The King and the Archbishop

[CurlewKate]

There's a discussion on another topic about how much the King is/should be involved in the Welby debacle.

I was wondering what the posters on here,who tend to come from a more monarchist point of view think. Should the King issue a statement, for example?

I haven’t seen the other discussion - can you link or provide more info on what the involvement is?

I think yes. Charles is head of the CofE. I appreciate he is a figure head and wasn't king at the time but I think some reassurance that he will ensure things will change and safeguarding will be a priority would go some way.

Whilst Charles is technically the head of the CofE, there are many who think that this is inappropriate given his consistent infidelity during his first marriage. Personally, I wouldn't be reassured by Charles telling me everything was okay. Go back to the millions you're fleecing off public bodies and charities, Charles!
(www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4l1lzv2nro)

Having been besties with Saville, his brother besties with Epstein, I'd assume he knew as much as Welby and didn't give a flying fuck.

Given Charles's own history of being friends with paedophiles, he's best staying well away from this.

@HeadacheEarthquake - well said.

His friendships with Peter Ball is another strand in the story..

I guess the King has spoken privately to the Archbishop, and can continue to do so.
I haven't read other threads so I don't know what words are being put about. I don't know exactly what a statement from the King would achieve at this point but that doesn't mean that I couldn't change my mind.
If several of the 'rooting out the bad stuff' bishops were to make a statement I think it might be ok, but I could be wrong on that, too.
If the head of the C of E, called King Charles, were to apologise to all the victims of abuse from the C of E, would some of them, at least, be pleased to hear the apology or would every single one of them be furious and resentful to receive an apology?

Do you think there are some people in this country who don't take much notice of details, who think that Justin Welby and some of the bishops are perpertrators of abuse rather than being seen at fault for not investigating others' abuse more vigorously?

I already commented on the other thread. But, in answer to your question: No.

Okay I found and read the other thread - at some point I think the King should do or say something to acknowledge the historical failings of the CoE to protect these vulnerable children and have the church be transparent about what they have put in place to make sure it doesn’t continue to happen.

I don’t think a statement today would be appropriate - I think it shouldn’t seem like a knee jerk reaction to the resignation or that it should be a statement focusing on the ABC because it’s a much wider issue than just one man.

Maybe a statement when the new ABC is appointed which can focus on transparency moving forward and the commitment to put effective safeguarding procedures in place - finally.

I think he should say something at some stage, expressing very serious regret to the people who have been failed and that the successor AoC will have his support in working to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Charles was very wrong in his handling of the Peter Ball situation and I think actually acknowledging that also would be something.

Savile, well he was very far from the only one taken in and I can accept didn't know about his crimes until we all did. Similarly Laurens van der Post.

He's a twat so who who cares.

This is interesting, Unicorn2, especially in that the IICSA's already given Charles an opportunity to comment on his own wrongdoing and all they got was predictable obfuscation

Given his proven enablement of peadophiles my own view is that Charles would be wise to keep well away from this entire subject, but whether he'll be able to resist more comments on what everyone else is doing wrong - or even to accept any personal responsibility at all - remains to be seen

Savile, well he was very far from the only one taken in and I can accept didn't know about his crimes until we all did.

The rest of us didn't have the advantage of a dedicated staff whose sole job was to steer us clear of controversial associations.

The rumours round Savile were an 'open secret' for years and the Honours Committee refused to endorse a knighthood on the grounds of deeply unsavoury revelations he'd made in interviews as far back as 1981.

It's beyond belief Charles wasn't made aware of said rumours. It's entirely believable he decided he knew best.

I think he'd be well advised to keep that royal trap firmly shut this time round lest past disingenuousness (Ball too) comes back to haunt.

@upinaballoon
"If several of the 'rooting out the bad stuff' bishops were to make a statement I think it might be ok, but I could be wrong on that, too."
Maybe he could do something like giving a royal honour to the Rt Revd Dr Helen-Ann Hartley (Bishop of Newcastle and definitely one of those doing the rooting out). But I don't really know how these things work, does he have the discretion to do something like that?
I don't think a statement from him would be appropriate at this time.
If he did want to issue an apology, as defender of the faith, for historic abuses within the Anglican church I think that could be a very good thing. Some survivors would find it "meh" but others would find it greatly encouraging.

But he would need to take his time meeting with survivors and advocates and really getting his head around the moral gravitas before he made a public apology as Defender of the Faith.

He can put out all the statements he likes but who still listens to someone who has been friends with pedophiles?

Charles has no credibility.

If he did want to issue an apology, as defender of the faith, for historic abuses within the Anglican church

He shouldn't do it as Defender of the Faith as that's a catholic title, bestowed on Henry VIII before the reformation and held on to by every monarch since.

I think his most useful role is likely to be in going forwards, with a good launch for the successor