Koran Should be Read at Prince Charles' Coronation says Top Bishop

a reply to: Jainine

First of all, just a minor, but significant point.....

Isn't the King of England......

Does it even matter anymore who is the King or Queen of England?...

Sorry, but there is no such person as King, or Queen, of England.
Liz's correct title is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

Its simply ridiculous to suggest that Charlie's coronation, if it occurs, should open with a reading from The Koran.
Its politically correct apologist nonsense.
The monarch is amongst other things 'Defender of the Faith' - The Church of England.

Would a newly appointed Ayatollah, Iman show such consideration towards Christian teachings?
Of course not.....and why should they?

Would a newly crowned King of Saudi Arabia open his coronation with a reading from The Bible?
Not a chance of it.

Its complete and utter bollocks.

I have no intention, at present, of getting involved in a discussion over the pro's and con's of the Monarchy or indeed the values and merits of various belief systems.

But its worth pointing out that this suggestion will get some support from the PC Brigade etc whilst the UK's largest minority - Roman Catholics - continue to be the only group within the UK legally discriminated against and no-one cares to question this.

Having read this Daily Mail piece fully...

The idea stemmed from Charles himself in 2006... Not Lord Harries...

Charles said in 1994 he ‘always felt the Catholic subjects of the sovereign are equally as important as the Anglican ones, as the Protestant ones’.

‘Likewise, I think that Islamic subjects, or the Hindu subjects, or the Zoroastrian subjects of the sovereign, are of equal and vital importance.’ In 2006 the Prince made known that he wanted a multifaith coronation that would be more ‘focused and telecentric’ than his mother’s in 1953.

So he wants a "multifaith coronation"...
For all religions...



Of course the Daily Mail blew it out of proportion and labelled it a Muslim thing...
Typical DM.

Such hype, such drama over an idea....

But here, let me throw another spin in.

Britian has a commonwealth, which is a legacy of an Empire.

During our days of Empire we thought very little about going out there, trampling over various cultures and forcibly trying to convert people, and then we did the right thing, and gave the people back their land (because we couldn't afford to be an empire any more, but thats after WW2)

The Queen (and future king) represents the commonwealth as a head of state, so why the hell shouldn't the various belief systems of the commonwealth be represented?

Just because some ignorant people think the term muslim is a dirty word should not preclude the idea, which actually could be a positive step towards actual integration.

a reply to: neformore

If, as Charlie suggested, the idea was to have a 'multi-faith' coronation including all the faiths from the Commonwealth, (why stop with faiths, shouldn't the growing number of Atheists and Agnostics have their beliefs represented too?), then maybe, just maybe I'd see some sense in this.

As it stands at present the fact is that many would see this as an act of appeasement and not integration.

a reply to: Freeborn

I'd agree to a certain extent Free, pal...


Atheists & Agnostics make up a large portion of the British.
So rightly they should be appeased as well...


Maybe doing away with all religious sentiment in the coronation would be a better idea...

But then you can guaruntee the Christians would have something to say...
Probably a lot more than Muslims would if we weren't to get a mention.



It's a tough situation to fix...


How do you suggest they should adhere to the non-believers?

Read from Richard Dawkins God Delusion?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

To be honest mate, I don't have much time for Charles as a person, or at least how he is portrayed in public.
I don't think he is going to make much of a monarch - he's certainly got a hard act to follow because Liz has always conducted herself with amazing dignity.

As long as the Royal Family stay out of politics and cost us all relatively little I view them as a rather quaint anachronism and something that provides us some sort of collective cultural heritage and identity.

But there have been reports of Charles trying to unduly influence government policy - and regardless of who is in charge Parliament must be the ultimate authority.
The Monarchy can not be allowed to have any sort of power or control over government.
Any continued or surreptitious attempts should result in their abolishment.

My point about Atheist and Agnostic representation was meant more for effect - to highlight just how ridiculous it would be to include sound bites from all the numerous belief systems throughout the Commonwealth during the coronation of any monarch.
Imagine the furore if they were to include Catholic missives?
It would be counter-productive to single out Islamic readings in any coronation celebrations to the exclusion of others.

The monarch is 'Defender of the Faith' - the Anglican Church.
As things stand that's all that should be included unless the role of the monarch was to change in any way.

Personally I'd prefer to see no religious element of the Coronation ceremony but I recognise that I'm probably in the minority.

a reply to: Freeborn

I agree pal, I think anyone would struggle to fill Queenie's shoes tbh...

