OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 12:17:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Prince William has chosen a new bride!  (Read 4542 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« on: November 16, 2010, 12:25:48 PM »

This post split off from  Pope Leo and the Future Apostasy of Rome as an answer to this comment by Irish Hermit:
Btw, have none of you over there noticed that we have our future queen?  Prince William has chosen a bride.   Half our TV programmes have been displaced to being us live news and commentary via the BBC.


Schultz, Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator


All hail his Protestant Brittanic Majesty King William IV, Defender of the Faith.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:37:26 PM by Schultz » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2010, 12:41:38 PM »


All hail his Protestant Brittanic Majesty King William IV, Defender of the Faith.

Speaking as a New Zealander who is a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and one day of His Majesty King William, I find your remark scurrilous and offensive.  Just my personal reaction, mind you.  I suppose it's possible you are converting to Protestantism and the remark is in fact high praise.

Go back and see how we handled the situation when Benedict XVI was elected.  Our reaction was *nothing* like yours here!
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2010, 12:53:02 PM »

This is old news mate.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Forgive my sins.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2010, 12:55:47 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2010, 12:59:05 PM »

This is old news mate.  Roll Eyes

News reached us in New Zealand about 6 hours ago.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2010, 01:00:57 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
They should keep "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?" All other parts should go. Cool
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2010, 01:05:05 PM »

The Text of the Service of Coronation

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

It is beautiful and profound and with a few needed changes would be a very appropriate service for the holy mystery of the Anointing and Crowning of a Monarch who was Orthodox.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2010, 01:09:48 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
They should keep "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?" All other parts should go. Cool

The references are specific because the British Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.  It is she who gives the final approval for the election of bishops - as was done by the Byzantine Emperors and Russian Tsars.  It is she who must grant approval to changes to liturgical texts - all under advisement of course.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2010, 01:15:06 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

Prince Charles has toyed with the idea of changing the oath to read "defender of "faith".
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/evangelical.alliance.officially.call.on.prince.charles.to.be.defender.of.the.faith/8082.htm

One wonders if there will be an Anglican church left for Prince William to lead.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2010, 01:22:30 PM »

Perhaps there will, though by that time, he might be crowned by someone like this:



Though if you had to have a lady Archbishop of Canterbury, I would go for Geraldine Granger  Wink

Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2010, 08:36:59 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
They should keep "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?" All other parts should go. Cool

The references are specific because the British Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.  It is she who gives the final approval for the election of bishops - as was done by the Byzantine Emperors and Russian Tsars.  It is she who must grant approval to changes to liturgical texts - all under advisement of course.

Thank you...I'm not a moron...
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 08:37:41 PM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,468


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2010, 08:43:26 PM »

All hail his Protestant Brittanic Majesty King William IV, Defender of the Faith.

Would he become William V (assuming that his father becomes Charles III upon accession)?  William IV (who came before Victoria) was brother to George IV.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,091


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2010, 08:55:24 PM »

^ Yes, he would become William V.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2010, 09:00:36 PM »

Like William IV, William V is likely to be older upon his accession. His grandmother is still going strong, let along the Prince of Wales.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,091


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2010, 09:30:30 PM »

His grandmother is still going strong, let along the Prince of Wales.

Assuming, of course, that Charles decides to be King when Mum passes.  I don't think he'd renounce his crown without ever wearing it, but it's theoretically in the field of possibility, no?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 09:30:49 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2010, 09:32:38 PM »

His grandmother is still going strong, let along the Prince of Wales.

Assuming, of course, that Charles decides to be King when Mum passes.  I don't think he'd renounce his crown without ever wearing it, but it's theoretically in the field of possibility, no?

Yes, possible, but extremely unlikely, don't you think? This isn't 1936.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,091


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2010, 09:41:20 PM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2010, 10:29:55 PM »

Charles, provided he ascends to the throne, will be the death of the monarchy...maybe not instantly but he'll go a long ways towards removing any credibility from left in the institution. If he were smart, he'd step aside and allow his son, who will presumably still be a relatively young and popular prince when the time comes, ascend to the throne. But his past actions have demonstrated that he's probably not that smart.

This isn't 1500, the monarch does not hold his/her position because it is the will of God that they rule England, they hold their position because the English people think it's neat and sophisticated to have a monarch. Once that popular devotion is gone, the end of the monarchy is only a referendum away. Though I must say, it would be most interesting to see England become a Republic while the monarchy is still the head of several other states...I don't know how that would play out.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 10:33:15 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,501



« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2010, 10:57:59 PM »

His grandmother is still going strong, let along the Prince of Wales.

