems (and constantly leaking roofs) of being the national church.
HYUFD does feel a nation needs a national church to keep the RCs out. He was arguing some time back with me about Scotland and saying how awful it was that the Church of Scotland had been disestablished (pretty much as part of the re-merger with much of the Free and Secession Kirks) because it had let the RCs take over and dominate in Scotland. Which was news to me, even if one applies it solely to formal religion.
The King is obliged to protect the Church of Scotland and sends a representative to its annual assembly
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
The issue with that is if a King William ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or at least protector of it as he is of the Church of Scotland or the King of Denmark is for the Lutheran Church of Denmark, it opens the way for the Roman Catholic church to be the national church again. Indeed in time if the RC church agreed to have women priests it could well see the Church of England merge back into the Roman Catholic church as if the monarch is not to be its Supreme Governor there is nothing to stop the Pope heading it again (with some of the more evangelical elements perhaps becoming Baptist or Pentecostal)
How on earth would following the Danes or Scots (or the Americans, Welsh or even the French) in not having our Head of State have a role in governing a church "open the way" for Catholicism (or Paganism) to become England's national church?
Because there are three fundamental obstacles: 1. The people of England. Do they want any institution to be a national church? 2. The Vatican. Which really, really, really has enough on its plate already without stepping into the political quagmire of becoming anyone's national church. 3. English Catholics. Who, in my experience, are roughly as diverse as the rest of England on almost everything. And that includes the fact that the overwhelming majority really, really, really, are more than delighted that the C of E is lumbered with the problems (and constantly leaking roofs) of being the national church.
HYUFD does feel a nation needs a national church to keep the RCs out. He was arguing some time back with me about Scotland and saying how awful it was that the Church of Scotland had been disestablished (pretty much as part of the re-merger with much of the Free and Secession Kirks) because it had let the RCs take over and dominate in Scotland. Which was news to me, even if one applies it solely to formal religion.
The King is obliged to protect the Church of Scotland and sends a representative to its annual assembly
He may think so. He may be kind to send some other person along. But that doesn't make it established.
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
The issue with that is if a King William ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or at least protector of it as he is of the Church of Scotland or the King of Denmark is for the Lutheran Church of Denmark, it opens the way for the Roman Catholic church to be the national church again. Indeed in time if the RC church agreed to have women priests it could well see the Church of England merge back into the Roman Catholic church as if the monarch is not to be its Supreme Governor there is nothing to stop the Pope heading it again (with some of the more evangelical elements perhaps becoming Baptist or Pentecostal)
How on earth would following the Danes or Scots (or the Americans, Welsh or even the French) in not having our Head of State have a role in governing a church "open the way" for Catholicism (or Paganism) to become England's national church?
Because there are three fundamental obstacles: 1. The people of England. Do they want any institution to be a national church? 2. The Vatican. Which really, really, really has enough on its plate already without stepping into the political quagmire of becoming anyone's national church. 3. English Catholics. Who, in my experience, are roughly as diverse as the rest of England on almost everything. And that includes the fact that the overwhelming majority really, really, really, are more than delighted that the C of E is lumbered with the problems (and constantly leaking roofs) of being the national church.
HYUFD does feel a nation needs a national church to keep the RCs out. He was arguing some time back with me about Scotland and saying how awful it was that the Church of Scotland had been disestablished (pretty much as part of the re-merger with much of the Free and Secession Kirks) because it had let the RCs take over and dominate in Scotland. Which was news to me, even if one applies it solely to formal religion.
The King is obliged to protect the Church of Scotland and sends a representative to its annual assembly
He may think so. He may be kind to send some other person along. But that doesn't make it established.
In form it is still linked to the monarchy via the vow of protection included in the coronation oath and the Church of Scotland is effectively the national church in Scotland
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
William is a bit stupid here. The link to God is the logical justification for his power: take that away and he's just a bald guy in a silly hat. And the Coronation mummery is necessary: it slathers a sheen of wonder and continuity over the succession. It's almost like somebody wrote an article about it: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/06/ceremonies/
I agree that the ceremony matters for the royals, but we don't have a royal family because we have a "logical justification" for it, let alone the logic being the religious angle. If you wanted to take the logical angle it would be a combination of tourist money, "soft power" and it being better not to upset the constitutional applecart. But fundamentally we have a royal family because a lot of people are comfortable with that tradition and ceremony, which remains true whether there's an official link with the CoE or not.
Royalists vs Repiblicans neck and neck in Scotland at present, though as usual the southerners are more conservative as well as Conservative.
Monarchy 11% ahead in Scotland over a Republic with Yougov
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
The issue with that is if a King William ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or at least protector of it as he is of the Church of Scotland or the King of Denmark is for the Lutheran Church of Denmark, it opens the way for the Roman Catholic church to be the national church again. Indeed in time if the RC church agreed to have women priests it could well see the Church of England merge back into the Roman Catholic church as if the monarch is not to be its Supreme Governor there is nothing to stop the Pope heading it again (with some of the more evangelical elements perhaps becoming Baptist or Pentecostal)
How on earth would following the Danes or Scots (or the Americans, Welsh or even the French) in not having our Head of State have a role in governing a church "open the way" for Catholicism (or Paganism) to become England's national church?
Because there are three fundamental obstacles: 1. The people of England. Do they want any institution to be a national church? 2. The Vatican. Which really, really, really has enough on its plate already without stepping into the political quagmire of becoming anyone's national church. 3. English Catholics. Who, in my experience, are roughly as diverse as the rest of England on almost everything. And that includes the fact that the overwhelming majority really, really, really, are more than delighted that the C of E is lumbered with the problems (and constantly leaking roofs) of being the national church.
Firstly, you are wrong. The Lutheran church of Denmark is the established church there which the Danish King is Supreme Authority of it. Just as in Scotland the monarch is protector of it.
Second in the US, Wales, France, the Netherlands etc the Roman Catholic church is now the largest church.
Third, by 42% to 29% English voters want the C of E to remain the established church
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
William is a bit stupid here. The link to God is the logical justification for his power: take that away and he's just a bald guy in a silly hat. And the Coronation mummery is necessary: it slathers a sheen of wonder and continuity over the succession. It's almost like somebody wrote an article about it: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/06/ceremonies/
I agree that the ceremony matters for the royals, but we don't have a royal family because we have a "logical justification" for it, let alone the logic being the religious angle. If you wanted to take the logical angle it would be a combination of tourist money, "soft power" and it being better not to upset the constitutional applecart. But fundamentally we have a royal family because a lot of people are comfortable with that tradition and ceremony, which remains true whether there's an official link with the CoE or not.
Royalists vs Repiblicans neck and neck in Scotland at present, though as usual the southerners are more conservative as well as Conservative.
Monarchy 11% ahead in Scotland over a Republic with Yougov
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
The issue with that is if a King William ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or at least protector of it as he is of the Church of Scotland or the King of Denmark is for the Lutheran Church of Denmark, it opens the way for the Roman Catholic church to be the national church again. Indeed in time if the RC church agreed to have women priests it could well see the Church of England merge back into the Roman Catholic church as if the monarch is not to be its Supreme Governor there is nothing to stop the Pope heading it again (with some of the more evangelical elements perhaps becoming Baptist or Pentecostal)
How on earth would following the Danes or Scots (or the Americans, Welsh or even the French) in not having our Head of State have a role in governing a church "open the way" for Catholicism (or Paganism) to become England's national church?
Because there are three fundamental obstacles: 1. The people of England. Do they want any institution to be a national church? 2. The Vatican. Which really, really, really has enough on its plate already without stepping into the political quagmire of becoming anyone's national church. 3. English Catholics. Who, in my experience, are roughly as diverse as the rest of England on almost everything. And that includes the fact that the overwhelming majority really, really, really, are more than delighted that the C of E is lumbered with the problems (and constantly leaking roofs) of being the national church.
