1
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall
« on: November 17, 2006, 04:19:13 PM »
Thanks, Marlene, you always have the answers.
News:
We think Pallasart is the best web design company in Austin and for good reason - they make this forum possible! Looking for a website? Call them at 512 469-7454.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall
« on: November 17, 2006, 02:40:18 PM »
HRH was honoring his devout mother's wish; it is not a sign that he himself was concerned that she be buried in an Orthdox shrine. An Orthdox cousin, Marina, Duchess of Kent, is buried with other members of the British Royal family.
3
The Windsors / Re: State Opening of Parliament
« on: November 17, 2006, 01:28:35 PM »
It would not have been the expense you think, because most of the jewels were no doubt reused in the new crown. It was mainly the setting that was renovated.
4
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall
« on: November 17, 2006, 01:20:34 PM »
That is a very interesting question. As far as I know, the only way one can be "brought up" in the Orthodox faith is to live in an Orthodox observant home and to attend Orthodox Divine Liturgy on Sundays. In Orthdoxy, baptism, chrismation (confirmation) and First Communion are all given to an Orthodox infant at the same ceremony. (The western church divided these into three separate rites.) So, once HRH was baptized, there would have been no later rite (at puberty or adulthood) for him to receive.
Did he live in an Orthodox observant home? Not for many years. He was raised primarily in Germany and England where he went to private (and predominately Protestant) schools and spent much time with his Protestant grandmother, Victoria, and his nominally Protestant Uncle, Louis. He later served in the Royal Navy and at sea where shipboard services would have been led by an Anglican chaplain. For him to have regularly attended Orthodox services seems unlikely. We also read of no spiritual struggle when he was required to enter the Church of England.
But then, only he really knows the answer to that question.
Did he live in an Orthodox observant home? Not for many years. He was raised primarily in Germany and England where he went to private (and predominately Protestant) schools and spent much time with his Protestant grandmother, Victoria, and his nominally Protestant Uncle, Louis. He later served in the Royal Navy and at sea where shipboard services would have been led by an Anglican chaplain. For him to have regularly attended Orthodox services seems unlikely. We also read of no spiritual struggle when he was required to enter the Church of England.
But then, only he really knows the answer to that question.
5
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall Part II
« on: November 16, 2006, 02:42:18 PM »
Chris makes a good point. The custom of annointing the King is recorded in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) when the first kings of Israel - Saul, David and Solomon are anointed by God's chosen prophet. We are all familiar with Handel's great coronation anthem "Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, anointed Solomon King."
Biblically, anointing with oil is a sign of God's choosing and Spirit upon the one being anointed. In the Christian coronation it would be a sign that the King is God's appointed ruler and empowered with the Holy Spirit for the task. In fact, the anointing is more important and more holy than the actual crowning.
The last continental coronation might have been in Norway for Haakon and Maud, but I'm not positive. Some European monarchs still have the crown and regalia nearby when opening Parliament, etc.
Biblically, anointing with oil is a sign of God's choosing and Spirit upon the one being anointed. In the Christian coronation it would be a sign that the King is God's appointed ruler and empowered with the Holy Spirit for the task. In fact, the anointing is more important and more holy than the actual crowning.
The last continental coronation might have been in Norway for Haakon and Maud, but I'm not positive. Some European monarchs still have the crown and regalia nearby when opening Parliament, etc.
6
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall Part II
« on: November 15, 2006, 11:05:46 AM »
Yes, it is. And it is good that it speaks now, before the actual events unfold.
The article is not quite correct when it says that Rowan Williams will plan the service. Whoever is Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of Charles' accession will plan the service, or at least finalize the plans. With the Queen's great health, it could be another 20 years before Charles accedes to the throne.
The other thing I note is that Charles never proposed mixing the Anglican service with non-Anglican/non-Christian elements. It would stand alone and there would be some other kind of ceremony for the non-Anglicans. I also don't think that Charles would swear allegiance to other faiths, as he will to the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law."
Speaking of simplifciation -- all of the other European monarchies abolished coronations years ago.
The article is not quite correct when it says that Rowan Williams will plan the service. Whoever is Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of Charles' accession will plan the service, or at least finalize the plans. With the Queen's great health, it could be another 20 years before Charles accedes to the throne.
The other thing I note is that Charles never proposed mixing the Anglican service with non-Anglican/non-Christian elements. It would stand alone and there would be some other kind of ceremony for the non-Anglicans. I also don't think that Charles would swear allegiance to other faiths, as he will to the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law."