Assuming, of course, that Charles decides to be King when Mum passes.  I don't think he'd renounce his crown without ever wearing it, but it's theoretically in the field of possibility, no?

Yes, possible, but extremely unlikely, don't you think? This isn't 1936.
Extremely unlikely is an understatement. The sovereign can't just quit. And yes, Charles automatically becomes king on the death of his mother. Any change in succession requires an act of Parliament, and since Charles will become king of sixteen realms, it would require the concerted action of all sixteen. In Canada alone, such action would constitutionally require the consent of not only the Parliament in Ottawa, but all ten provincial legislatures.
Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,501



« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2010, 11:08:50 PM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair. Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress. The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2010, 12:29:56 AM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair. Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress. The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job.

The guy's a worthless excuse for a human being...he commands no respect or admiration and in this day and age his ancestry does not make up for his manifest deficiencies. He will most likely become King, but will diminish the institution of the monarchy in the process and accelerate the inevitable progress of Great Britain towards republicanism...not that that's a bad thing; maybe then they could actually have an executive with some real power and not a figurehead that mindlessly rubber stamps any act parliament throws his way. A king that cannot stand up to his parliament is no king, he's nothing but the nation's chief fool.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 12:31:54 AM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2010, 12:35:22 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2010, 12:38:45 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Yeah, heaven forbid their kids not have hemophilia, what a shame that would be to all England. Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2010, 12:43:32 AM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair. Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress. The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job.

The guy's a worthless excuse for a human being...he commands no respect or admiration and in this day and age his ancestry does not make up for his manifest deficiencies. He will most likely become King, but will diminish the institution of the monarchy in the process and accelerate the inevitable progress of Great Britain towards republicanism...not that that's a bad thing; maybe then they could actually have an executive with some real power and not a figurehead that mindlessly rubber stamps any act parliament throws his way. A king that cannot stand up to his parliament is no king, he's nothing but the nation's chief fool.
Far be it for me to argue with you in your area of expertise, but provoking fights to prove something doesn't make a king.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,635



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2010, 12:52:17 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Camilla Windsor is no longer Charles Windsor's mistress, she is legally his wife.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2010, 12:55:19 AM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair. Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress. The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job.

The guy's a worthless excuse for a human being...he commands no respect or admiration and in this day and age his ancestry does not make up for his manifest deficiencies. He will most likely become King, but will diminish the institution of the monarchy in the process and accelerate the inevitable progress of Great Britain towards republicanism...not that that's a bad thing; maybe then they could actually have an executive with some real power and not a figurehead that mindlessly rubber stamps any act parliament throws his way. A king that cannot stand up to his parliament is no king, he's nothing but the nation's chief fool.
Far be it for me to argue with you in your area of expertise, but provoking fights to prove something doesn't make a king.

So you're telling me that no monarch has had a viable reason to veto an act of Parliament since Queen Anne in 1707? I'm sorry, but no legislative body is that perfect, it's obvious that the monarchs have yielded to the whims of parliament for political reasons. The last president we had who didn't veto a bill was James Garfield (who was only president for 6 1/2 months)...it's something that, in a functioning governmental system, should happen with a somewhat regular frequency. If you're going to be king...be king. Otherwise, step aside so the country can elect an executive with the balls to actually stand up to the legislature when appropriate.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 01:00:06 AM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2010, 01:42:37 AM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2010, 02:35:08 AM »

Charles, provided he ascends to the throne, will be the death of the monarchy...maybe not instantly but he'll go a long ways towards removing any credibility from left in the institution. If he were smart, he'd step aside and allow his son, who will presumably still be a relatively young and popular prince when the time comes, ascend to the throne. But his past actions have demonstrated that he's probably not that smart.

This isn't 1500, the monarch does not hold his/her position because it is the will of God that they rule England, they hold their position because the English people think it's neat and sophisticated to have a monarch. Once that popular devotion is gone, the end of the monarchy is only a referendum away. Though I must say, it would be most interesting to see England become a Republic while the monarchy is still the head of several other states...I don't know how that would play out.

England will always have a Monarch. Tell me something, why do Atheists always want to kill their Monarchs? Also, why are you being disrespectful to Prince Charles? Royalty deserve our respect.

