The Monarchy

tdiplc · November 20, 2002

Is there still a place for the Royal Family in this day and age?

DaveEllen · November 20, 2002

bit provocative !!!!!!!!!

Matthew_McNally · November 20, 2002

Is there still a place for the Royal Family in this day and age?

yes definitely.

of course - you didn't ask where that place is!

javadude · November 20, 2002

Is the death sentence still possible for treason?

DaveEllen · November 20, 2002

In theory !! :P

Who's going to tell ???? :(

tdiplc · November 20, 2002

Who's going to tell ???? :(

Did you know that ALL email and telecommunications are monitored by GCHQ?

Scary stuff eh?

DaveEllen · November 20, 2002

my sisters chap does work for channel 4 on foreign govt arm sales etc.........His mail (normal) has been opened for years........takes 5 days for a first class letter to get there!!!!!!

The queen had it suused when she said the dark forces thing to that butler chap...............

now Diana stories............ :o

Monster-Mat · November 20, 2002

sorry cannot comment on this one yet.......give me a few months....

Claire G · November 20, 2002

Emails. Monitored??

Er, um, er, yes of course there's a place for the monarchy.

DaveEllen · November 20, 2002

joining civvy street Matt ??? :P

Monster-Mat · November 20, 2002

;)

Matthew_McNally · November 20, 2002

No offense is meant to those people of a religious nature in this post.

But I am really interested in observing the current goings on with the Royalty, with regards to Charles.

More specifically, exactly how they are going to get over the barrier of making a proven and self confessed adulterer, the head of the English Church.

I am an atheist - so the text is the result of web searches - apologies for any mistakes.

6th Commandment is "You shall not commit adultery"?

And that is the direct word of *** - as passed to Moses?

So - there's an interesting dichotomy.

Charles has only ever had one role or purpose in his life - the ascension to the throne as King and head of the English Church.

But how can the Head of the English Church tell people not to commit adultery, after rolling out of bed with another man's wife.

I am going to be watching with great interest as they try to twist and turn their way through this one.

Rob · November 21, 2002

get rid of the the load of blood sucking leeches - 2 things made me laugh was when the queen mother died - they said she had a long life - well with all the medical care that was available to her im not surprised - try the NHS and see how long she would have lived!

also "she served her country well" - what a load of bollocks, sat on her ***** while people ruched around and tailored to her every wish!

the queen AKA sour old ***** - dont even get me started on that one.

dazzab69 · November 21, 2002

Would rather have a monach than President Blair (or for balance President Thatcher).

However I'd also rather see the crown pass straight to Prince William because unlike his genetic fr3ak of a father he actually looks like a King. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this happen as in 1938, when Edward was far too cosy with Hitler and his gang to become King, you dont stay in power for hundreds of years without knowing how to play PR games.

javadude · November 21, 2002

More specifically, exactly how they are going to get over the barrier of making a proven and self confessed adulterer, the head of the English Church.

I'm not sure I agree with having the monarch as head of the church anyway, nor the arch-bishop of canterbury chosen by possibly non/nominal Christian MPs etc

As for Charles being head of the church it depends on whether he recognises what he did was wrong and has apologised to G.o.d for it. Only J.e.s.u.s is perfect. One of our church elders used to be a violent man who liked his drink. Then he put G.o.d in charge of his life and said sorry for what he'd done. G.o.d changed him into a gentle, patient and sober man by the very real power of his holy spirit and then eventually used him as a church leader. Two weeks ago we had someone give their life to ***** and they're now kicking crack cocaine - G.o.d changes lives. :D :D :D

dazzab69 · November 21, 2002

More specifically, exactly how they are going to get over the barrier of making a proven and self confessed adulterer, the head of the English Church.

I'm not sure I agree with having the monarch as head of the church anyway, nor the arch-bishop of canterbury chosen by possibly non/nominal Christian MPs etc

As for Charles being head of the church it depends on whether he recognises what he did was wrong and has apologised to G.o.d for it. Only J.e.s.u.s is perfect. One of our church elders used to be a violent man who liked his drink. Then he put G.o.d in charge of his life and said sorry for what he'd done. G.o.d changed him into a gentle, patient and sober man by the very real power of his holy spirit and then eventually used him as a church leader. Two weeks ago we had someone give their life to ***** and they're now kicking crack cocaine - G.o.d changes lives. :D :D :D

Doesn't Charles want to be the "Defender of the Faiths" ?

I think that is a more suitable title for the Monarch because it infers that Britain will respect anybody's right to practise their own faith.

The position of Head of the Church of England comes from the monarchs "divine" right to rule, which effectively ended when they cut off Charles I' head.

javadude · November 21, 2002

It certainly ended for Charles I.

Defender of Faiths is a nice idea although not without it's difficulties. Religions cannot all be true as their beliefs contradict each other. For example, J.e.s.u.s is G.o.d in human form but Muslims only recognise him as a messenger like Mohamed.

I think Charles would make a good monarch - he usually talks a lot more sense than this government. (Not difficult though...)

dazzab69 · November 21, 2002

It certainly ended for Charles I.
Defender of Faiths is a nice idea although not without it's difficulties. Religions cannot all be true as their beliefs contradict each other. For example, J.e.s.u.s is G.o.d in human form but Muslims only recognise him as a messenger like Mohamed.

I think Charles would make a good monarch - he usually talks a lot more sense than this government. (Not difficult though...)

Very rare to find faiths that do agree on much, which is why the Monarch should take the position of saying "believe whatever you like as long as you are not forcing that on anybody else and I will defend your right to believe it".

javadude · November 21, 2002

Very rare to find faiths that do agree on much

...except on morality, ethics, charitable action, peace...

Matthew_McNally · November 22, 2002

More specifically, exactly how they are going to get over the barrier of making a proven and self confessed adulterer, the head of the English Church.

Doesn't Charles want to be the "Defender of the Faiths" ?

and so it begins

this is the sort of thing I am talking about.

They realise that Charlie can't be "Defender of the Faith" - sixth commandment and all that

So - lets make him Defender of the Faiths.

One can be king now - as I am defender of all faiths - including those nutty ones where adultery is not a reason to burn in hell.
In fact, yes - actually, by committing adultery with the horse faced wife of another man - I am showing how well one can encompass the full scope of religions in the modern, multi cultural world, and my commitment in defending them

- Yaaay me!

ok - next hoop?

Matthew_McNally · November 22, 2002

Very rare to find faiths that do agree on much

...except on morality, ethics, charitable action, peace...

and waging war on anybody who has a different belief system.

or persecuting and toturing anybody who dares to disagree with any one particular flavour of ***.

no offense meant (sorry JD) - but had to be said.

I think that individual churches / religions may well do good and charitable works.

but more people have been killed / injured in the name of religion than anything else

dazzab69 · November 22, 2002

..and waging war on anybody who has a different belief system.
..but more people have been killed / injured in the name of religion than anything else

I think you'll find Buddism actually enshrines other people's right to their own beliefs, but I take your point and agree totally.

The sad truth is that the world is overflowing with nutters who want to kill people that don't believe whatever kooky idea rings their bell.

BTW I wasn't defending Charles with the "Defender of the Faiths" thing, I think he would be a disasterous King. I just think it's a more suitable title given the small percentage of British people that actually attend the C of E these days.

Maybe MI5/6 will arrange a trip to Paris in a fast Mercedes for Charles if the Queen is feeling a bit under the weather !!!

javadude · November 22, 2002

in the name of religion

Unfortunately people wage war because of anything that distinguishes them - politics, nationality, supposed religious belief etc

I'm sure there must be lots of peaceful muslims - it's a shame that there also seem to be so many that aren't. (BTW They believe that if you die in a holy war then you don't have to earn your way into heaven by good works, never knowing if you've scored enough - you just get automatic entry. So it's in their interests to declare a holy war on anything that moves if they're that way inclined.)

J.e.s.u.s said "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.... You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."