of monarchs and primates

Submitted by rw (United States), Feb 14, 2018 at 05:29

No, Mr S. you don't appreciate what this entails.

All down through history there have been kings and queens of England (and Scotland and Wales) who at their coronations have been installed as the head (the titular head) of the Church of England. Of these men and women, some of them may have been practicing Christians, but many would have had little interest in spiritual things. One of the outstanding features of the present Queen, who is a person of outstanding character, is that she is a committed believer, regularly stating her beliefs in her annual Christmas broadcasts which are eagerly anticipated and watched by millions across Britain and the Commonwealth. Her son, Charles, is a very well meaning man and presumably because of his mother has a developed interest in spirituality, however he does not seem to embrace faith in Christ, and for this reason, for the first time in over a thousand years, it seems that an English monarch may for reasons of conscience not wish to take his place as Defender of THE Faith. Many before him have taken the throne, accepted the title, but had no vital interest in the role. Charles wishes to change the role, so you are correct in one way - if this is so, he should really renounce the throne.

A couple of further points. It is commonly said in churches that being born in a garage does not make you a car and going to McDonalds does not make you hamburger, and so no one is a Christian by virtue of going to church or having an ecclesiastical title, or any other sort of relationship or loyalty. Secondly, the monarch of England is only the titular head of the Anglican church, which is only anyway one section of the Christian church in England - so no, the Royal family does not define English Christianity.. The functional head of the Anglican church is known as the 'primate' ( a title also, amusingly, and I mean nothing cynical, conferred on the great apes), and this is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nevertheless, for Charles to not take the ancient title would effectively mean the end of the monarchy as it has been for a 1000 years. The very idea that he could think of doing this would suggest, perhaps sadly, that the monarchy has reached its use by date since the idea is that the monarchy, and in particular the monarch, is ordained by God. Somebody somewhere must have written a book on this topic.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".