Fake controversies like this just crack me up. The former Archbishop of Canterbury is raising a stink about the next coronation to take place in England, when Prince Charles takes over the throne from his mother:
In a television interview to be broadcast later this month, Lord Carey says: "When the time comes for the next coronation there's got to be a number of changes. Very significant changes. The Queen came to the throne at a time when the Church of England was really the only Christian faith in the country.
"And there were no Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus around to be in any way evident in the life of the country. Now it's a completely different world, so the coronation oath would have to be looked at more critically.
"It's got to be a much more interfaith coronation service next time around. Prince Charles put his finger on it and there's no way in which the sovereign can be defender of one faith. Although I hope that the next coronation will say very firmly that Christianity is still the dominant faith of the United Kingdom... it's got to be a much more inclusive character."
Oh good gracious, yes, we must have every religion involved in this fake, pointless and totally irrelevant coronation of a king with no power. The coronation of the king of England matters about as much as the naming of Miss America and their job is about equally irrelevant. By all means, if you're going to make a big deal out of giving an empty title to a rich but utterly talentless git, it's of the utmost importance to make sure the whole meaningless ceremony is as politically correct and inclusive as possible. Why let only one religion make all of the vacuous ceremonial gestures? Let's have them all show up and gesture on television about the imagined importance of an entirely hollow event.
And you have to love delusions of grandeur like this:
His comments, which are likely to cause a rift within the Church of England, suggest that Lord Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury for 11 years until 2002, has been won over by arguments from Prince Charles.
The prince, who will become Supreme Governor of the Church of England when he becomes king, has already said that he wants to be Defender of Faith - not Defender of the Faith - when he accedes to the throne.
Pray tell, Charles, how do you plan to go about defending faith - or "the faith", whichever they ultimately decide to declare you defender of? Other than using your ears as a shield, how do you propose that a pampered, pasty faced Alfred E. Neuman impersonator with all the charm of an ebola virus is going to defend anything?
- Log in to post comments
Another reason to dump the monarchy.
The Yankees were right!
What have you heard about the rumors that Prince Chuckie has secretly converted to Islam? I wonder how such a conversion, if it happened, might have affected his "reasoning?"
Ed, it's their tradition, not yours. AFAIR the majority of the Britons supports monarchy. It has about as much practical sense as German presidency (which has almost zero power), or the Eurovision contest.
Nobody's forcing you to bow to English king. You've won the Revolution long ago.
Since Prince Charles has been aggressively promoting the increased use of various unproven or disproven alternative medicine treatments, surely he is already a Defender of Faith.
Roman wrote:
Uh, yeah. And therefore....what?
Uh, yeah. And therefore....what?
Far less, I would argue. There are lots of positions that are essentially useless, especially in government, but only with a monarchy do we give such positions automatically to members of the same family for no reason whatsoever. And at least in the Eurovision contest, it's a contest - that is, the best is supposed to win. Monarchy is the polar opposite of a meritocracy, where wealth beyond our wildest dreams is given for no reason at all to anyone born into a certain family, even if they are ignorant gits like Prince Charles.
Roman, it may be true that a majority of people still back the monarchy but it's a pretty skewed majority. If you look at specific age groups e.g. those under 45 then it's a different picture entirely, it looks like they're on the way out and it's only our ever-increasing elderly population that helps to keep them here. Also I believe that something like 70% of people here in Scotland disagree with the monarchy in its current form and want it scrapped or radically overhauled (I'm in the scrapping camp myself).
And for the record there are wide-reaching monarchical powers still in force which are not often exercised but could have drastic effects. For example, had Tony Blair failed to win a Commons majority in the vote for war in Iraq it is widely reckoned that he would have used the Royal Prerogative to proceed regardless, especially if he had lost by a small margin.
Then again I believe that once he takes the throne the monarchy will lose whatever respect it once commanded and won't last much longer. Charles is ridiculed equally by right and left to the point that he'd actually be better abdicating and giving the throne to William (God forbid that Harry should ever take over!)
It's a bit ironic that Charles should be calling for this when it's still illegal for a Catholic to succeed to the throne or for the monarch to marry a Catholic.
I have this visceral hatred of the British royal family. You know why? Princess Di. I got so tired of having her shoved down our throat so incessantly on television (and yes, I understand that one of the major roots of the problem is the American obsession with the royals). Good god, you'd think that she was Joan of Arc and the Virgin Mary rolled into one, not just another spoiled little rich girl who got to marry a spoiled rich guy and become even richer. I have a problem with the whole idea of empty celebrity - why on earth should I even know who she is, or who Prince Charles is? What have they done that would justify my knowledge of their existence? When it comes to movie stars or music stars, even if I don't like them I can accept that they are celebrities because they produce something that a large audience relates to and enjoys; thus, even Carrot Top, as talentless as I find him, has at least some warrant for me knowing who he is. But the mere fact that one is born into a certain family does not justify having their name in the papers, much less justify handing them global celebrity and unimaginable riches. Princess Di was just the Paris Hilton of the UK, as far as I'm concerned.
