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."
King Kotex
However, Britain has done well with 3 out of its 4 King Williams. I suggest we're ready for a 5th William.
Regards, Ivan
Thanks for the good answer, too. I thought there'd been sundry kings whose reigning name wasn't any of their given names, but couldn't recall.
And how about his second.... who should have been his first, had he had any guts in the first go-around?!
Somewhere along the line that family's DNA got really screwed up to produce this batch of royal blood.
;^)
Either that or that Lord Carey who seems to be unduly influencing Bonnie Prince Charlie to die before QE2.
And Charles is as nutty as George III.
Regards, Ivan
Be careful, you never know when MadIvan is going to come back.
Or, had Charles been of the temperament of, say, Henry Tudor, he might have done a sort of Johnny Paycheck on the law, and told the nobs to shove it. But, Charles is -- legitimate, if short, military career aside -- a bit of a weenie. That would never even occur to him.
Perhaps young William will put a bit of spine back into the monarchy. Who knows? Certainly not I.
Uh oh. Here come the stilt-walkers, the mimes, and the jugglars.
Crown him with many clowns... er, I mean crowns
I think the thing that chapped my hide was the Defender of faith instead of Defender of The Faith part.
He can choose any of his given names: William Arthur Philip Louis. King Arthur it could be!
Prince Charles' given names are: Charles Philip Arthur George. He has said he prefers George.
Setting aside the somewhat mawkish aspects of political correctness involved; Americans should give Charles some credit for this move -- after all, you beat it him to it by over 200 years. As King, Charles would be the head of the Church of England -- just the sort of state religion that the Bill of Rights addressed thus: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion,...".
Prince Charles, the Algore of the British monarchy. Born and bred to be leader, nutty as a fruitcake, yet destined never to wield the power...
My great-aunt used to frequent the public library quite often. Imagine her surprise to open the first issue of the American Foreign Legion magazine (published sometime in 1920) only to see her brother in a picture of the troops being reviewed in France by King George V and General Black Jack Pershing. My great-aunt wrote away to the magazine to see if she could order a copy of that picture. Sure enough, they were willing to do this - back in 1920, mind you. That picture hung for decades on the wall of the lumber yard run by my grandfather (the US Army MP shown in this picture) then in subsequent years, my father. Just a few years back we had the picture scanned and duplicates made up for all of us grand kids. It hangs proudly in my home.
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.