Those words on Christians in the Middle East are decidedly non-committal. Why was very little to no attention brought to bear on the Anglican communion itself when they deliberately chose a druid as its leader? The Prince gave open backing to that church’s first openly gay clergyman as well.
I’ve told other people on here that “conservative” is supposed to be far more than a label, and like David Cameron with his “liberal conservative” oxymoronic self-description (indistinguishable from either Labour or LibDems in deeds), “natural conservative environmentalist” is also oxymoronic—especially with all the pro-”climate change” expressions, which is not a “not really” when it comes to pandering to the left.
I just don't agree on that, I'm afraid. Compared to the almost total lack of comments from most other figures, I thought they were very strong, especially as he cannot oppose HMG.
Why was very little to no attention brought to bear on the Anglican communion itself when they deliberately chose a druid as its leader?
Because it would be totally inappropriate. The Prince has no authority at all with regards to the Church of England - the Queen is Supreme Governor, but that does not transfer any power or authority to any other member of the Royal family. Should the Queen therefore have intervened? Really, she cannot. Her role as Supreme Governor is outline in the Coronation Oath, and the relevant part of the Oath to that issue is this:
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Her role is not to interfere with an Archbishop or Bishop but to prevent others interfering with them.
The Queen does have a limited right to choose the Archbishop of Canterbury, but she only gets to choose from the two names given to her by the Prime Minister. In 2002, when Rowan Williams was selected, the other choice offered was the Pakistani born Michael Nazir-Ali - in the wake of September 11, the Queen was not likely to appoint an Archbishop of Canterbury of Muslim ancestry - which is really why he was offered as the second choice. The fix was in.
The Prince gave open backing to that church’s first openly gay clergyman as well
Yes, he did, but what isn't often made clear about that is that while the man (Harry Williams) was indeed openly gay, he was also celibate for most of his life, actually living as a Monk from the late 1960s onwards.