Charles & Camilla

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My first reaction is “much ado about nothing”, but can someone explain to me what impact Charles becoming king would have on the world?

That he, and the other royals, spend their time taking on various projects (organic farming, land mines, etc.) is admirable, but what sets them apart from philanthropic billionaires?
 
40.png
rlg94086:
My first reaction is “much ado about nothing”, but can someone explain to me what impact Charles becoming king would have on the world?
Click to expand...
OK. He would be head of the Church of England.
 
Ani Ibi:
OK. He would be head of the Church of England.
Click to expand...
But, what does that mean? Would he actually be guiding the church as our Pope does? Would Bishops go to him for guidance?
 
40.png
rlg94086:
But, what does that mean? Would he actually be guiding the church as our Pope does? Would Bishops go to him for guidance?
Click to expand...
It would mean that, because of his position, he would be exercising considerable influence over the spiritual lives of Anglicans – as an example.
 
Rebecca New:
Diana always reminded me of someone suffering from the “Charlie the Tuna syndrome”. Because Diana is deceased, Charles can remarry, but not Camilla, as her spouse still lives and she is still spiritually married to him. Their union does not have the joy of a valid union-no matter how “happy” they appear. When Camilla’s ex dies, I guess they will then have a valid marriage. :confused:
Click to expand...
I believe her ex-husband, a Catholic, was able to obtain an annulment from the Church, so they are not (and according to Church law, then) never were sacramentally married.
 
Ani Ibi:
It would mean that, because of his position, he would be exercising considerable influence over the spiritual lives of Anglicans – as an example.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to be a pest, but “considerable influence” begs the question. What sort of influence? Is his role that of a figurehead, or does he actually do something? Does he decide the liturgical norms? Change dogma? What considerable influence does he have?

Does he ordain Bishops? Now, that would be considerable.

Robert
 
Ani Ibi:
It would mean that, because of his position, he would be exercising considerable influence over the spiritual lives of Anglicans – as an example.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that for a second!
 
40.png
FightingFat:
I don’t believe that for a second!
Click to expand...
You do not believe that the leader of the Church of England exerts influence over the lives of Anglicans? Do you also believe that a king exerts no influence over the lives of his subjects? And you are paying these people how much? And they have what kind of tax shelters?
 
Ani Ibi:
You do not believe that the leader of the Church of England exerts influence over the lives of Anglicans? Do you also believe that a king exerts no influence over the lives of his subjects?
Click to expand...
Nope.
Ani lbi:
And you are paying these people how much? And they have what kind of tax shelters?
Click to expand...
That’s not their job at all. There is undoubtedly a ceremonial role to be played by the monarchy in the Anglican Church. Wikipedia states: -
The British monarch (at present, Elizabeth II), has the constitutional title of “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. In practice, however, the effective leadership falls to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Click to expand...
The Church of England website states that: -
Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and she also has a unique and special relationship with the Church of Scotland, which is a Free Church. In the Church of England she appoints archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals on the advice of the Prime Minister. The two archbishops and 24 senior bishops sit in the House of Lords, making a major contribution to Parliament’s work.
Click to expand...
The Church of England is episcopally led (there are 108 bishops) and synodically governed. The General Synod is elected from the laity and clergy of each diocese and meets in London or York at least twice annually to consider legislation for the good of the Church.
Click to expand...
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II’s role as Monarch is laid out in detail here.

Personally I feel that Queen Elizabeth has been a person who has dedicated her life to the service of her Country and the commonwealth.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II’s role as Monarch is laid out in detail here.

Personally I feel that Queen Elizabeth has been a person who has dedicated her life to the service of her Country and the commonwealth.
Click to expand...
Thanks Fighting Fat. I agree with your assessment.

After reading through your link, it looks like the role is mostly ceremonial, but the Queen is briefed on everything and head of the armed forces. Does she then have the final say in the implementation of forces? Did Blair and government have to get final okay from the Queen before going into Iraq?

Robert
 
The key to the Monarchy in Britain is not the power they have but, the power they deny to others. For example, all the armed forces pledge allegience to the Queen, not parliament, not a politician, the Queen. In this way the Queen, although subject to the wishes of parliament also has the right of order over any servicemen, through this mechanism nobody can use the military as political tools, in other words they could not use the military to suppress legitimate opposition political parties.

The same applies to the Church of England and her relationship with the Synod.

The whole system may sound a little abstract but, it has worked for the last few hundred years and seems to be operating satisfactory up till now.

There are many anti and pro monarchists in the UK, what’s interesting is how fast the anti’s back off when you suggest an American style setup with Tony Blair as President!!!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_146_13.gif
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Thanks Fighting Fat. I agree with your assessment.