Speaking of simplifciation -- all of the other European monarchies abolished coronations years ago.
7
The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall Part II
« on: October 27, 2006, 08:52:49 PM »
It sounds to me like there would be two different services, one the traditional Church of England coronation ceremony, and then another ceremony, not even on the same day, which would give Charles a chance to reach out to people of other faiths.
Please remember a couple of things: the Church of England ceremony includes the Anointing with Oil which is actually the most important and sacred part of the ceremony. It also includes the crowning and the celebration of the Holy Communion. I would be surprised if any of these important parts would be repeated a few days later.
It probably is a mistake to say there will be two "coronations." I would imagine there would be the Coronation and the second service would go by some different name. Please remember that newspapers often screw things up, especially when describing religious ceremonies.
Please remember a couple of things: the Church of England ceremony includes the Anointing with Oil which is actually the most important and sacred part of the ceremony. It also includes the crowning and the celebration of the Holy Communion. I would be surprised if any of these important parts would be repeated a few days later.
It probably is a mistake to say there will be two "coronations." I would imagine there would be the Coronation and the second service would go by some different name. Please remember that newspapers often screw things up, especially when describing religious ceremonies.
8
The Windsors / Re: Lord Nicholas Windsor & family
« on: October 27, 2006, 08:42:56 PM »
So does this mean that after Charles and Camilla, British royals will marry in registry offices? Or, is Lord Nicholas not considered royal enough to require the Queen's permission to marry? Although I did read that she gave it. He is out of the succession, so does that have anything to do with it? Grandduchessella? Marlene?
9
The Windsors / Re: The courtesy of the curtsey
« on: October 16, 2006, 04:43:28 PM »
According to Miss Manners, Americans should not courtsey or bow to anyone. In her words, "That is why we had the revolution."
But, it is always a personal choice.
Having said that, the only persons I could see giving this courtesy to would be the Head of State and possible the spouse.
Otherwise, they are treated very politely with respect.
But, it is always a personal choice.
Having said that, the only persons I could see giving this courtesy to would be the Head of State and possible the spouse.
Otherwise, they are treated very politely with respect.
10
The Windsors / Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
« on: October 16, 2006, 04:33:37 PM »
I think it is pointless to speculate what the royals "think" or how they vew their postions, etc. They know better than anyone what they have to lose.
I also wouldn't be so hard on Prince Harry. He is only 22 years old! Time will bring maturity, as with us all, and he will stop doing stupid things, hopefully. And, just like Margaret, he will be the only sibling of the monarch.
BTW, Princess Margaret had her share of "stories" but they didn't wreck the monarchy.
Also, why do you think it has to be all or nothing? There are the continental monarchies that could provide an example of simplification for the Brits.
I also wouldn't be so hard on Prince Harry. He is only 22 years old! Time will bring maturity, as with us all, and he will stop doing stupid things, hopefully. And, just like Margaret, he will be the only sibling of the monarch.
BTW, Princess Margaret had her share of "stories" but they didn't wreck the monarchy.
Also, why do you think it has to be all or nothing? There are the continental monarchies that could provide an example of simplification for the Brits.
11
The Windsors / Re: THE QUEEN - new DIANA film starring Dame Helen Mirren
« on: October 16, 2006, 10:51:47 AM »
The amount of trouble produced when HM passes on will depend on how many years Charles and Camilla will have been married at that time. Has anyone noticed that apart from a few Supermarket Tabloids, they aren't in the news much anymore, at least not here in the USA?
12
The Windsors / Re: THE QUEEN - new DIANA film starring Dame Helen Mirren
« on: October 16, 2006, 10:34:17 AM »
I am sure many of us will not see a King of England after William. Since he was born in 1982, and Charles in 1947, and considerng the longevity of the Queen and Queen Mother, William will probably not ascend to the throne until soemtime after 2030 at the earliest. And, his heir would not succeed until sometime after 2070.
But, I get your point. I think all of the things you mentioned about the foibles of the RF are true, but not in a way that will bring down the monarchy. Simplified, yes. As I said in another post, there will be great simplification within the next 25 years, because once the Queen is gone and Charles is King, all of those first cousins of Elizabeth are one step farther out of the Royal Family.
The current family is rooted in the four sons of George V and Queen Mary.
Furthermore, children born to daughters of the Sovereign are not royal; their position comes from their non-royal father. Therefore, unless Beatrice, Eugenie, and Louise Mountbatten-Windsor marry a royal prince, their children will be non-royal.