Just as bees obey their queen and Ants theirs, we have to obey, honor, and respect ours!
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 02:39:11 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2010, 02:44:27 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Yeah, heaven forbid their kids not have hemophilia, what a shame that would be to all England. Roll Eyes

There are more than enough German nobles lying around, he doesn't have to marry a close relation.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2010, 02:53:00 AM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 02:58:00 AM by GabrieltheCelt » Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2010, 03:04:16 AM »

Charles, provided he ascends to the throne, will be the death of the monarchy...maybe not instantly but he'll go a long ways towards removing any credibility from left in the institution. If he were smart, he'd step aside and allow his son, who will presumably still be a relatively young and popular prince when the time comes, ascend to the throne. But his past actions have demonstrated that he's probably not that smart.

This isn't 1500, the monarch does not hold his/her position because it is the will of God that they rule England, they hold their position because the English people think it's neat and sophisticated to have a monarch. Once that popular devotion is gone, the end of the monarchy is only a referendum away. Though I must say, it would be most interesting to see England become a Republic while the monarchy is still the head of several other states...I don't know how that would play out.

England will always have a Monarch. Tell me something, why do Atheists always want to kill their Monarchs? Also, why are you being disrespectful to Prince Charles? Royalty deserve our respect.

Just as bees obey their queen and Ants theirs, we have to obey, honor, and respect ours!

My ancestors who fought king Georgie's boys, whipped their sorry butts, and sent them back to England crying weren't atheists, just better men than the king or any his minions; the ideal of liberty and democracy has nothing to do with religion. If the king were truly worthy to be king, he and his men would have performed better on the field of battle.

You may have a monarch and be bound to 'obey, honor, and respect' it, our success on the field of battle and the treaty we forced the king to sign in defeat and humiliation says otherwise. Of course, if the monarch disagrees, they're free to send their forces over here and attempt to retake these colonies...could be fun.

As for my attitude towards Chuckie, it's quite simple, he's a worthless P.O.S. Respect is something that is hard earned and given to very, very few...he ain't even come close.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2010, 03:08:33 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Yeah, heaven forbid their kids not have hemophilia, what a shame that would be to all England. Roll Eyes

There are more than enough German nobles lying around, he doesn't have to marry a close relation.

They dishonored themselves by being defeated in battle, their failure to die in battle or commit suicide pretty much negates any claim to nobility. At least the Nazi leadership had the common courtesy of blowing their brains out rather than being captured.

Oh, wait, that's a Japanese custom...but still, if you want to claim to be higher born than everyone else, I think it's fair to hold you to it.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 03:09:11 AM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,635



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2010, 04:00:11 AM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2010, 10:58:51 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Camilla Windsor is no longer Charles Windsor's mistress, she is legally his wife.

According to the Church of England, anyway.

Outside the matter of his women, I do like the Prince of Wales.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2010, 11:09:02 AM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!

Nár laga Dia do lámh !


(May God not weaken your hand!)
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2010, 11:10:13 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Camilla Windsor is no longer Charles Windsor's mistress, she is legally his wife.

According to the Church of England, anyway.

Outside the matter of his women, I do like the Prince of Wales.

Well, since his first wife is dead and he married Camilla after her death, she's his wife, period.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,501



« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2010, 11:23:39 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Camilla Windsor is no longer Charles Windsor's mistress, she is legally his wife.

According to the Church of England, anyway.
And anywhere else in the world that recognizes a marriage legally solemnized in the UK.

Quote
Outside the matter of his women, I do like the Prince of Wales.
Marital infidelity is not to be condoned. However, HRH the Duchess of Cornwall has impressed me very much in the way that she has undertaken her royal duties. It is easy to find the numbers of charities, armed forces units, and organizations that she supports in one way or another. She very recently accepted an invitation to become the patron of Dundurn Castle in Hamilton, Ontario. She may not have the glamour of Diana, but she seems to have appropriated the car rental company slogan: "We try harder".
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2010, 11:29:19 AM »

Translated by Google, but still readable:


Is an unusual situation to arise in Brazil and absurd: if the Prince Charles arrives to take possession of the English throne, he will win by extension the command of the largest Indian reservations in the Amazon. Paranoia? No, it's fact.

An NGO, known worldwide is commanded by Prince Charles SURVIVAL and, absurdly, controls with an iron fist the Yanomami Reserve on the border with Venezuela, and the head of cahorro in the Colombian border, which are the world's largest reserves. And not only these two reservations, which are controlled by the NGO's prince Charles. For all bookings and approve future homolagadas has strong representation of NGOs from the future king of England.

