Does anyone care about the coronation?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Does anyone care about the coronation?

1 | 2 | 3

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#3073367 7-May-2023 13:16

Bluntj:

Rikkitic:

It's kind of weird that someone who is way past retirement age is only just starting out on his first job.

Wasnt his first job. I believe pilot in the armed forces was his first.

Nah, he was a sailor.

So to those who watched the circus, who do you think had the silliest hat?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16315

Lifetime subscriber

#3073381 7-May-2023 13:21

I went to considerable effort not to watch it. It wasn't easy.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#3073382 7-May-2023 13:23

He trained with the RAF as a pilot then went to the Navy.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#3073388 7-May-2023 13:32

Landing damage in 1994 + two previous princes died in self-piloted incidents:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7472903/Moment-Prince-Charles-crashed-Queens-Flight-jet-1m-smash.html

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#3073389 7-May-2023 13:33

SJB:

He trained with the RAF as a pilot then went to the Navy.

Ah thank you. I knew there was a navy connection somewhere. I just read he also did the parachute course in the army as well, so good on him.

Serving in all three branches would explain at least some of the medals .

Speaking of medals, who was that 10 year old wearing medals? I know the UK doesn't have child soldiers so where did they come from?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3073520 7-May-2023 21:34

SJB:
The way he looked I doubt he'll last the weekend.

I commented on that too as they showed him entering the cathedral, he looked about three years younger than his mother was.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3073521 7-May-2023 21:36

elpenguino:
Speaking of medals, who was that 10 year old wearing medals? I know the UK doesn't have child soldiers so where did they come from?

If he was wearing them as would be expected on his right side then they'd be his fathers, grandfathers, or whatever.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3073523 7-May-2023 21:44

Did anyone else note the huge imbalance in the oath King Charles swore? "I swear to look after widows and orphans yadda yadda, and as for the church [three page legal document setting out every minute detail of how much control the church gets]". The UK is a largely secular society and yet it seemed like 90% of the king's oath was giving the Anglican church as much control as possible and a free hand to do whatever it wanted. It seemed hugely anachronistic, both a positively medieval practice and a shameless power grab by the church.

Maybe it's time for the ruler to write their own oath rather than having the church leaders dictate it to them? This would make a good start. And interesting that a muslim has created a vastly better oath template than the Anglican church does.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#3073589 7-May-2023 23:39

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300872356/why-australia-and-new-zealand-could-become-republics-and-still-stay-in-the-commonwealth

Good article about the commonwealth (of nations) which should ease concerns of anyone who thinks NZ would be compelled to leave said commonwealth upon becoming a republic.

In short, no, there are republics (India) and even countries which were not british colonies (mozambique, rawanda, togo et al.)

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#3073639 8-May-2023 09:34

neb: Did anyone else note the huge imbalance in the oath King Charles swore? "I swear to look after widows and orphans yadda yadda, and as for the church [three page legal document setting out every minute detail of how much control the church gets]". The UK is a largely secular society and yet it seemed like 90% of the king's oath was giving the Anglican church as much control as possible and a free hand to do whatever it wanted. It seemed hugely anachronistic, both a positively medieval practice and a shameless power grab by the church. Maybe it's time for the ruler to write their own oath rather than having the church leaders dictate it to them? This would make a good start. And interesting that a muslim has created a vastly better oath template than the Anglican church does.

The ceremony needs a serious overhaul. In its current state it reflects the power structures that were present in the Middle Ages and seemed to be about installing the King as the head of the church and by insinuation putting the church at the top of the pecking order. That is just ridiculous in this day and age and has been for a long time.

It shows how out of touch the clergy of today are in that, apparently, it was the idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury that everyone swear allegiance to the new King. Seriously, are you for real?

I wonder what would happen if William declared himself an aetheist and refused to be Head of the Church of England.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41053

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3073829 8-May-2023 16:22

SJB:

neb: Did anyone else note the huge imbalance in the oath King Charles swore? "I swear to look after widows and orphans yadda yadda, and as for the church [three page legal document setting out every minute detail of how much control the church gets]". The UK is a largely secular society and yet it seemed like 90% of the king's oath was giving the Anglican church as much control as possible and a free hand to do whatever it wanted. It seemed hugely anachronistic, both a positively medieval practice and a shameless power grab by the church. Maybe it's time for the ruler to write their own oath rather than having the church leaders dictate it to them? This would make a good start. And interesting that a muslim has created a vastly better oath template than the Anglican church does.

The ceremony needs a serious overhaul. In its current state it reflects the power structures that were present in the Middle Ages and seemed to be about installing the King as the head of the church and by insinuation putting the church at the top of the pecking order. That is just ridiculous in this day and age and has been for a long time.

It shows how out of touch the clergy of today are in that, apparently, it was the idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury that everyone swear allegiance to the new King. Seriously, are you for real?

I wonder what would happen if William declared himself an aetheist and refused to be Head of the Church of England.

He wouldn't be king then. The Bill of Rights of 1689 stipulated that from henceforth every British monarch must be a Protestant Christian.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3073881 8-May-2023 16:51

freitasm:
The Bill of Rights of 1689 stipulated that from henceforth every British monarch must be a Protestant Christian.

Just checked it since I wasn't aware of that being in there, it's incredibly long-winded and verbose but seems to mainly say, over and over, that the King shouldn't be Popish. There's:

And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled holding Communion or Professing

and then requirements for "disableing Papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament" which seems to have fallen by the wayside long ago.

There's also the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 which modifies the Bill of Rights, so it could be modified again to get rid of the medieval religious requirements.

Edited to add: The fact that someone could be an atheist doesn't even seem to have been considered at that time, you're either a Popist or a Protestant. So it's quite possible William could say "none of the above" and avoid being affected.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3073885 8-May-2023 18:01

freitasm:

He wouldn't be king then. The Bill of Rights of 1689 stipulated that from henceforth every British monarch must be a Protestant Christian.

I thought it was 1649, but anyway, thats when the Monarchy ruled, they didnt from there. It became a Constitutional Monarchy. AKA we love the Monarchy, but they dont rule, democracy rules. Same today.

1 | 2 | 3