It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prince 'should be defender of Christian faith'

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   


Prince Charles should be called defender of the Christian religion, not all faiths, at his coronation service, an evangelical Christian group says.

The prince has said he wishes to become "Defender of Faith", not "Defender of the Faith", when he is king.

But the Evangelical Alliance says the ceremony for crowning him king is a traditional religious ceremony, and should be left or changed completely.

Clarence House said it would not be commenting on the suggestions.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


news.bbc.co.uk...

Well, thats one way to turn this Country into a Republic lol. Not to cause offence, but this Country is officially a Christian Country so the Head of State should not decide to alter that by becoming "defender of faith" just to make other religious citizens happy. It can't happen due to the differences between faiths.

Plus, i don't like the fact that the Evangelical Alliance is starting to get press now, those guys are too fundo for me




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
No offense but if Chucky EVER becomes king it will be the end of the Monarchy.

Edit: To add, I just can't picture this face on a $20 bill:






[edit on 22-10-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
LMFAO!!

i REALLY hope we don't let him become King, it would be nice if Parliament said no and picked someone else.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
LMFAO!!

i REALLY hope we don't let him become King, it would be nice if Parliament said no and picked someone else.


We can only hope.

Now here's a face that could grace currency:




Even this one:



Still has more credibilty than Chuck imo.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Whilst it's true 'we' are officially a 'Christian country' with an established church, the Lords Spiritual in the HOL etc etc I don' think too much can be made of this (which was what was behind Charles' idea about becoming 'Defender of Faiths).

Whatever 'we' think 'we' are, we're a secular country.

'We' might go to church for weddings, Christenings, and funerals but we're not really much into it beyond that.

'We' as a population hold about as much regard for nutty zealot fundy so-called 'Christians' as we do nutty zealot anybody's; whether they be Muslims, Shintoists, Hindus, Scientologists or whatever.

That is to say we as a people have a long history of finding zealots of any 'brand' (whether they be religious or even political) a total turn-off and utterly distasteful.

I do agree with the point that after QE2 goes the Monarchy is in deep trouble.

I also find it unpleasant to see the EA given the time of day by our media.....

....but let's not get carried away, they aren't a large group and the media can't over do it cos the evidence of people's own eyes proves to them that the particularly fundy element of the EA are a tiny grouping in the UK.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Evangelical Alliance represents the fastest growing Christian sect in the UK, and there is an interesting article on the internet that they will end up somehow influencing the Church of England.

i just don't see why the need to change to "defender of faith" when nearly 75% of the Country is Christian and Muslims barely make up 2%. Its a stupid idea that will end up screwing over tradition and result in a Republic being declared.

Can you really see the Church of England and even Parliament supporting a measure like this? no. The problem with Charles is that he wants to be a public monarch with his views being made public aswell, which has put him at odds with the Labour Party and even though Tories for crying out loud now want to restrict the Crown (they have a long tradition of supporting "Crown and Country")



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I'm afraid that this is one circle that we are not going to be able to square - or it would certainly take someone with a great deal more credibility than the tree hugging buscuit manufacturer who debates matters of state with the geraniums that we currently enjoy as heir to the throne to achieve it.

The whole argument is riddled with absurdities.

The title of "Defender of The Faith was conferred on Henry VIII in goodness only knows when as a reward for his opposition to the growing Protestant movement in Europe, all this, of course, before he broke from Rome in a fit of pique and established the (Protestant) Church of England, leaving us with the British monarch who is the head of the Anglican church entitled as the defender of the Roman church despite the fact that Catholics are barred from the throne.

So Charles has decided that he would like to be known as Defender of Faith, (a title occasionally used by previous monarchs in the days when the hypocricy of the original title was still understood), in order to try and make a nonsensical constitutional monarchy more inclusive and relevant in the 21st century.

In other words Charles, on ascending to a throne whose very existence depends on the power of tradition, would like to abandon tradition and be referred to by a title which is by definition exclusive in order to try and appear tolerant and inclusive.

Good thinking Charles.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Prince Charlie must be oh so scared of those muslims.
Too bad his mother has more balls than he does.


[edit on 24-10-2006 by Flighty]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
If Prince charles is coronated as Defend of faiths, there has to be 3 Coronations in total, if they keep within protocol.

1st - Defender of the Christian Faith - Prodestant Christian Faith

2nd - Defender of All Faiths - Involving, Muslim, Catholic, Budah, etc.

3rd - Crowned King Of Scotland - Since scotland has their own crown and the stone of scoon moved to Scotland a Serparate Crownin will have to take place.

Who will have to pay for it all?

Us the Taxpayers



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Edit: To add, I just can't picture this face on a $20 bill:






Actually it looks like the same hairdo as our $20 bill





new topics




 
0

log in

join