So, let's picture the 15th year of Charles' reign. The royal family will consist of Charles and Camilla; William & spouse & children,
Harry & spouse & children; Prince Andrew & spouse?; Prince Edward & spouse; Princess Anne; and the daughters of Andrew and Edward, whose children will be non-royal.
Once Charles, Anne, ANdrew and Edward are dead, the RF will consist of William and family, Harry and family and the 3 Mountbatten-Windsor granddaughters of Elizabeth II.
Finally, any daughers born to William and Harry will produce non-royal children.
But, I get your point. I think all of the things you mentioned about the foibles of the RF are true, but not in a way that will bring down the monarchy. Simplified, yes. As I said in another post, there will be great simplification within the next 25 years, because once the Queen is gone and Charles is King, all of those first cousins of Elizabeth are one step farther out of the Royal Family.
The current family is rooted in the four sons of George V and Queen Mary.
Furthermore, children born to daughters of the Sovereign are not royal; their position comes from their non-royal father. Therefore, unless Beatrice, Eugenie, and Louise Mountbatten-Windsor marry a royal prince, their children will be non-royal.
So, let's picture the 15th year of Charles' reign. The royal family will consist of Charles and Camilla; William & spouse & children,
Harry & spouse & children; Prince Andrew & spouse?; Prince Edward & spouse; Princess Anne; and the daughters of Andrew and Edward, whose children will be non-royal.
Once Charles, Anne, ANdrew and Edward are dead, the RF will consist of William and family, Harry and family and the 3 Mountbatten-Windsor granddaughters of Elizabeth II.
Finally, any daughers born to William and Harry will produce non-royal children.
13
The Windsors / Re: Lord Nicholas Windsor & family
« on: October 13, 2006, 07:36:56 AM »
Not really. When the present Duke of Kent dies, the grandson of a reigning monarch, the Kent Dukedom will cease being royal. Lord Nicholas Windsor. his siblings. and his first cousins are not TRH.
The children of Princess Alexandra, as with the children of the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret, are not members of the Royal family.
All remain in line to the throne, however, unless they marry a Roman Catholic or become Roman Catholic. Therefore, Lord Nicholas will not be royal nor in line for the throne.
In the next generation, during the reign of King Charles III (or George VII), the royal family will consist of his children and grandchildren, as well as his brothers and their children, and his sister. At this point, both Andrew and Edward have daughters only. Therefore, those branches will also cease being royal with Andrew and Edward's grandchildren.
The children of Princess Alexandra, as with the children of the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret, are not members of the Royal family.
All remain in line to the throne, however, unless they marry a Roman Catholic or become Roman Catholic. Therefore, Lord Nicholas will not be royal nor in line for the throne.
In the next generation, during the reign of King Charles III (or George VII), the royal family will consist of his children and grandchildren, as well as his brothers and their children, and his sister. At this point, both Andrew and Edward have daughters only. Therefore, those branches will also cease being royal with Andrew and Edward's grandchildren.
14
The Windsors / Re: THE QUEEN - new DIANA film starring Dame Helen Mirren
« on: October 10, 2006, 07:32:46 AM »
Well, I made to to the theater yesterday. It was almost full, but I did buy my ticket on line.
Simply put, Dame Helen IS The Queen! Her performance was excellent. She walked, talked and conveyed the Queen's personality very well.
I thought that the Queen Mother was also played very well. Since she was 97 when Diana died, she was in decline. Even the slight angle of her head was down, as it was with the QM. She also provided great humor.
I liked Tony Blair's rebuttal to his speech-writer. I thought that it really showed Blair's growing respect and understanding for HM.
Simply put, Dame Helen IS The Queen! Her performance was excellent. She walked, talked and conveyed the Queen's personality very well.
I thought that the Queen Mother was also played very well. Since she was 97 when Diana died, she was in decline. Even the slight angle of her head was down, as it was with the QM. She also provided great humor.
I liked Tony Blair's rebuttal to his speech-writer. I thought that it really showed Blair's growing respect and understanding for HM.
15
The Windsors / Re: THE QUEEN - new DIANA film starring Dame Helen Mirren
« on: October 07, 2006, 09:17:14 PM »
I went to see "The Queen" this afternoon at the one theater where it is showing in the Metro DC area. It was sold out for the rest of the day! I'll go on line next time and get the tickets there. How strange it is that such a good film is only at one theater in the entire national capital area.