• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Archbishop of Canterbury resigns

Well, that makes some smug comments made by Anglican officlas about the RCC abuse scandals not look good.
 
dudalb said:
Well, that makes
some smug comments made by Anglican officlas about the RCC abuse scandals not look good.
Click to expand...
This is hardly the first CofE abuse scandal so I can't see how they can have been "smug" about the RCC's many abuses. Care to show some examples?

The CofE has long been saying how terrible abuse is, that it recognises it needs to do better, that it has systems in place and so on. What this abuse case shows is that the person at the next to the top position in the church (the Monarch of course is the supreme leader) has been lying his tits off for decades and was actively involved in a cover-up that went on for decades.
 
Darat said:
Despite the monarch's part in it, it isn't really a political issue is it?
Click to expand...
Should I have labelled my post as a public service announcement?

There is discussion in that thread of this topic, including the link I mentioned.

One can argue that there is a political component: members of the legislature ignoring laws; established church; and the like.
 
Darat said:
Despite the monarch's part in it, it isn't really a political issue is it?
Click to expand...
The CoE is the Established Church, headed by the monarch, so yes it really is a political issue.
IIRR more than four-fifths the UK population favours disestablishment and more than half the Anglicans likewise.
 
I am not sure snap opinion polls are relevant. Whilst KCIII and Q consort Camilla are not particularly popular, I doubt people would vote, say, in a referendum, to get rid of the monarchy or the church, as its raison d'etre is as 'Defender of the Faith', the 'faith' being that established by the reformation of the church by King Henry VIII. In effect, the Anglican Church was embedded into Parliament at the same time as its foundation as we know it today, in 1559,so a radical reform of the state becoming a secular one ( and it can be done,: see Sweden) and the monarchy being little more than symbolic would entail an entire overhaul of Parliament. OK, so the current government plans to crop a whole bunch of hereditary peers but I can't see it'll take the draconian step of cutting off the CoE from the state as it goes to the heart of the constitution.

If there was a referendum, whilst people might moan about the church and the bishops, I can't see the average Brit voting to get rid of them should there be a referendum as they love all that pomp and circumstance with the Archbishop doing the inaugurations and anointings; the royal 'hatch match and dispatch' carrying on. I can't see that a scandal of this type will dent that cap-doffing forelock tugging stuff, of which the Church plays a key role.
 
Vixen said:
I am not sure snap opinion polls are relevant. Whilst KCIII and Q consort Camilla are not particularly popular, I doubt people would vote, say, in a referendum, to get rid of the monarchy or the church, as its raison d'etre is as 'Defender of the Faith', the 'faith' being that established by the reformation of the church by King Henry VIII. In effect, the Anglican Church was embedded into Parliament at the same time as its foundation as we know it today, in 1559,so a radical reform of the state becoming a secular one ( and it can be done,: see Sweden) and the monarchy being little more than symbolic would entail an entire overhaul of Parliament. OK, so the current government plans to crop a whole bunch of hereditary peers but I can't see it'll take the draconian step of cutting off the CoE from the state as it goes to the heart of the constitution.

If there was a referendum, whilst people might moan about the church and the bishops, I can't see the average Brit voting to get rid of them should there be a referendum as they love all that pomp and circumstance with the Archbishop doing the inaugurations and anointings; the royal 'hatch match and dispatch' carrying on. I can't see that a scandal of this type will dent that cap-doffing forelock tugging stuff, of which the Church plays a key role.
Click to expand...
She is not Queen Consort, he upgraded her to a full queen pretty much as his mother's body was being delivered to London.
 
Darat said:
She is not Queen Consort, he upgraded her to a full queen pretty much as his mother's body was being delivered to London.
Click to expand...
Technically, royal is by bloodline so whilst she has the title 'Queen' she was born a commoner and her children remain so. So hence my reference to 'consort' with a small c. QEII ordered that Camilla was to be designated 'consort'.
 