HYUFD does feel a nation needs a national church to keep the RCs out. He was arguing some time back with me about Scotland and saying how awful it was that the Church of Scotland had been disestablished (pretty much as part of the re-merger with much of the Free and Secession Kirks) because it had let the RCs take over and dominate in Scotland. Which was news to me, even if one applies it solely to formal religion.
The King is obliged to protect the Church of Scotland and sends a representative to its annual assembly
He may think so. He may be kind to send some other person along. But that doesn't make it established.
In form it is still linked to the monarchy via the vow of protection included in the coronation oath and the Church of Scotland is effectively the national church in Scotland
Butd you said only the other year that it isn't and that the RCs have taken over. Which is it??
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
The issue with that is if a King William ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or at least protector of it as he is of the Church of Scotland or the King of Denmark is for the Lutheran Church of Denmark, it opens the way for the Roman Catholic church to be the national church again. Indeed in time if the RC church agreed to have women priests it could well see the Church of England merge back into the Roman Catholic church as if the monarch is not to be its Supreme Governor there is nothing to stop the Pope heading it again (with some of the more evangelical elements perhaps becoming Baptist or Pentecostal)
How on earth would following the Danes or Scots (or the Americans, Welsh or even the French) in not having our Head of State have a role in governing a church "open the way" for Catholicism (or Paganism) to become England's national church?
Because there are three fundamental obstacles: 1. The people of England. Do they want any institution to be a national church? 2. The Vatican. Which really, really, really has enough on its plate already without stepping into the political quagmire of becoming anyone's national church. 3. English Catholics. Who, in my experience, are roughly as diverse as the rest of England on almost everything. And that includes the fact that the overwhelming majority really, really, really, are more than delighted that the C of E is lumbered with the problems (and constantly leaking roofs) of being the national church.
Firstly, you are wrong. The Lutheran church of Denmark is the established church there which the Danish King is Supreme Authority of it. Just as in Scotland the monarch is protector of it.
Second in the US, Wales, France, the Netherlands etc the Roman Catholic church is now the largest church.
Third, by 42% to 29% English voters want the C of E to remain the established church
You're misquoting (and forgetting the DKs, very unusually for you).
Actually, 58% don't 'want' it to remain established. Only 42% want it.
Well if you want to play that game, support for a Republic fell from 34% UK wide in the previous Republic poll to just 32% wanting a Republic in their latest poll you are so keen on
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
William is a bit stupid here. The link to God is the logical justification for his power: take that away and he's just a bald guy in a silly hat. And the Coronation mummery is necessary: it slathers a sheen of wonder and continuity over the succession. It's almost like somebody wrote an article about it: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/06/ceremonies/
William, like many in the UK, goes a few times a year for key events but isn't particularly devout.
The coronation is a key event.
He'll probably just tone it down a bit and get less actively involved, delegating more decisions to archbishops and so forth.
I don't expect him to open the pandora's box of reappraising the last 500 years of constitutional history.
What Pandora's Box?
Over the past 500 years, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic have eliminated the role of a National Church and (apart from the requirement in Scotland for the monarch to send a representative to the CofS General Assembly) any serious constitutional link between any church and the monarchy or the national government. As far as I'm aware, that can also be said for the other states the British monarch is figurehead of.
It really can't be said that any of these countries is any the messier for having followed Christ's advice to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".
LDs and Labour have been showered in excrement by the client media over the last fortnight and the Government largely untarnished. They should have done better, or it could all just be MoE.
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead widens to sixteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 28% (-) Lab 44% (+2) Lib Dem 10% (-2) Other 18% (-1) Fieldwork: 12th - 15th January 2024 Sample: 2,136 GB adults (Changes from 22nd-29th December 2023)
I am most confused as to why the wider public are not blaming Starmer and his liberal establishment for the Post Office scandal? Surely it is now time for change, time for Rishi.
