The Coronation and Christianity

[Comfreyandstingingnettles]

Putting this here instead of under Royal Family section because I was hoping for a particular religious perspective or explanation please?

If you are C of E, I would be particularly interested in your views.

Personally I found the ceremony today problematic from two positions:

1. the anointing of kings aspect but I obviously understand the historical reasons behind this and also the principle of an established religion

1. the anachronistic nature of serving the poor and disenfranchised from a position of great wealth and power.

I should say too that as a Catholic I noted the words "protestant succession" in the ceremony

sorry, posted too soon

and although I understand the historical context, thought that we had moved on and reached a more ecumenical understanding and although the succession is clearly protestant , I thought there would be a slightly more visible sign of that in the Coronation ceremony.

Not Protestant, RC and as a Christian I found it disturbing.

Care to expand Lamelie?

I found it confusing more than disturbing...

I'm also RC. Although I'm not keen on the monarchy, I don't have a theological problem with either of the points you mentioned. The anointing of kings is very clearly biblically sanctioned. There is more of a theological issue with extreme wealth and extreme disparity of wealth, but it doesn't seem to be inherent to the idea of monarchy so I would see it as a separate issue.

The tying of the British monarchy to Anglicanism/Protestantism is also historical rather than theological. I can't see it changing while the monarchy stands, unless the CofE is disestablished. It is fundamental to the understanding of the British Royal Family and the CofE. Ecumenism can only go so far when it's about history rather than theology.

I am Protestant and didn't like the emphasis that was put on that word either. If that was said at a west of Scotland football match folk would get arrested.

I guess changing all these ancient rules takes time, but now is the time. Charles could take the time to change things for the future so that the next King's Coronation vows include everyone.

I also thought Charles was going to say "Defender of faiths" but I'm sure I heard him say "Defender of the faith". But maybe I wasn't listening properly.

I didn't watch it. I attend a C of E church, and would rather it disestablished from the state / monarchy.

The Defender of Faiths thing was something Charles bandied about in the 1990s. He was brought to realise that both sides found it unacceptable: the CofE very firmly pointed out that he was going to be Head of the Church of England, which is a particular role not a wishy washy faith in general idea (albeit one which was bestowed on Henry VIII, as a Catholic King, by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith against Protestantism, so I've always found it presumptuous to have then decided it should be inheritedby his successors on the opposite side of the divide😂) And people of various other faiths pointed out that they found it patronising and paternalistic to have someone who didn't share their particular faith presume to defend them when a) they could speak for themselves and b) faith is not a monolith, it's quite insulting to think that all faiths are the same.

I found the special cross, the holy oil and the ancient Bible really solipsistic, and quite distasteful, especially since Charles had made a big deal about not being a defender of the faith, but of all the faiths ( factual alert, my liege, I don’t think Islam thinks you are divinely sanctioned, or Orthodox Judaism, not sure where the Hindus and Sikhs stand).

Plus Camilla seems to have been COE, then Catholic when married to her previous husband (and so presumably not really able to be divorced) and now COE again. It all seems a bit opportunistic .

anyway, I’m glad it rained. It showed the monarch that some things really are settled by God, not Man.

I’m mildly pro monarchy, better than a president, don’t mind Charles and love pageantry. But all the being a servant / anointing with oil etc just really clashed with everything Jesus ever said. Ever. About everything.

Then they began to argue among themselves about who would be the greatest among them. Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’ But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.

It seemed an inconsistent and puzzling ceremony to me. Talk of protestantism, it's very important for it to be protestant, but 'all faiths and beliefs' were mentioned too, and then there was Rishi Sunak who sounded the most convinced of all about the content of his reading from the Bible, whilst Charles looked like he was having an Emperor's New Clothes moment and was wondering what on earth he was doing there.

I am going to ponder on that, thank you Fink, lots to think about there!

Obviously I understand the term chrism and that the epithet "Christ" means "anointed one".

It's hard I think though, not to find wealth disparity deeply anachronistic in the 21st century and I would say it is inherent to monarchy surely?

I take your point about history v theology!

It’s possible to be COE, marry Catholic in the Catholic Church and remain COE. Camilla only married Catholic husband , she’s never been Catholic herself.

I don't think the wealth disparity is inherent to monarchy as a system, no:

a) Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands are all constituional monarchies, like the UK. They have amongst the lowest wealth inequality in the world (I think the Netherlands might be the absolute lowest, I could be wrong on that)

b) some systems of government actively promote the election of the super-wealthy, which the UK system doesn't. E.g. you'll never see a poor, or even a moderately rich person, elected as US president. It requires a huge amount of private wealth as well as wealthy donors to stand any chance of being either the Democratic or Republican nominee.

c) related to a): Many countries, including those listed above, have a pared-down monarchy where all but the immediate family are expected to go out and get jobs, sometimes alongside royal duties. They don't have a huge royal family supported from public funds.

Obviously any system which allows you to inherit wealth and property inevitably leads to a small elite of the super-rich, and almost as inevitably to at least some accompanying ideas about class, particularly when it's been going for centuries, but to change that would require more than just moving from a monarchy to a presidential system whilst leaving inheritance laws intact.