Darat said:
She is not Queen Consort, he upgraded her to a full queen pretty much as his mother's body was being delivered to London.
Click to expand...
Her status wasn't changed, she is still the queen consort, as opposed to queen regnant, but she is now known simply as Queen, not Queen Consort (which was was QEII wanted). When Chuck dies, she doesn't continue to reign, which she would if she were 'full' queen.

I still do a double-take when the news refers simply to 'the Queen'.
 
zooterkin said:
Her status wasn't changed, she is still the queen consort, as opposed to queen regnant, but she is now known simply as Queen, not Queen Consort (which was was QEII wanted). When Chuck dies, she doesn't continue to reign, which she would if she were 'full' queen.

I still do a double-take when the news refers simply to 'the Queen'.
Click to expand...
No she really isn't the Queen Consort any longer, her title is either Queen or Queen Camilla, no qualification.
 
Vixen said:
Technically, royal is by bloodline so whilst she has the title 'Queen' she was born a commoner and her children remain so. So hence my reference to 'consort' with a small c. QEII ordered that Camilla was to be designated 'consort'.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above she is not Queen Consort, if she survives Charles her title will remain* Queen or Queen Camilla, it will not need a qualification as Charles' grandmother had to settle for. It is an apparently very important point for Charles which is why he dropped the consort and made her a "full queen" as quickly as he dared.

All this mean nothing to us commoners but is apparently extremely important for the royals.

ETA: *Unless the next monarch of course decides otherwise, and given how much consideration Charles gave his mother's wishes once she was dead i.e. none I suppose she may find herself falling down the ladder of who has to bow to who first.
 
Darat said:
No she really isn't the Queen Consort any longer, her title is either Queen or Queen Camilla, no qualification.
Click to expand...
You're talking about her title, I'm talking about her status. She is not a queen regnant (which Elizabeth was), she is a queen consort; she is only called 'Queen' because she is married to the King, not because she is entitled in her own right. The whole Queen Consort thing was, as I understand it, and may very well be wrong, because QEII didn't like the idea of Camilla being simply known as Queen. However, that was the normal way that queen consorts were referred to, including QEII's mum when George VI was King; she was queen consort, but known simply as Queen Elizabeth.
 
Darat said:
As I mentioned above she is not Queen Consort, if she survives Charles her title will remain* Queen or Queen Camilla, it will not need a qualification as Charles' grandmother had to settle for. It is an apparently very important point for Charles which is why he dropped the consort and made her a "full queen" as quickly as he dared.

All this mean nothing to us commoners but is apparently extremely important for the royals.

ETA: *Unless the next monarch of course decides otherwise, and given how much consideration Charles gave his mother's wishes once she was dead i.e. none I suppose she may find herself falling down the ladder of who has to bow to who first.
Click to expand...
Comparable to Camilla is Mary of Teck, wife of George V. She was the granddaughter of George III. She, too was known as 'Queen' as in Queen Mary, albeit considered rather a minor figure. In both the wiki entries of Queen Camilla and Queen Mary, they are designated 'Queen consort':

Mary of Teck:

Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Mary of Teck - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Camilla:
Queen consort of the United Kingdom
and other Commonwealth realms
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Queen Camilla - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I am not aware of a Letters Patent in the pipeline by Charles to change this or an Act of Parliament.
 
Vixen said:
Comparable to Camilla is Mary of Teck, wife of George V. She was the granddaughter of George III. She, too was known as 'Queen' as in Queen Mary, albeit considered rather a minor figure. In both the wiki entries of Queen Camilla and Queen Mary, they are designated 'Queen consort':

Mary of Teck:


en.wikipedia.org

Mary of Teck - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Camilla:

en.wikipedia.org

Queen Camilla - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I am not aware of a Letters Patent in the pipeline by Charles to change this or an Act of Parliament.
Click to expand...
From your Wiki article "Queen Camilla, the current consort since 2022" - note not the Queen Consort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom