Will the Queen 'take control' if election creates a stalemate? (British Election)

The Times and the Mirror are citing royal sources suggesting that the Queen could end up running the nation if there is no clear winner in the UK election. But does she have the power to fire or hire a prime minister?

By “educated”, what was the curriculum of said “education”?

Largely educated at one of the top private schools in Scotland, with some education at Australia's top private school (which I also attended, and where I met him). Deeply conservative and traditional schools in those days, although both have slipped left since. He then took a degree in history at the University of Cambridge, regarded as one of the best universities in the world (Bachelor of Arts with lower second class honours which I think is an accurate reflection of his ability - he's not a brilliant scholar, but he did more than just scrape through (third class honours and ordinary degrees are below what he got) He now has a Masters because Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin traditionally hand them out to all their students a few years after they get their Bachelors without further formal study). After that he went into the Royal Navy and completed his education at the Royal Naval College Dartmouth, Britain's naval academy.

Changing “defender of the faith” to “defender of faith” indicates a character flaw, with all due respect to his Highness

He mentioned this idea once in one interview over twenty years ago, and what he was talking about was his desire to be a King for all his people. He's made it clear more recently that he has no intention of actually changing the title (which he actually can't do just because he might want to - Parliament would have to do it anyway).

He would have a lot more of the anti-left on his side if he would stop pandering to the left.

He really doesn't pander to the left - it's just that the media only tends to report comments he makes on certain issues and largely ignores those he makes on others.

How much publicity did it get when he said this in a speech at Christmas a year and a half ago:

For myself, I have for some time now been deeply troubled by the growing difficulties faced by Christian communities in various parts of the Middle East. It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants. Christianity was, literally, born in the Middle East and we must not forget our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters in Christ. Their church communities link us straight back to the early Church, as I was reminded by hearing Aramaic, Our Lord's own language, spoken and sung a few hours ago.

Yet, today, the Middle East and North Africa has the lowest concentration of Christians in the world – just four per cent of the population and it is clear that the Christian population of the Middle East has dropped dramatically over the last century and is falling still further.

This has an effect on all of us, although, of course, primarily on those Christians who can no longer continue to live in the Middle East: we all lose something immensely and irreplaceably precious when such a rich tradition dating back two thousand years begins to disappear. It is, therefore, especially delightful to see such a rich panoply of church life here to-day, including the Antiochian, Greek, Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian Orthodox Churches, the Melkite, Maronite, Syrian Catholic, Chaldean, and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as the Church of the East, and Churches established, dare I say it, somewhat more recently, including the Anglican Church!

In saying all this about the difficulties facing the Christian churches in the Middle East I am, of course, conscious that they are not the only faith community in this region suffering at the moment, nor is the Middle East the only part of the world in which Christians are suffering, but, given the particularly acute circumstances faced by the church communities in the Middle East to-day, I felt it worthwhile to draw attention to their current plight.

How many other 'world leaders' have made statements like this recently? And how much publicity was it given? This is what he means by defending faith - not just Anglicanism, and probably not just Christianity. But freedom of religion. I will note, that in the same speech, he also did have some praise for some Muslims - the few who are trying to protect the rights of Christians in the Middle East.

There are a couple of issues - like environmentalism - where he does have views that coincide more with the left than the right, but overall, he's a conservative, and he does talk about conservative values as often as he can. He is limited to some extent, by the fact he has to be careful not to say things that are opposed to British government policy.

The media will publicise anything he says on the environment. They tend to ignore as much as possible, when he talks about veterans and their issues, and do everything they can to drown out anything he says about Christianity. It gives a warped view of the man and who he is and what he believes in. He's not perfect - but speaking as a conservative, overall he is on the right side. He'd fit in reasonably well here if he had that type of freedom. He's a Christian patriot who believes in gun rights (very controversial in the UK - but he doesn't hide the fact he shoots and hunts), in the value of a strong defence - and a lot of other conservative ideals as well.

Those words on Christians in the Middle East are decidedly non-committal.

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.

The “most other figures” are remaining un-named, so I am left without a frame of reference.

Name five significant political figures on a national scale in the US, or the UK, or Europe who have ever expressed these concerns publically in a major speech in these terms.