Anyway, I don't see any of this as theological, except on the level of the individual conscience. Certainly, there is a place for Christian thought in the public policy debate on taxes and wealth, but I see that as separate from monarchy per se.

I had the same fleeting thought about the rain! 😆

And solipsistic is the word I have been searching for all morning!

I've long felt that the monarch should have the same choice about religion as everyone else. Or to have none.

However, until the CodE is disestablished, the words in the ceremony were no surprise to me.

I'm an evangelical Christian and whilst I pray for our leaders, I was quite conflicted. I'm glad there were a lot of psalms sung and bible passages read. I'm glad our prime minister had the opportunity to read from the bible. I feel glad a lot of new church music was commissioned and performed. I'm not sure I can really justify the huge expense around the whole thing and I've not heard a lot of evidence he is a Christian so actually believes what he says, happy to be corrected though. I don't think we are that great at electing leaders though so a president is unlikely to be better. I also believe any leader is in place because God has allowed it and probably holds back some of the absolute worst ones. We should really learn from our mistakes and try to raise up better leaders .
They are both adulterers and I'm not sure they have apologised for that. Disclaimer, I am only going by the Netflix crown series so they may have confessed to God and asked for forgiveness, that's between them and God. I think any leader should reflect there is a higher power than them. I'm not sure the words in the service reflect what happens though in reality. He claims to serve yet has vast numbers of people serving him. I'm glad people are having street parties, that's good for communities. However in Scotland, hanging out union flags is a political statement so a bit less common around here!

All very good points thank you again Fink

One would hope that a king, as head of C of E, would have a highly developed individual conscience but I take your point about other European pared down monarchies, and wealth disparity in those countries.

Roman Catholic here; I had these thoughts too whilst watching it all earlier today.

The King is a very rich man who has spend his whole life - now into well past normal retirement age - doing things which mean a great deal to other people and campaigning for various causes, much of which can't be terribly fun, and little direct personal gain. While we can debate whether anyone deserves to be as rich as he is, it's hard to think of anyone of comparable wealth who has given more of their time and energy to other people.

Let us also be wary of hypocrisy. How much more do you earn than the average person in Sudan? And yet you use most of that wealth for your own advantage. Are you really so different from the King in that regard?

You say these things as though he does it from the goodness of his heart - he doesn't, it is his job to campaign etc. Does the work he do warrant that wealth?! Of course not.

With respect, you have no idea how I choose to spend my time or money but I am positive that a higher percentage of my 'wealth' and free time is given to charitable causes compared to the Monarch.

Many countries, including those listed above, (Norway, Denmark and Netherlands) have a pared-down monarchy where all but the immediate family are expected to go out and get jobs, sometimes alongside royal duties. They don't have a huge royal family supported from public funds.

I think that's what Charles was aiming for, les,s working royals, but we have such a higher population than most other European monarchies, that extra family members do help in meeting more people. The fact that there are less family members, though, doesn't always equate to less public funds.

The UK population is 67m. The RF cost £52m a year. That's just under £1.28 a head.

The Danish monarchy cost 89m króna a year. That's about £10m. Denmark's population is under 6m. So that's just under £1.66 per head.

The Norwegian monarchy cost 434m króna a year. That's about £33m. Norway's population is under 5.4m. So that's just under £6 per head.

The Dutch monarchy cost €48m a year. That's about £43m. Netherlands population is under 18m. So that's just under £2.40 per head.

The UK RF actually take less public funds. But, of course, you have to also consider what all those public funds are going towards which would be more difficult to compare.

@pollypeptide

Your sums are wrong

The 'royals' do not cost 52 million a year
Nowhere near so little
The lowest figures state 100 million but that doesn't include security ( each papalce is guarded round the clock even if empty ). The 'royals' keep security expenses secret so the true figure is always much higher
One thing they made sure to get written in was that their take from the state can never go down year on year

Most of their finances are secret - like their wills . Mustn't let the people see their vast wealth

There is reason the Windsors are the only monarchy in Europe to have a coronation
They know a good scam when they see one and that includes their take from the state

https://www.republic.org.uk/thetrueecostoffthe_royals

I'm RC. (Ex Anglican) I'm
Definitely a royalist. I was struck by Just how much biblical precedent there is for much of the ceremony. Every Anglican I know insists they are catholic not Protestant though.

Sorry I haven’t read the whole thread. I’m practising RC, not pro or against the monarchy but am a massive history buff so love all the pomp and ceremony and loved watching it! And understand the argument that the monarchy could be good for the country by the causes Charles supports, bringing in tourism etc. however, the religious aspects of the ceremony make me feel uncomfortable and I can’t put my finger on why. I suppose I didn’t realise HOW religious the ceremony would be. I suppose because my faith teaches me that Christ was the opposite of what the monarchy seems to stand for - earthly power, great wealth disparity etc. I wonder what Christ would have thought about all this pomp supposedly in his name. I did like Welby’s sermon though.