Ask @MexicanPete, he has been given us a running commentary on the matter for the past couple of months.
I bet you were triggered yesterday by the Cash amendment.
It's bizarre how many PBers tell me to stop going on about cash yet bring it up themselves daily. I agree it's a boring topic and have said so numerous times. So why do you keep raising it? Odd.
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
William is a bit stupid here. The link to God is the logical justification for his power: take that away and he's just a bald guy in a silly hat. And the Coronation mummery is necessary: it slathers a sheen of wonder and continuity over the succession. It's almost like somebody wrote an article about it: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/06/ceremonies/
William, like many in the UK, goes a few times a year for key events but isn't particularly devout.
The coronation is a key event.
He'll probably just tone it down a bit and get less actively involved, delegating more decisions to archbishops and so forth.
I don't expect him to open the pandora's box of reappraising the last 500 years of constitutional history.
What Pandora's Box?
Over the past 500 years, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic have eliminated the role of a National Church and (apart from the requirement in Scotland for the monarch to send a representative to the CofS General Assembly) any serious constitutional link between any church and the monarchy or the national government. As far as I'm aware, that can also be said for the other states the British monarch is figurehead of.
It really can't be said that any of these countries is any the messier for having followed Christ's advice to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".
In Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is bigger than the Protestant churches however now. In Scotland it is different as the monarch is still supposed to protect the Church of Scotland
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
William is a bit stupid here. The link to God is the logical justification for his power: take that away and he's just a bald guy in a silly hat. And the Coronation mummery is necessary: it slathers a sheen of wonder and continuity over the succession. It's almost like somebody wrote an article about it: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/06/ceremonies/
I agree. The mummery is the only valuable bit. It's what gets the world watching. Weird rituals, Zadok the Priest, long processions, fancy robes. Ditch that and you might as well have a republic.
It's perfectly possible to modernise the coronation and drop a lot of the 1688-9 Revolution legacy while also keeping the continuity.
The crown, sceptre and orb are the jewelled bits that matter in terms of spectacle. Zadok is a great tune so keep it. The anointing is of less importance. The oath ought to be central. The homage has almost been done away with so can slip if that's how he feels.
But removing the monarch as head of the CofE would be a good move, not least because it would enable the anti-catholic provisions on who can succeed to the throne to be repealed.
The anointing is absolutely essential- that's where the King becomes as such in the eyes of God.
I don't think the monarch should removed as head of CofE anymore than the church should no longer have a role in Christmas.
Just because it's sort of secular now doesn't mean you ignore the roots. It just becomes symbolic and historical, like you intimate.
William ‘could cut ties with Church of England’ as king
Unlike his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, who regularly attended church with a bank note in her handbag for the collection, the Prince of Wales is not known for his Sunday attendance.
Now a biography has gone further, saying that Prince William could become the first British monarch to break official ties with the Church of England. William is also said to want to make his coronation service “less spiritual”, “shorter” by cutting it to about an hour and ten minutes, and “more discreet”.
The revelations feature in a book, Charles III: The Inside Story, by the journalist Robert Hardman. He writes: “In royal circles, it is no secret that [the Prince of Wales] does not share the King’s sense of the spiritual, let alone the late Queen’s unshakeable devotion to the Anglican church.”
William is a bit stupid here. The link to God is the logical justification for his power: take that away and he's just a bald guy in a silly hat. And the Coronation mummery is necessary: it slathers a sheen of wonder and continuity over the succession. It's almost like somebody wrote an article about it: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/06/ceremonies/
William, like many in the UK, goes a few times a year for key events but isn't particularly devout.
The coronation is a key event.
He'll probably just tone it down a bit and get less actively involved, delegating more decisions to archbishops and so forth.