The British approach is as follows:
1) Oops, we've found an issue that people get tetchy about
2) Apply extreme touchy-feeliness. Add random fluff to make people feel they're being included
3) Wrap in feather blankets and fake celebrity
4) Feed to media and anyone else in range
It is extremely hokey. On the other hand, it actually works rather well. I guarantee you that if the stereotypical brusque, call-a-spade-a-spade American tried to sort out Northern Ireland, the entire landmass would be bathed in blood, blown to bits and partially irradiated inside of a week.
It's not the words, it's the attitude. And the attitude is "we really care about you and want to do all we can to make your life peaceful and pleasant". Like I say, surprisingly effective.
The Presidency is the polar opposite of a meritocracy, where power beyond our wildest dreams is given for no reason at all to anyone born into a certain family, even if they are ignorant gits like George W Bush.
Bing wrote:
Close, but not quite. Your conclusion is essentially correct, your reasoning is wrong. The presidency is not a meritocracy, but it's not the opposite of one. And the reason it's not a meritocracy has nothing to do with the fact that a whopping twice in our history, a father and son have both held the position. The reason it's not a meritocracy is because, as Mencken noted nearly a century ago, no truly first rate man would do the groveling and lieing neccessary to get the position.
Let me get this straight. You object to the former Archbishop's proposal that Hindus, Sikhs and others should participate in Prince Charles's coronation, because you developed a "visceral hatred" for his former wife and by extension for the man's entire family? Seriously?
Research the last coronation of an English monarch to involve a religious minority, which occurred in 1189. It may give you a new appreciation for what this "fake" controversy represents, and, one hopes, an aversion to harbouring visceral hatreds for anyone, however little you think their existence is warranted.
Ed,
there are lots and lots of people who get large sums of money for nothing. Like all heirs of rich businessmen. Why not get PO'd by Paris Hilton?
Legally, Prince Charles' wealth is his family property. The privilege is AFAIR that they don't pay taxes.
In the WW II, the British king was an important icon of defiance and, they say, had a great impact on the morale of the British people.
Please also note that there are monarchies in Europe which work much better than the British one. (And I also hate Lady Di).
All and all, your irritation would be better spent elsewhere, but you're free to disagree, of course ;-)
Roman, I think they voluntarily pay taxes now, but they still get lots of money from the public purse, not to mention the right not to be executed or shipped off to Australia.
"It's not the words, it's the attitude. And the attitude is "we really care about you and want to do all we can to make your life peaceful and pleasant". Like I say, surprisingly effective."
That's the theory, and I agree it works better than the US's current approach. You tend to send mixed messages though when on the one hand you propose a law outlawing "religious hatred", yet on the other hand you invade a Muslim country for no good reason and shoot innocent people dead on the Underground because they're dark skinned.
Ed: your objections to monarchy are valid, but as unelected upper-class twits go, theirs are A LOT better than ours. Di at least tried, in her own wonky, not-quite-sincere way, to draw attention to important issues like poverty and landmines; which is more than Paris Hilton or Neil Bush can say. And unlike our upper-class twits, theirs are actually taught how to be nice before they get shoved in front of a camera.
As Corkscrew pointed out, even the worst British royals have tended to be forces of tact, putting a human face on authority with gestures that are technically meaningless, but enormously good for morale (speeches, visiting hospitals, crusading for causes, and other figurehead things). This follows a perfectly sensible aristocratic response to the rise of the capitalist class: "We no longer rule by 'divine right,' the capitalists are pushing our landed-aristocratic base out of power, therefore we must earn our continued legitimacy by showing sympathy for the little guy when these crass middle-class punks make pawns of them in their unending business games."
An interesting case-in-point is the French post-revolution romantic movement, in which the new capitalist class were portrayed as petty, divisive, uncultured and unscrupulous, and the bygone monarchy was seen as a time of chivalry, honor, stability and shared values, when all of France was one big happy family, everyone knew his/her place, and the father-figures in fancy clothes kept all squabbles under control. There was also a bit of literature that depicted displaced former royals as avenging heroes, fighting for the little guy against the evil intriguing petty-bourgeois exploiters.
The anti-bourgoisism was tied up with nationalism, too, since Britain and Holland were leading the capitalist charge. cf Napoleon's dismissal of England as a nation of shopkeepers.
Clio wrote:
I'm afraid you haven't gotten it straight at all. Perhaps you should try reading the whole thing instead of one comment. It's not that I object to the participation of other religions in the coronation, it's that I object to the whole idea of coronation as bring utterly idiotic and pointless. Thus, the idea that it's so terribly important that all religions play a role in such a meaningless exercise to be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the royals as individuals.
Roman wrote:
I do. In fact, I specifically equated them in a comment above.
And if they had actually earned that wealth, I would not begrudge them one bit. But they didn't earn their wealth any more than they earned their place in the world's celebrity pantheon.