Prince William's Christian Journey

[BoxingHare]

Here we go, another article about that 'quiet faith' that has been completely silent until now!

As one of the btl comments suggests, is there some rebranding going on???

Surely not!

Prince William’s Christian journey https://share.google/6ANWHkV5p0o0qj1TV

Well, you said “Does anyone else agree that a university-educated man born in the last quarter of the 20th century, in the UK - and thus exposed to all kinds of ideas and influences, including Life of Brian and Richard Dawkins - is not likely to grow up a True Christian Believer?”

followed by “It isn't about IQ or intellect - it is about the likelihood of a person who is not forced by societal pressure or lack of alternative viewpoints to adopt a belief system.”

I wondered whether would also think it likely that a university educated man born in the last quieter of the 20th century in the UK is not like to grow up truly believing in any religion?

Given in your later post you said it was about “the likelihood of a person…to adopt a belief system” - ie you talked about beliefs generally not Christianity specifically - I assumed that you do think that too, but wanted to ask rather than assume.

Excellent paraphrase of the entire thread!! 👍

All we know about W's beliefs is that they're 'quiet' leaving us to make what we will of it.

I'm just musing on a potential quandry in a potential scenario.

It's well known they don't attend church.

At Easter time last year, there was a lot of criticism of the Wales family for not publicly attending church with the rest of the Royal Family.
It turned out that he had been to church elsewhere with his family.

When he says nothing about his faith he is criticised. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when he does decide to let something be known about his faith he is also criticised.

Gavin Ashenden seems like a strange person to criticise anyone for changing their mind on issues of faith or belief, having gone from traditional Anglicanism to fervent Roman Catholicism.

I think-and I have been giving this more thought than I expected because my DS works in the cathedral so it’s kind of been in my eyeline, so to speak, it’s the fudging I don’t like. I don’t care what William believes or doesn’t believe, but I do think because of his position he should be clear about it. Personally, I would be delighted if he “came out” as an atheist. But if I were a member of the CofE I think I’d be unhappy if the Supreme Governor wasn’t openly a man of faith. This kind of Curate’s Egg situation just seems unsatisfactory all round. But I’m not sure what the solution is. I find my self in the unique position of being a bit sorry for him. I’m sure I’ll feel better soon!

I think that anyone born in the UK in the last quarter of the 20th century in the UK has been exposed to the idea that religion and belief systems are open to criticism, and therefore is more likely than at any other time in the UK's history to think about what they're being asked to believe and to exercise their freedom to reject the organised religion they were born in to.

Interesting thoughts @CurlewKate

I'm a Christian, though not an Anglican.

While for a number of reasons I'm comfortable with a constitutional monarchy, I struggle with the current establishment of the CofE which in effect means that the Royal Family have the least freedom of religious belief of anyone in the country.

I would also not presume to say that any other person did not have a faith, as I've seen said on several occasions over the last few days.

Perhaps he doesn't know what he believes.

Perhaps he's read the Bible and is trying to puzzle out all the contradictions.

Perhaps he's still trying to reconcile what he's being asked to believe with what he really can't.

We don't have a window into his soul, and if he wants to protect his privacy on this matter I'm happy to let him be a cultural Christian until such time as Church and State disentangle.

i’m not saying I think he has or has not got a faith. I do think he is in the unique position of having a faith being part of his job. And there are some people that it must matter a lot to. And I absolutely hate the “quiet faith” fudge-y bullshit.

The people it matters a lot to should petition to remove randoms from being head of the organisation that represents their faith. They've got an Archbishop of Canterbury, they really don't need a Head of the C of E as well.

The statement about W's "quiet faith" definitely has the hand of God a crisis PR consultant behind it.

My cynicism increases by the day about the RF. I doubt I'm alone in that either.

Well, I’d get rid of both the monarchy and the established church if I could! But I do think that while we have the monarchy the members of it should do the job we pay for them to do properly.

I wasn't suggesting you were - sorry if it came across like that.

Was just commenting on several things I have seen over the last few days - including a definitive statement that W has no faith.

But, you can pay someone to e.g. turn up and open Parliament, state-dine the American President, etc. But no amount of money can ensure someone believes in the Christian god.

This creates an anomalous position when you inherit a job that involves being Head of the C of E. But let's address the anomaly, rather than attack the man who has to live with this absurdity.

You may have noticed that I said earlier that he is in an impossible situation and this is practically the only time I’ve ever felt sorry for him! I don’t know what would happen constitutionally if he said that he just couldn’t morally take the job on- the Supreme Governor, I mean, not the King. Disestablishment? And then what?

Randoms? 😂

Yes. I did see you say you feel sorry for him on this point, and so do I.

Charles, before becoming King, was wittering about becoming defender of faiths, which seemed to be recognising the problem. But, really, the time when the Monarch had to have the Church onside is long gone.

Part of modernising the RF, for me, would involve ditching all the church services. Really, who needs to see the gang of them dress up and go to church to give thanks for the Commonwealth every bloody year?!

But it's PR!

If they don't have that, how can they convince the plebs that they are necessary to the country?

This is a pertinent part of the Coronation Oath C3 swore:

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

I don't believe we've seen much upholding of the required doctrine, worship and discipline from our next monarch so far but maybe a shiny hat or yet another rewrite might be enough incentive to make up any deficiency.

A number of your kings were shagging anything with a pulse ( many married women) , which I don't think falls under the rules of the C of E but apparently as long as they went to church on Sunday, all was forgiven.

The current heir, as far as we know, is leading a moral existence but is criticized for not attending church and not making a public spectacle of his religious beliefs.

I'm speechless.

The current heir, as far as we know, is leading a moral existence but is criticized for not attending church and not making a public spectacle of his religious beliefs.

'As far as we know' being the operative sentence there
We know nothing

So guilty until proven innocent! , which I’m glad to say is the complete opposite of the actual law in this country!

By 'slightly shaky', do you mean adultery, the theft of church property and its redistribution to supporters of the Tudor dynasty, and the butchery of people in the North who wanted to assert freedom of conscience and stick with the old religion? There are parallels between the English Reformation and the Russian Revolution.

As long as they went to church on Sunday and only had legitimate heirs with women who were not Catholic, all was well.

The things you list were some of the consequences of, not the grounds for, the split from Rome. At the time, it was part of a wider theological debate. Cranmer and many other theologians, both in the UK and Europe, were discussing the issues long before Henry wanted a divorce. Had Catherine of Aragon’s paternal relatives not been so closely aligned with the Pope, Henry 8 might well have got his divorce.

As it was, Henry 8 was pushed along by Cranmer to create a Protestant nation.