Back to blog

The difficulties with crowning King Charles III

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Jiang Tai Gong

Great advice for the future “King Charles III” in today’s Gospel Reading!!!
.
Mark 10:42-44
.
Jesus summoned them and said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt.
.
But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant;
.
whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all.”

Bruce1253

The British have a lot to teach Americans, specifically their use of the Office of the Prime Minister. This allowed them to have a Head of State who was "eccentric," and still allow adults to run the government. Charles will fit quite nicely into this pattern. Americans, however still allow their "eccentric" Heads of State to control the reigns of power. Given the actions of our current President, we may want to reconsider this policy.

leonmen

Isn't it all a bit hypocritical that Charles should ever be considered as the Defender of the Protestant Faith? The man is a known adulterer and I thought that that action is against the Ten Commandments. Let us just pass him over for his son William who is young and modern with a pretty wife and a much better attraction. He also doesn't pontificate on politics like his rather silly father.

HopefulObserver

It was a scientific effort based in the English Midlands that has made paternity of an infant now as readily established as maternity, for the first time in human history. Francis Crick used to joke "Christianity might be OK between consenting adults in private, but it should never be taught to young children." And James Watson said "The luckiest thing ever to happen to me was to have [parents] who did not believe in God."

Given that it was an English-Scottish-US effort that made this Copernican advance, it seems that it will be impossible for a British Monarch to affirm any of the Abrahamic religions, which are all based in a legal fiction of "virgin birth", require the father Abraham to torture Isaac in fealty to "God", and prevent children from complaining about these things by imposing the Fourth/Fifth Commandment.

Jiang Tai Gong

Regarding->> "...incoming monarchs had to make a more explicitly anti-Catholic declaration, rejecting as “superstitious and idolatrous” Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary and the saints." <<-from the blog posting.
.
Doesn't appear that they know or understand (and definitely not appreciate) Catholic beliefs. If they did, they'd still be Catholic.

guest-amjwnjjn

I just got paid 7k dollar working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over 12k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_++_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.socialearn3.com

homocidalmaniac

Mr. Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society is undoubtedly the last person of which anyone should take any notice. His very microscopic constituency represents a voice of unparalleled mindlessness in a nation whose traditions hark back over a thousand and almost two thousands years. If we listened to every dimwit who tried to perpetuate the latest fad, which appears to have been the case over the last six decades, we will continue on our downward spiral into irrelevance.

ashbird

Thanks, Erasmus, for a much needed informative piece on how all the parts in the machine work together - the Crown, the Parliament, the CofE, the CofScotland, and Prince Charles' personal Sufism (the last one - Prince Charles' - will entail some further re-editing).
.
Of interest is the coronation crown, aka the Imperial State Crown, constructed of platinum (specific gravity 20.10, compared with 17.80 of 22ct gold, and 11.34 of lead) , 2,868 diamonds, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds, and hundreds of pearls, is said to carry enough weight to break the neck if the wearer lowers his/her head to read a speech (Source: BBC documentary). Of interests is every single one of the jewels was mined in the colonies and shipped back to Gt. Britain from South Africa and India. Mining method used: Slaves. Nelson Mandel famously asked, with a big grin and chuckle: "So when are you going to return the diamonds to us?"

homocidalmaniac in reply to ashbird

I would say it be time for you to acquaint yourself with the facts before perpetuating racist myths about the use of slaves in South Africa's mines. For many black persons, it was a path to respect within their local communities all over Southern Africa and many hundreds of thousands of miners were able to afford many of the luxuries of life of which their black brethren throughout the continent, could only dream. Not a bad outcome for a very poorly or un-educated person living in the backwaters of Darkest Africa, to provide for and educate his family. If you still think it slavery, then no doubt the reason be, the very low prices that the Western World was prepared to pay for their mining output, continually maintaining them in a position of penury.
Of course, Mandela would like the return of the diamonds. He knew how quickly, majority rule would bankrupt the country but just never lived long enough to see it in action.

homocidalmaniac in reply to jvictor1789

1) The Internet is trying to halt fake news.
2) Obviously, safe spaces and trigger warnings is required to protect you from the honesty and realities of life, in which a culture of intolerance may fester and pustulate. As always, I cannot sanitise my speech to make it only fit for children. As we have seen, political correctness has led to dishonesty, deceit and manipulation on a grand scale. Methinks, you confuse civilisation and civilised as two sides of the same coin. The problem with British civilisation is its lack of being civilised, mature and masculine, has degenerated into a culture of ineffectiveness and mediocrity.

ashbird in reply to homocidalmaniac

Sir,
.
There is a difference between constructive critique that is FACT-BASED and rambling ad hominem attack that has no bearing to what it presumes to critique. I respect the former, and detest the latter.
.
Most of the the jewels for the present Imperial Crown, eventually finished in 1937, were appropriated from South Africa and India, both Colonies of Gt Britain before Decolonisation began in 1945.
.
Apartheid and Mandela’s struggle to free the country of white rule is well known history studied in any grade school classroom in all continents of the world.
.
If it is your world view that any allusion to that part of world history reflects "ignorance, wishful thinking* and mindlessness", suit yourself . [*"wishing thinking" for what???!!!]
.
If you want to halt internet of fake news - a noble goal - first learn what is news and what is history, second, learn what is fake and what is not. Third, look at your own posting history and start working from there.
.
I have no further time for your nonsense.
.