Even Pope Francis

EVEN Pope Francis - this just illustrates just how scared of discussing this issue people in the west are. When it is surprising that the leader of the largest Christian body in the world has mentioned the oppression of Christians in the Middle East, you know it's a cause that people would prefer is not discussed. The Prince, constrained as he is by convention is one of the few significant figures who has done so, because he does take it seriously.

What does authority have to do with influence?

In this type of case he doesn't have any real influence either, and the only thing that could give him any would be if he had a position of authority. The Prince cannot speak out against who is chosen as the Archbishop of Canterbury. He can't make a statement saying that the Prime Minister was wrong to present that name on a shortlist because that would involve speaking in opposition to Her Majesty's Government, and he can't make a statement suggesting that the Queen was wrong to appoint him. It's a matter of British constitutional convention - a senior member of the Royal Family cannot significantly oppose British government policy. Privately it's another matter, and I have no idea if the Prince raised concerns about this appointment privately - but he may well have done. It wouldn't have had much effect - this is not a matter he has any real influence over.

Nobody twisted HRH’s arm to endorse an openly gay clergyman, and nothing was said about Rowan Williams’ status as a druid.

First of all, the Prince could not say anything about Rowan Williams' 'status as a druid' which really is mostly a matter of media misinformation as well. Before he was elevated to Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams was not a member of the Church of England (he was part of the Church in Wales, which separated from the Church of England in 1920, although it remained part of the Anglican Communion, which is why he could become Archbishop of Cnterbury). He's Welsh by birth and culture and as part of his connection to Welsh culture, he was a member of the Gorsedd Beirdd Ynys Prydain, which draws on ancient Welsh culture as part of its ceremonial, which means it has some druidic elements to its ceremonies, but the Gorsedd is not a religious group. It's one devoted to Welsh art and culture, and the preservation of the Welsh language. Do you think the Prince of Wales could speak out against somebody being involved in that?

One can’t be openly gay and celibate at the same time, sorry; that’s a copout.

That's the way Harry Williams lead his life as a devout Christian. He realised he found himself sexually attracted to men and that he could not act on that without committing a sin, so he chose a celibate life and he encouraged other Christians with similar urges to do the same. He became 'openly gay' because he wrote about his spiritual struggles between what he wanted from life in a physical sense, and what he wanted from life spiritually.

It seems to me you've swallowed a large part of what I really do believe is deliberate propaganda spread about by the left wing press in order to smear the Prince of Wales - and they do that because he is a conservative, and that's what they do to conservative public figures. Tell people he supports a homosexual clergymen without mentioning the fact that the man was celibate the entire time the Prince knew him and for at least twenty years before that. Publicise anything he says that might sound left wing, or odd, but ignore anything that is conservative... and they've also done the same to Rowan Williams - what better way to undermine Christianity in England than to label the Archbishop of Canterbury as pagan because he's a member of a cultural group, although in Rowan Williams case, he's definitely a genuine left winger, and has a very socialist view of Christianity - and he's a large part of the reason I'm no longer part of the Anglican Church myself. I don't like him, nor what he and his type have done to the Church of England, but calling him a Druid in any religious sense is really odd. The Gorsedd just happens to use that term, and were using it before the nutters who gather at places like Stonehenge.

Yes, it’s a shame the silly ‘Druid’ business keeps getting dragged out in any discussion of Rowan Williams. His only error in accepting the award (incidentally given for his published Welsh-language poetry, which I understand is impressive) was naivete in failing to anticipate that it would be grossly misinterpreted in the way it was. Or else he knew perfectly well, but didn’t care, which also would have been a misjudgement. It’s interesting, by the way, to look at the roll-call of previous recipients of this award. Through the late 19th and early 20th century it’s dominated by a succession of Baptist, Congregationalist and other noncomformist clergymen, illustrating the dominant position of the Chapel in Welsh culture for so long. All upright Christian gentlemen, no doubt, who would doubtless have been startled, and probably amused, at any suggestion that either their poetry or the award had anything to do with paganism.

That said, I agree that Rowan Williams turned out to be a poor choice as Primate. Not so much because of his politics, but because he proved unable or unwilling to act in any other way than as an academic theologian conducting a seminar, which for so long he had been. (One reason, incidentally, why he got on so well with Pope Benedict - they were two of a kind.)

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.