I don't expect him to open the pandora's box of reappraising the last 500 years of constitutional history.
What Pandora's Box?
Over the past 500 years, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic have eliminated the role of a National Church and (apart from the requirement in Scotland for the monarch to send a representative to the CofS General Assembly) any serious constitutional link between any church and the monarchy or the national government. As far as I'm aware, that can also be said for the other states the British monarch is figurehead of.
It really can't be said that any of these countries is any the messier for having followed Christ's advice to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".
I don't think you can make much of a causal link between countries that are more or less religious or better or worse governed depending on whether their church is established or not. Denmark has one, and is relaxed, and the US does not, but isn't.
It's at the core of our identity, history and heritage in England, and at the centre of many communities. Perhaps not as much as it used to be, but it's there - as our its festivals - and the monarch is the head of it. And its uniquely ours.
To remove it is to chip away at it in a way that would only please atheists, humanists and republicans.
I'm 100% certain now that Keir Starmer will be PM after the next election, because even a lot of Tories have had enough of the party after 14 years. But it could still be difficult for Lab to win a working majority for various reasons, one of which is the new boundaries.
The assumption that the Tories will benefit from the boundary changes is weakened by the scaleof apparent change in voting intention since the last election.
The only thing that can help the Tories in many seats will be a split opposition.
The tactical voting battles will be more complex with boundary changes. It’ll be harder for voters to work out who the main challenger is in many cases.
Given the importance of incumbency and past second places to the Lib Dems you’d think this will probably hinder their chances. The one counter to this being that in areas where Labour were second in the old seats last time but with no record on the new one, and Lib Dems are strong on the local council in those wards, tgis potentially helps with the bar charts.
That is where I think Carol Vorderman comes in - I think her telling people who to vote for will ensure a fair few votes end up going in the direction she suggests.
Really, apart from a few on twitter/social media who hang on her every word and were not likely to vote Tory anyway, will it really make a difference. She needs to influence people who are not receptive to her message and she comes over as somewhat unhinged in her posts.
I cannot see it.
She may come over as unhinged, but that isn't necessarily a problem, as large parts of the electorate are as unhinged. It is a matter of directing their anger at the real elite rather than some made up confection.
"... as large parts of the electorate are as unhinged. "
This sort of comment amuses me. The person who says it always, of course, puts themselves on the 'unhinged' side.
Incoherent rage is a common political feeling at present, and many have political views that don't fit neatly into boxes, including me. Eclectic might be a polite term for it. An interesting article here:
Well worth a read. That's one of the best, most concise summaries of the complexities of current political views that I've seen. It also points to how hard it is these days to predict individuals', let along groups', voting behaviour. Superb.
Comments
Second in the US, Wales, France, the Netherlands etc the Roman Catholic church is now the largest church.
Third, by 42% to 29% English voters want the C of E to remain the established church
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ocie8ox4cd/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
Wording!
You're misquoting (and forgetting the DKs, very unusually for you).
Actually, 58% don't 'want' it to remain established. Only 42% want it.
Over the past 500 years, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic have eliminated the role of a National Church and (apart from the requirement in Scotland for the monarch to send a representative to the CofS General Assembly) any serious constitutional link between any church and the monarchy or the national government. As far as I'm aware, that can also be said for the other states the British monarch is figurehead of.
It really can't be said that any of these countries is any the messier for having followed Christ's advice to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".
I don't think the monarch should removed as head of CofE anymore than the church should no longer have a role in Christmas.
Just because it's sort of secular now doesn't mean you ignore the roots. It just becomes symbolic and historical, like you intimate.
It's at the core of our identity, history and heritage in England, and at the centre of many communities. Perhaps not as much as it used to be, but it's there - as our its festivals - and the monarch is the head of it. And its uniquely ours.
To remove it is to chip away at it in a way that would only please atheists, humanists and republicans.
It stays.