Beautiful and true words Laura. I’m sorry for your loss. But I’m pretty sure you’re still connected to your mum-in-law through love, which (I believe) holds all the universe together.
I didn't know that the king got to write his own job description. Did parliament know? I thought that as a constitutional monarch, he did what the constitution, or parliament, told him.
Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe King Charles just decided to throw the rule book away - in which case we might want to consider throwing him away.
I'm just a Yank whose interests in such things across the pond goes back awhile. Some things aren't forgotten. Like me being old enough to remember this:
Prince Charles’ views on religion could force him to GIVE UP throne - ‘ABDICATION’
"The Prince has caused controversy within the Anglican church when he brought up his views several years ago, stating that he wanted to embrace all the other religions practised in Britain.
The move would mean Charles - the future monarch - would no longer be known as the Defender of the Faith.
He hopes to be known as Defender of Faith (rather than faiths) seeing this role as instilling unity among different cultures and religions across the UK.
However, for this change the prince would need Parliament to amend the 1953 Royal Titles Act."
...
"Meanwhile, Princess Diana’s former butler Paul Burrell recently cast doubt on Charles ever taking to the throne.
He said in an interview with The Royal Box: “I know it's his right, I know he's heir to the throne, I know he's waited his whole life to do it [but] his own wife said: "My husband is not fit for the top job". Diana said that."
"In those relatively devout days, it went without saying that the coronation took the form of an elaborate Anglican service, reflecting the monarch’s 400-year-old role as head of the Church of England. An essential part of assuming office consisted of a series of oaths in which the monarch firmly eschewed Catholicism. One of the first things that Elizabeth II had to do on succeeding her father was promise to protect the national (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland. She also had to make an “accession declaration oath” affirming that she herself was a faithful Protestant. This formula was introduced by her grandfather George V in 1910. Before that, incoming monarchs had to make a more explicitly anti-Catholic declaration, rejecting as “superstitous and idolatrous” Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary and the saints.
Then, during her coronation, the queen swore to defend “the Protestant Reformed religion established by law”. "
...
"One of the UCL reports suggests that the oaths, dating from a time in the late 17th century when Catholicism was seen as a strategic threat, should be rethought completely. The Scottish pledge could become an oath about the union, the accession declaration could become a promise to parliament to uphold the laws and constitution, and the coronation oath could become a pledge of service to the people. But legislation needs to be passed now, the author argues. The other report predicts that the coronation will continue to be an Anglican service but it will be simpler and shorter, and find a place for other Christian denominations and other religions.
Others are calling for much more sweeping change. The National Secular Society (NSS), which campaigns against religious privilege, said the next coronation would be an ideal moment to start the process of cutting all ties between church and state. “If Britain is to retain a monarch as head of state, then he or she should not promote an official religious preference, far less be under an obligation to sustain one,” said Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS.
Still, Prince Charles has religious interests of his own, ranging from Sufism to the faith of his paternal kin, Greek Orthodoxy. One of his favourite projects is an art school that teaches both Orthodox iconography and Islamic calligraphy. The style of his coronation may surprise everybody"
"The new King must swear to be a true and faithful Protestant; to uphold the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; and the rights and privileges of the Church of England. In a newly published report they present for discussion different reformulations of the oaths, updated for the UK’s more diverse and secular society. A second report explains how the next coronation cannot be anything like that in 1953. The coronation defines not just royalty, but British identity: how is that identity best represented in all its 21st century diversity?"
FF - And I'm a Yank who thinks that "Secularism" is just another word for "Atheism.." A marketing campaign to introduce Atheism in a soft, non-threatening way to a previously highly devout public. Training wheels for foolish believers, 'bitterly clinging to their God.' The old bait & switch.
So my understanding of Charles is that he is an Atheist. Masquerading as a secularist. And with the powers behind the throne already contemplating how they would adjust the role of Sovereign and Head of the Church of England to fit his Atheism...err...Secularism. And I'm a Yank who also thinks that Atheism is also a euphemism for "Worship of Man." Man as god. Like, say, that Lucifer fellow? A euphemism for Satanism?
That's who Charles is. In my understanding. But, hey, I'm just a Yank, what do I know?
Beautiful and true words Laura. I’m sorry for your loss. But I’m pretty sure you’re still connected to your mum-in-law through love, which (I believe) holds all the universe together.
Thank you Laura
I didn't know that the king got to write his own job description. Did parliament know? I thought that as a constitutional monarch, he did what the constitution, or parliament, told him.
Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe King Charles just decided to throw the rule book away - in which case we might want to consider throwing him away.
I'm just a Yank whose interests in such things across the pond goes back awhile. Some things aren't forgotten. Like me being old enough to remember this:
Prince Charles’ views on religion could force him to GIVE UP throne - ‘ABDICATION’
Daily Express (UK), August 25, 2018
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1008027/Prince-Charles-news-abdication-king-charles-religion-later
"The Prince has caused controversy within the Anglican church when he brought up his views several years ago, stating that he wanted to embrace all the other religions practised in Britain.
The move would mean Charles - the future monarch - would no longer be known as the Defender of the Faith.
He hopes to be known as Defender of Faith (rather than faiths) seeing this role as instilling unity among different cultures and religions across the UK.
However, for this change the prince would need Parliament to amend the 1953 Royal Titles Act."
...
"Meanwhile, Princess Diana’s former butler Paul Burrell recently cast doubt on Charles ever taking to the throne.
He said in an interview with The Royal Box: “I know it's his right, I know he's heir to the throne, I know he's waited his whole life to do it [but] his own wife said: "My husband is not fit for the top job". Diana said that."
FF - And this:
The difficulties with crowning King Charles III
The Economist, May 24, 2018
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2018/05/24/the-difficulties-with-crowning-king-charles-iii
(or archive version behind paywall):
https://archive.ph/LFsAU
"In those relatively devout days, it went without saying that the coronation took the form of an elaborate Anglican service, reflecting the monarch’s 400-year-old role as head of the Church of England. An essential part of assuming office consisted of a series of oaths in which the monarch firmly eschewed Catholicism. One of the first things that Elizabeth II had to do on succeeding her father was promise to protect the national (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland. She also had to make an “accession declaration oath” affirming that she herself was a faithful Protestant. This formula was introduced by her grandfather George V in 1910. Before that, incoming monarchs had to make a more explicitly anti-Catholic declaration, rejecting as “superstitous and idolatrous” Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary and the saints.
Then, during her coronation, the queen swore to defend “the Protestant Reformed religion established by law”. "
...
"One of the UCL reports suggests that the oaths, dating from a time in the late 17th century when Catholicism was seen as a strategic threat, should be rethought completely. The Scottish pledge could become an oath about the union, the accession declaration could become a promise to parliament to uphold the laws and constitution, and the coronation oath could become a pledge of service to the people. But legislation needs to be passed now, the author argues. The other report predicts that the coronation will continue to be an Anglican service but it will be simpler and shorter, and find a place for other Christian denominations and other religions.
Others are calling for much more sweeping change. The National Secular Society (NSS), which campaigns against religious privilege, said the next coronation would be an ideal moment to start the process of cutting all ties between church and state. “If Britain is to retain a monarch as head of state, then he or she should not promote an official religious preference, far less be under an obligation to sustain one,” said Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS.
Still, Prince Charles has religious interests of his own, ranging from Sufism to the faith of his paternal kin, Greek Orthodoxy. One of his favourite projects is an art school that teaches both Orthodox iconography and Islamic calligraphy. The style of his coronation may surprise everybody"
FF - All planned at least as far back as 2018:
Planning the next Accession and Coronation
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/social-historical-sciences/events/2018/may/planning-next-accession-and-coronation
"The new King must swear to be a true and faithful Protestant; to uphold the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; and the rights and privileges of the Church of England. In a newly published report they present for discussion different reformulations of the oaths, updated for the UK’s more diverse and secular society. A second report explains how the next coronation cannot be anything like that in 1953. The coronation defines not just royalty, but British identity: how is that identity best represented in all its 21st century diversity?"
FF - And I'm a Yank who thinks that "Secularism" is just another word for "Atheism.." A marketing campaign to introduce Atheism in a soft, non-threatening way to a previously highly devout public. Training wheels for foolish believers, 'bitterly clinging to their God.' The old bait & switch.
So my understanding of Charles is that he is an Atheist. Masquerading as a secularist. And with the powers behind the throne already contemplating how they would adjust the role of Sovereign and Head of the Church of England to fit his Atheism...err...Secularism. And I'm a Yank who also thinks that Atheism is also a euphemism for "Worship of Man." Man as god. Like, say, that Lucifer fellow? A euphemism for Satanism?
That's who Charles is. In my understanding. But, hey, I'm just a Yank, what do I know?
Amen... 🙏