Posted on 05/31/2018 5:48:27 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Don’t forget that the socialist pro-Muslim la-la lands of Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, and Spain, they all have monarchs.
But they aren’t the ones that make for Tourism like Britain.
No one here really seems interested in those monarchies like the English one. Like I said, one trashy never ending soap opera.
Silly walks. There will be many silly walks.
amen
We must also remember a more recent history of beheading in Britain. (In fact, this was the first British beheading to occur to my mind while reading this thread. This isn't quite Anne Boleyn's England.)
Murdered Woolwich soldier named as Drummer Lee Rigby
Vive la différence!
Maybe people in this thread didn't intend to make me interested, but I just read the article to see what mentions there would be of these friendly neighbors of other religions.
In the case of the next coronation, the nasty moments will probably not come from the other faiths which are much more important than they were in 1953.--SNIP--
The greatest danger in the gap period will be from those who understand that the coronation service represents something much older than democracy and much deeper than secular, international “human rights”, and resent this fact. They will assail its undiluted Christianity, its mystical notion of kingship, its putting of whole nations under God. In doing so, they may well tap into a political leadership and media culture which are ignorant of such things. Everyone who supports the monarchy and loves this country should mind that gap, and be ready to fill it. This requires thinking ahead.
I've been wondering if the next coronation would present an "undiluted Christianity." (My main interest in that coronation would be what sort of messages it may present about Christianity and God.)
I don’t give a flying f***. The royals are a bunch of inbred social parasites anyway.
Did you watch the Royal Weddings, any opinions on that front? I think they have been good for the most part.
The funeral of Queen Elizabeth II will be one of the defining events of century in my opinion. Word is: she is very private, but deeply committed to her faith. So I am sure that will shine through in the ceremonies.
For every young British girl who dreams of growing up to marry a Prince, forget it. Inbred Harry just showed that a citizen of the UK isn’t good enough. He looked abroad for his bride.
Since the present Queen has betrayed her oath, the next coronation can be nothing more than a theatre-piece.
Apparently, the women he dated prior broke things off because they could not handle the public scrutiny and did not want their lives to be regimented. So not everyone wants that life. That being said, it seems like Duchess Meghan is more than capable of handling it.
With the ongoing effective implementation of Sharia, the coronation of a non Moslem monarch becomes progressively irrelevant. I would not be terribly surprised or even chagrined if/when King Charles announces his Conversion.
So she is not even the legit ruling Monarch. Never realized that. In this case, she should bypass the divorced son for his heir, it’s only the fair thing to do.
Sergeant Major, your facts are slightly off, the American Revolution was primarily about Parliament’s (not the Crown’s) treatment of the American colonies. Parliament, not King George III, passed the taxes and imposed burdens upon the colonies without any American representation.
Even back then, the British monarch was expected to sign any law passed by Parliament. Well before the war ended, King George was willing to recognize American independence. It was Parliament that pressed for continuing the war, up until the defeat at Yorktown proved that effort futile. After the war, there was considerable support for naming George Washington as King. But, fortunately for us, he detested the idea.
Our republican representative government serves us well, but Britain’s system has served them well too. If anything, most of Britain’s current ills stem from a Parliament that has too much power, and is all too willing to restrict individual liberties.
The Crown, which is self supporting, and not taxpayer financed, is overwhelmingly supported by the British people. It has 68% overall support of the population and majority support across every major political party. Britain’s government is Britain’s business, and we should respect their choice.
If there’s such support for the royals, why did the UK TV ratings suck for the recent wedding...?
1. Not everyone who supports the monarchy is going to sit through 3+ hours of wedding coverage (I’d gouge out my eyes first).
2. It was during the day on the weekend, and the weather was nice.
3. Prince Harry, while popular, is sixth in line for the throne, so this was not a national event, other events (sports, etc...) were still scheduled. IIRC during Charles’ wedding (that of the heir to the throne, therefore a sign of stability), pretty much everything shut down.
My wife, an American, watched the whole thing start to finish, she gushed about the clothes, location, etc... I did yard work that day. (NOTE: We live in Germany, so it was afternoon here too).
P.S. If you do travel to Britain, Windsor Castle is a must see, the Royal Family has done a top notch job presenting it. The place drips with history.
The big question I always have regarding royalty “why does anyone give a f^%k?”
Still don't care.
Have a nice day.
Agreed. A brief dose of King Charles and the British Republican movement will see it’s approval numbers soar.
Edward didn’t have any children, so his line ran out. Elizabeth is the legitimate Queen of England. If they follow previous standards, William would become King, when Elizabeth dies or abdicates.
If you mean the two big recent ones, I've seen parts of both. I have yet to sit in one place and watch either continuously because of my schedule and my priorities.
Whether the people involved are famous or not, I'm not most interested in watching weddings to see the spectacle in itself, to notice what the bride is wearing, or for "sentimental" reasons. (I can say similar things about funerals and even coronations.)
Instead, I'm most interested in the messages communicated to millions of viewers--particularly about such weighty subjects as marriage itself, and particularly within what is at least nominally an act of Christian worship that many of those viewers would otherwise not watch (such as a Pentecost evensong the next day). Much of these messages is present in the orders of service, which I can read conveniently enough without having to try video.
If a royal wedding were some nearly or entirely secular event, I'd find it considerably less interesting.
I did quickly compare this order of service reproduced online and the texts for marriage in Common Worship, the fairly new liturgical texts of the Church of England. (The Book of Common Prayer is still authorized, but I hear that it's used considerably less.) I didn't find any very obvious deviations here. In particular, there was some talk about Meghan "altering" the vows to omit language about obeying, but the usual vows in Common Worship already lack any promise to obey.
What I notice the most about the printed order is that inclusion of "Stand by Me": call me old-fashioned, but I wouldn't have chosen something secular at that point.
The funeral of Queen Elizabeth II will be one of the defining events of century in my opinion. Word is: she is very private, but deeply committed to her faith. So I am sure that will shine through in the ceremonies.
I've heard similar things about her, though I really don't know her enough to say what her private commitments are. I expect that funeral details have been arranged--there've been arrangements made for many other things, so we hear, and U.S. presidents at least supposedly do the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.