I'm torn on Monarchy involvement in politics...

The old adage is don't fix what isn't broken...


Then again I do feel they should be allowed to vote and such...

Although the law relating to elections does not specifically prohibit the Sovereign from voting in a general election or local election, it is considered unconstitutional for the Sovereign and his or her heir to do so.

Royal Source.


I see the a Royals as more than symbolic...
I hold them in higher regard than the current coalition that's for sure...


However I'd have no problem with all religious element being removed from the coronation...

Similarly I'd have no problem if it just remained CofE..

It is what is is I guess.

There hasnt been a British monarch since Harold in 1066 so you may as well have a reading from the complete works of Monty Python

I think that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury should read from Le Morte D'Arthur and then Charlie should be challenged to pull a sword from a stone. Or was it an anvil in that one? Maybe that was Gallahad, but who cares, a sword anyway - should work out for most of us as i doubt he could think his way out of his own trousers without a team of helpers.

a reply to: khnum

Would that be King Harold who had a damn sight more Viking / Nordic blood in him than the current monarch has German blood?

Liz can trace her bloodline back to Alfred the Great or something....she's as British as it gets.

And to be honest, I couldn't really give a toss anyway.

Strange how the majority of people who trot out the 'German Royal Family' bollocks are either non-Brits with some sort of anti-UK agenda and bigotry or passionate anti-Royalists who don't see their own hypocrisy.

a reply to: Freeborn

I think that is probably what the suggestion was, but the good old sensationalist media does have a habit of trying to provoke people, doesn't it?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I am not looking forward to German Charlie becoming King. He's going to be a bloody disaster.

In what way do you think he will be a disaster?

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

German Charlie? What?

All the royals are of German blood except for William's generation and they're half German. The House of Windsor is really Saxe-Coburg Gotha (German).

a reply to: Tangerine

Just because a German prince married into the royal family over a 100 years ago doesn't make Charles German, surely the xenophobes should call him Greek. if anybody else was called German because they had a German relative over a 100 years ago people would see how stupid it was but it's ok because he's royal. The royal families of Europe have intermarriage.throughout the centuries, are they all classed a Germans?

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Jainine

What Camain said! Britain is Britain and should not be overwhelmed by muslims or changed into something it isn't.

+1

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Having read this Daily Mail piece fully...

The idea stemmed from Charles himself in 2006... Not Lord Harries...

Charles said in 1994 he ‘always felt the Catholic subjects of the sovereign are equally as important as the Anglican ones, as the Protestant ones’.

‘Likewise, I think that Islamic subjects, or the Hindu subjects, or the Zoroastrian subjects of the sovereign, are of equal and vital importance.’ In 2006 the Prince made known that he wanted a multifaith coronation that would be more ‘focused and telecentric’ than his mother’s in 1953.

So he wants a "multifaith coronation"...
For all religions...



Of course the Daily Mail blew it out of proportion and labelled it a Muslim thing...
Typical DM.

He may want it but he won't get it. After all, he won't be the monarch until after the coronation.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: Tangerine

Just because a German prince married into the royal family over a 100 years ago doesn't make Charles German, surely the xenophobes should call him Greek. if anybody else was called German because they had a German relative over a 100 years ago people would see how stupid it was but it's ok because he's royal. The royal families of Europe have intermarriage.throughout the centuries, are they all classed a Germans?

It was a reference to his bloodline and I'm not the one who made the reference. I simply explained it.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I am not looking forward to German Charlie becoming King. He's going to be a bloody disaster.

In what way do you think he will be a disaster?

He's a meddler. We're currently seeing a court case which will decide whether or not some of his letters to various ministers can be published by The Guardian. I hope that they are - I want to see how often he's been writing to ministers about things that just do not concern him. He's also hinted that when he becomes King he'll keep writing about things that again just do not concern him. Whoever the PM is at the time when he becomes King will need to sit him down and then tell him very firmly that he needs to shut up and follow the utterly neutral path that his mother laid down.

a reply to: Jainine

People are assuming a lot.

The Queen is still alive. Charles 'could' inherit the crown...or it could 'bypass' him and William could be the successor.

seems a bit far fetched to consider the Church of England would even consider the Quran.

a reply to: neformore


What are we having some Empire guilt? Its not like some Muslims haven't tried their hand at it.

How about reading the american Declaration of Independence? How about having some Fenian sing Bloody Sunday and be done with it? First things first really.