After reading through your link, it looks like the role is mostly ceremonial, but the Queen is briefed on everything and head of the armed forces. Does she then have the final say in the implementation of forces? Did Blair and government have to get final okay from the Queen before going into Iraq?

Robert
Click to expand...
No way. She is, as you say, consulted, but only out of good manners. She may well state her position and do so most forcefully (she is reknowned for this) but ultimately it wil not affect the Prime Ministers decision (much the same as the Pope’s opinion made no difference to Bush and Blair)
 
40.png
FightingFat:
No way. She is, as you say, consulted, but only out of good manners. She may well state her position and do so most forcefully (she is reknowned for this) but ultimately it wil not affect the Prime Ministers decision (much the same as the Pope’s opinion made no difference to Bush and Blair)
Click to expand...
Perhaps - but technically she has the power to say no. Whether that is a practical power or not is something that keeps constitutional lawyers awake at night.

In my opinion - I dunno 🙂 If the Queen was very vocal about not supporting a war, and the general populace thought the same, then one wonders. She is head of the armed forces after all, the high-ranking military people may well prefer to listen to her than to the Government of the day.

Mike
 
40.png
FightingFat:
No way. She is, as you say, consulted, but only out of good manners. She may well state her position and do so most forcefully (she is reknowned for this) but ultimately it wil not affect the Prime Ministers decision (much the same as the Pope’s opinion made no difference to Bush and Blair)
Click to expand...
Ah, but you have sidestepped the considerable influence which HRM has exercised over the decades which has nothing to do at all with passing bills or calling out the army.

HRM has been right in there with her people, encouraging them, being the voice of reason and balance, lending the human dimension to often highly charged political knots and giving exceptionally incisive insight – and leadership.

Philip, on the other hand, has often said unfortunately ill-advised things. As I have said before, Charles seems certainly to have taken after his father much more so than his mother. For me, Charles showed his colours long before Diana came on the scene. At his investiture as the Duke of Wales, worries about him started to emerge.

The Queen too had troubles with her marriage. But we didn’t hear her bring out the violins and weep the crocodile tears. Nor did we see her play the blame-game. She has a discretion, a nobility, a grasp of the big picture which I believe elude Charles.
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Perhaps - but technically she has the power to say no. Whether that is a practical power or not is something that keeps constitutional lawyers awake at night.

In my opinion - I dunno 🙂 If the Queen was very vocal about not supporting a war, and the general populace thought the same, then one wonders. She is head of the armed forces after all, the high-ranking military people may well prefer to listen to her than to the Government of the day.

Mike
Click to expand...
Mike, she does have the power to disolve parliament, remember, she did exactly this a few years ago with the Australians by using the Royal Perogative. Not a common move by any stretch of the imagination but, constitutionally possible. Again it’s the denial of power system, she can’t overide parliament but she can disolve it and force a general election.
 
40.png
walstan:
Mike, she does have the power to disolve parliament, remember, she did exactly this a few years ago with the Australians by using the Royal Perogative. Not a common move by any stretch of the imagination but, constitutionally possible. Again it’s the denial of power system, she can’t overide parliament but she can disolve it and force a general election.
Click to expand...
Indeed - and appoint a new executive if she doesn’t like the current one. Whoever has the latest letters patent is the current Prime Minister 🙂

I imagine if an unpopular Parliament tried to override the 5-year limit for example, in some horrendous power-grabbing manoeuvre, she would either veto the bill or dissolve the Parliament. That would be… interesting 😉

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Indeed - and appoint a new executive if she doesn’t like the current one. Whoever has the latest letters patent is the current Prime Minister 🙂

I imagine if an unpopular Parliament tried to override the 5-year limit for example, in some horrendous power-grabbing manoeuvre, she would either veto the bill or dissolve the Parliament. That would be… interesting 😉

Mike
Click to expand...
😃 Mike, you almost sound as British…as Walstan 😉
 
After reading through your link, it looks like the role is mostly ceremonial, but the Queen is briefed on everything and head of the armed forces. Does she then have the final say in the implementation of forces? Did Blair and government have to get final okay from the Queen before going into Iraq?
Click to expand...
Ooooh, this is something we discussed in my history class, soldiers of the armed forces make a pledge to serve the queen, however they are paid by the government. Before using the forces the primeminister is supposed to consult the monarch, and they decide if the primeminister can. My teacher said that the monarch would virtually never object, as this could even lead to something as serious as the scraping of the monarchy. I think the only thing that the monarch would do in objecting is affect the troops themselves, they may get all patriotic and choose to listen to HRH …
Who would you side with, the person you swore to serve, or the person who pays you? 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top