Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.
The Prince is said to have decided that the Christian service in Westminster Abbey must be followed by a separate ceremony involving religious leaders from other faiths.
Held in the ancient Westminster Hall inside the Palace of Westminster, the service would attempt to give room to Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh beliefs as well as other Christian denominations.
Prince Charles believes reforms to the coronation are vital to reflect the changes in British society that have taken place since the Queen was crowned in 1953, according to a report in this week's Spectator magazine.
It also claims he has been appalled by the string of politicians "sounding off" about multiculturalism, in particular the wearing of the veil by Muslim women.
Clarence House refused to comment on the claims.
It has always declined to discuss Prince Charles's coronation plans while the Queen is alive.
However, a senior source told the Daily Mail that the accession plans had been reviewed last year, though he insisted this was "routine."
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.
He is close to Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who has called for a multi-faith coronation.
That puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his successor, and with most Anglican bishops, who oppose such a move.
The crowning of the sovereign has taken place for almost 1,000 years at Westminster Abbey. The new king or queen takes the coronation oath which includes a pledge to maintain the Church of England.
At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England."
The Spectator article quotes a courtier as saying the Queen recognises, however, that she has no say over her son's coronation service.
"Her Majesty has carried out her duties to the letter throughout her life and she knows that they extend to the very end of the final act," he says.
"She recognises, however, that she should not exert her influence one second beyond the conclusion of her funeral. The coronation is a matter solely for the PoW."
The report says Prince Charles is keen that his coronation should "bear his imprimatur" and that it should be seen to mark the beginning of a new era and a new kind of reign.
Although his mother permitted television cameras from the BBC into Westminster Abbey to transmit live pictures of her coronation, they were required to withdraw at certain points in the ceremony which she felt to be too sacred.
But Prince Charles is said to believe that such deference is now inappropriate.
He also wants the service truncated into a "less unwieldy' and more 'focused and telecentric" event, according to the report.
He also believes it should acknowledge the religious diversity of the country that he will be ruling.
The report says that following the formal Christian ceremony in the Abbey, the Prince wants here should be a separate interdenominational ceremony in Westminster Hall to reflect his desire to represent the peoples of all religions.
The separate gathering would be unlikely to take place immediately after the formal Christian coronation, but at a later date.
While Labour politicians have attacked the failings of multiculturalism in recent months, the idea of a separate coronation service to meet the requirements of other faiths has recently been mooted by the Evangelical Alliance, which represents a million evangelical Christians in the UK.
"It is no secret that the PoW has long felt passionately about this matter," the courtier added.
"His determination not to yield so much as an inch of this ground has been strengthened a hundredfold by the events of recent weeks."
"It has dismayed him to see the people who will one day be his subjects turn upon each other on the basis of their religious convictions." "As sovereign, he will wish to demonstrate that he is apart from the politicians who have been sounding off so much lately on, among other things, the issue of veils and that he can set an example for the entire country to follow."
I thought Freepers were supposed to be healthily sceptical about uncorroborated stories in the newspapers?
Only one article would be deemed unbelievable, absolutely, but over the years there have been a lot of different newspaper and magazine coverages which are written largely without cross-referencing each other, a TV series, and a lot of antedotal evidences from the Prince of Wales's own engagements as well. The probability stacks up to much more than just a mere speculations.
No matter how bad he is, from his work done so far Prince William of Wales seem to be relatively tame on the same scale with respect to his own father. So it will be a try-everything Babyboomer compared with an "anything goes" Gen-Y-er.
You know, this will affect the national course the United Kingdom takes into the future, which in turn has national security implications for the United States of America. So Americans are entitled to say on this issue. ;-)
How about giving Bonnie Prince Foppy a good swift kick in the ass signalling the end of that ridiculous, inbred monarchy.
There has always been something on the constitutional side of the British monarchy that our American friends miss. Perhaps it is due to different perspectives - the British royal family is just a curious foreign tourist attraction to them, but it hss (at least nominally) a degree of national foundations significance to us in the countries where her mother's portraits still appears on our coins and government buildings, the police and many other government services still have insignias with symbols representing her, and each time an oath is still sworn in her name.
Very true. In the Commonwealth, the greatest support for the Monarchy comes from Conservatives. However, I do think that Charles is right to want to diminish the connection between church and state, which he would embody if he were to become King -- and therefore also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Americans were right to sever those links.
Well excuse me from living and breathing....
Well, seeing how well George III did, this sounds like a great idea.
Heck, the monarchy should (if it doesn't already) be able to generate enough revenue - tourism etc, to make up for any tax costs it incurs.
Also, it's retro, and most conservatives like retro.
That should be enough for us - we don't need Charles to come along and ruin the improvement in the Georges - inevitably, there will be another one at some point. Let's wait for someone worthy to be George VII.
Regards, Ivan
"God Save the Queen, 'cus tourists are money!"
I have high hopes for William - largely because he does not want the job. The best kings are those who do not want the job. George VI was a leading example.
William IV was also a good example of a quiet, economical King - for example, he insisted his coronation cost 1/10th that of his predecessor. A worthy ancestor for William V to follow.
Regards, Ivan
What a loser!
Almost as high, indeed, as the probability of Charles's imminent conversion to the Greek Orthodox faith, following all those confident stories a few years ago; as high, come to think of it, and reported by an equally authoritative source, as the probable and lamentable outcome of his delightfully shocking dabbles with Wicca....
For William's sake, I hope he doesn't abidicate. It would be an enormous burden for him to take on. AS for Charles, I don't think he's so bad. He turned to mysticism through the influence of a girlfriend after Lord Louis Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA.
Ah you know [switching the clock back to 1930], Britain is a world power of unrivalled prestige while the United States is just an upstart regional power. Of course this means that Britain ranks higher than the States in world importance and thus they are entitled to have more say on world affairs including the internal affairs of an ex-colony. ;-)
(Seriously, there is still an unconscious sense among many Britons that they are still the premier world power and history is predominantly shaped by them. This is why they feel they are entitled to say in US internal affairs)
I was looking for my Charles' multifaith/multicultural hat collection (feathers, fez, et al) but alas, I don't have the links handy on this computer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.