It is good to point out another absurdity: in these reserves, Brazil does not come, and worse, even the Army was barred by the NGO, in collusion with Brazilian NGOs CIR and CIMI. Reserves under control of the future king of England does not allow any person of nationality between South American, only individuals of the European community or the U.S.. If the Prince Charles comes to the throne in England he will have in its hands the control (through the Survival) of the richest deposits of uranium, niobium, gold, diamonds in the world, and indirectly influence decisively on the political destiny of nations Indians.

Another point is absurd that this NGO owned by the future King of England recently barred a Brazilian evangelical missionaries. For that she had the support of the Brazilian Bishops, Catholic organizations through the CIR, and CIMI CONSOLATA. Besides the Brazilian attack on democracy by preventing the free transit of evangelical missionaries of Brazilian nationality, the foreign NGO had the help of leading religious institution in Brazil: CNBB.


http://www.artigonal.com/politica-artigos/principe-charles-o-rei-sombra-da-amazonia-442538.html

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2010, 12:50:34 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.

I didn't say I wanted Charles to die prematurely. I said Queen Elizabeth will resolve to live to an extraordinarily old age. I did not intend it to be taken that way, as I wish premature death on no one.

I was kidding by making an absurd statement—though her mom lived to be 101, so who knows?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 12:52:23 PM by bogdan » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2010, 12:55:08 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.

I didn't say I wanted Charles to die prematurely. I said Queen Elizabeth will resolve to live to an extraordinarily old age. I did not intend it to be taken that way, as I wish premature death on no one.

I was kidding by making an absurd statement—though her mom lived to be 101, so who knows?

I don't know much about the regulations involving succession in the royalty, but if she reaches a certain advanced age and is considered unable to  perform her duties properly or not without problems for her own health, can't she be compulsorily "retired"?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 12:55:55 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,501



« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2010, 01:55:15 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.

I didn't say I wanted Charles to die prematurely. I said Queen Elizabeth will resolve to live to an extraordinarily old age. I did not intend it to be taken that way, as I wish premature death on no one.

I was kidding by making an absurd statement—though her mom lived to be 101, so who knows?

I don't know much about the regulations involving succession in the royalty, but if she reaches a certain advanced age and is considered unable to  perform her duties properly or not without problems for her own health, can't she be compulsorily "retired"?
No. It's a lifetime (quite literally) job. As she ages, the Prince of Wales and other family members will take on additional responsibilities. If she becomes totally incapacitated, a Regency would be appointed whereby the PoW would perform all of her duties in her name.
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2010, 02:24:06 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.

I didn't say I wanted Charles to die prematurely. I said Queen Elizabeth will resolve to live to an extraordinarily old age. I did not intend it to be taken that way, as I wish premature death on no one.

I was kidding by making an absurd statement—though her mom lived to be 101, so who knows?

I don't know much about the regulations involving succession in the royalty, but if she reaches a certain advanced age and is considered unable to  perform her duties properly or not without problems for her own health, can't she be compulsorily "retired"?

Retirement can't be forced on her, not really at least. As it stands right now, her and Prince Phillip have taken on less functions, with other members of the Royal family taking on more responsibility. If she lives to a great age, I would simply expect Prince Charles to take on even more responsibility.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2010, 05:12:27 PM »

What are the responsibilities of the English Monarch?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2010, 05:48:17 PM »

What are the responsibilities of the British Monarch?

The monarch's personal prerogatives are:
 - To refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly considered in 1910, but George V later changed his mind.
 - To appoint a Prime Minister of her [his] own choosing. This was last done in Britain in 1963 when Elizabeth II appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister, on the advice of outgoing Harold Macmillan.
 - To dismiss a Prime Minister and his or her Government on the Monarch's own authority. This was last done in Britain in 1834 by King William IV.
 - To refuse the Royal Assent, last exercised by Queen Anne when she withheld Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.
 - To refuse the "Queen's [King's] Consent", where direct monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues—including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia—or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament. In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. It became a de facto war.

She also has:

 - The right to be consulted;
 - The right to advise;
 - The right to warn.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 05:55:45 PM by John of the North » Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2010, 05:50:28 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative_(United_Kingdom)
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.15 seconds with 72 queries.