I regard it a blessing that Charles's power is restricted, whatever the reason for it’s restriction. I also think that it could be said the name of Christ is taken in vain in such ceremonies. Also, God advised us against having a king, in Samuel, for reasons we see playing out again in our time.
The comment that the Monarchy has survived precisely because it has not exercised power I believe to be fallacious. Surely this is hard to maintain given that the kings authority is derived from him being the Christian head of a Christian nation. Yet according to what you’re saying choosing not to intervene with the elites advised choice of bishops has led to a situation where the Church of England does not have the bishops it needs, and the Archbishops leadership is rejected by the majority of Confessing Anglicans, which cuts out the foundations of the monarchy from underneath it. In other words the Monarch has the power to appoint bishops (not the Prime Minister) but has chosen to follow the advice of the Prime Minister to the Monarchies own detriment. It is simply not true that Monarch’s have no ability to uphold the oaths that they have taken, but rather, they have chosen not to use the power they have been given to uphold these oaths in fear of the judgement of others i.e. the political opposition this would entail. Political opposition to the decisions of a Monarch is nothing new, to claim that the fact of this opposition renders the Monarch incapable is to infantilise the Monarch which is really an insult to Charles III and the late Queen who preceded him.
The spiritual and national peril you have highlighted is not a result of the constitution, nor the liturgy, but rather of the failure of Monarch’s themselves to uphold the very ideals which give their power credence. By all means appeal to Charles III to use his powers rightly, but please don’t try and excuse his and his Mother’s failure to act and blame it on the British public and parliament; it is not Parliament, the Prime Minister or the Public who take an oath to Defend the Faith but the Monarch and it is they alone who are responsible for their failure to uphold this.
What about King Charles living in adultery. and causing Camilla to laive in adultery. This is against Anglican/Godly laws. He and she should not be King and Queen according to the Church of England.
I think the Monarchy does have ultimate power and authority, but it is just exercised extremely rarely. It can be argued that Whitlam got booted in 1975 with the power vested to the Queen's representative?
Apologies - I meant WHEN was the last time the sovereign exercised that authority? If they did, then this could bring about the dissolution of the monarchy. It has survived for so long precisely because it doesn't not exercise such power.
The last time in Australia was in 1975 when the Governor General used his reserve powers to get rid of Whitlam. He did that in his capacity as Head of State of Australia. But he did so as a representative of The Sovereign, even though it's now clear that The Sovereign was not informed until after the power was exercised.
I regard it a blessing that Charles's power is restricted, whatever the reason for it’s restriction. I also think that it could be said the name of Christ is taken in vain in such ceremonies. Also, God advised us against having a king, in Samuel, for reasons we see playing out again in our time.
The comment that the Monarchy has survived precisely because it has not exercised power I believe to be fallacious. Surely this is hard to maintain given that the kings authority is derived from him being the Christian head of a Christian nation. Yet according to what you’re saying choosing not to intervene with the elites advised choice of bishops has led to a situation where the Church of England does not have the bishops it needs, and the Archbishops leadership is rejected by the majority of Confessing Anglicans, which cuts out the foundations of the monarchy from underneath it. In other words the Monarch has the power to appoint bishops (not the Prime Minister) but has chosen to follow the advice of the Prime Minister to the Monarchies own detriment. It is simply not true that Monarch’s have no ability to uphold the oaths that they have taken, but rather, they have chosen not to use the power they have been given to uphold these oaths in fear of the judgement of others i.e. the political opposition this would entail. Political opposition to the decisions of a Monarch is nothing new, to claim that the fact of this opposition renders the Monarch incapable is to infantilise the Monarch which is really an insult to Charles III and the late Queen who preceded him.
The spiritual and national peril you have highlighted is not a result of the constitution, nor the liturgy, but rather of the failure of Monarch’s themselves to uphold the very ideals which give their power credence. By all means appeal to Charles III to use his powers rightly, but please don’t try and excuse his and his Mother’s failure to act and blame it on the British public and parliament; it is not Parliament, the Prime Minister or the Public who take an oath to Defend the Faith but the Monarch and it is they alone who are responsible for their failure to uphold this.
Yes, they did wrong.
What about King Charles living in adultery. and causing Camilla to laive in adultery. This is against Anglican/Godly laws. He and she should not be King and Queen according to the Church of England.
I think the Monarchy does have ultimate power and authority, but it is just exercised extremely rarely. It can be argued that Whitlam got booted in 1975 with the power vested to the Queen's representative?
But was the last time the sovereign of England exercised that authority?
I'm not sure I understand you.
Apologies - I meant WHEN was the last time the sovereign exercised that authority? If they did, then this could bring about the dissolution of the monarchy. It has survived for so long precisely because it doesn't not exercise such power.
The last time in Australia was in 1975 when the Governor General used his reserve powers to get rid of Whitlam. He did that in his capacity as Head of State of Australia. But he did so as a representative of The Sovereign, even though it's now clear that The Sovereign was not informed until after the power was exercised.
Thanks mark. I always find your pieces worth reading, and am grateful that you offer them freely!
Thanks David!