ashbird in reply to jvictor1789

Jvic, I believe the gentleman is in a fog with regard to what he is talking about.
.
Neither you nor I in these comments corners are known for needing "safe spaces", nor pay any attention to "political correctness". Our respective posting history amply established that.
.
We read before we say, we say what we think, safe or unsafe, politically correct or incorrect. You and I even strongly disagree many a time.
.
The present back-and-forth are straying farther and farther to nowhere except to yield the gentleman the visibility he appears to crave, at the expense of your and my good faith response.
.
If the gentleman wishes to leave a longer track record of off tangent associations, he certainly has the prerogative.
.

homocidalmaniac in reply to ashbird

It is wonderful to have received such vehement replies. Maybe there is life after-all in the old codgers.
Apologies for not replying earlier but I was occupied with more important tasks such as saving lives than dealing with petty insults.
My initial reply, to your characterising miners as slaves, was to state, that at no stage had I seen slavery among South African mineworkers. That was concerning the period 1983-2003, during which I provided medical services dedicated to black mineworkers in a private, not-for-profit medical service managed by a large mining corporation. It was a great time of my medical career and I was able to dedicate my profession to supporting those under-privileged black persons, marginalised by Apartheid. In fact; not that much different from most miners in third world countries whose people have been abused by their rulers, whether it be China, the USA or formerly coal-workers in the UK. My work in Canada during the previous 15 years has demonstrated a medical system of care, far inferior to that which was provided in South Africa to black employees. Hardly the provision of which, as one would have expected, to so-called "Slaves"? Along with salaries, holidays, bonuses and the like.
Apartheid is irrelevant to this conversation, as no-one was contesting a system which destroyed the fabric of black society. But having spent 20 years in that country, I was able to understand, that in the context of Africa, in the context of a primitive, barbaric, murderous and corrupt continent, Apartheid was understandable and possibly necessary, in attempts to build a modern society as the quality of life improved for everyone, but whites were unfairly advantaged. Without it, South Africa would have been another impoverished and violent black African State and now seems to be heading in that direction. This is no different to the present situation in the USA, where the treatment of black persons, is akin to Apartheid, in all but name.
The Crown jewels do indeed possess precious and no doubt semi-precious stones from South Africa, such as the Cullinan diamond, the Star of Africa, but these were not the product of slavery or stolen by Britain. They were purchased by the South African, Transvaal Republic and presented to King Edward VII on the occasion of his 66th birthday.
Apartheid was not a feature on the horizon at that time, only to be instituted by the National Party, who came to power in 1948. The Concentration Camps set up by the British, during the Anglo-Boer war, ending in 1902, led to the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of Boer women and children and no doubt played a huge part in constructing Apartheid, as an attempt to protect themselves. It was an inevitable consequence of Britain's policy of racial discrimination, which as we see, exists to this day, as seen by the recent Windrush scandal.
Unfortunately, your history textbooks are unable to place context to a system, which is no different to systems used around the world, in the belief that better things will come of it, especially for those instituting it. It is no less an example of 'man's inhumanity to man' and Americans are well versed in that savagery.
As an Englishman, I am astonished by the bigotry of so-called educated persons, who grandstand about something of which they know nothing, professing moral superiority, when they should keep their mouths shut and deal with the despicable social issues in their own backyard.

CA-Oxonian

In the event that Charles does ascend the throne rather than simply stepping aside in favor of his son William, it might be useful to consider the primary function of the monarchy.

As a pure anachronism, the monarchy has little legal function these days. Likewise, as most British people are at best lukewarm regarding religion, its nominal role as "defender of the (British version of the) faith" is likewise almost irrelevant.

Where the monarchy does score, however, is in its function as primitive totem. For all our modern technologies we humans are still, psychologically, simple tribal animals. We have a host of evolved mental structures that induce us to look up to the apex of the group and invest many of our hopes and dreams therein. So while the monarchy seems on the outside to be an absurd and harmful institution, in fact it does serve a very primitive purpose. Whereas politicians at the apex are always doomed to repeat a cycle of inflated expectations leading to excessive disappointment, the monarch is largely immune from causing disappointment provided (a) they don't say very much, (b) they act in a dignified manner, and (c) they perform the minimum necessary genuflections to the mob-mood du jour.

By providing a safe canvas onto which the great mass of people can project their various group-oriented hopes, dreams, desires, and general fantasies the monarchy offers a safety-valve for what otherwise could be quite dangerous emotions.

By identifying the true function of monarchy (a psychological safety-valve) we can thereby see that the monarchy must never be too attached to any one particular historical element. Society evolves, old notions fade away and are replaced by new ones. The monarchy must seem always to be relevant even while it embodies the past and whatever "traditions" are today deemed to be worthy (we're very good at forgetting traditions that no longer make sense to us).

As the Church of England is little more than an incoherent embarrassment these days, it is clearly something from which the monarchy should separate itself; otherwise it will be difficult for the monarch to persist in her/his role of the blank canvas onto which so much of the population projects its dreams.

ashbird in reply to CA-Oxonian

I think you wrote a great post on the function of the British Monarchy. Kudos to you!
.
Except for the usual words of "putdowns", but then who among us are entirely guiltless of using such words, all of us having our own pet peeves.
.
I would note just one thing, which is that the CofE is not looked at as an "incoherent embarrassment" by many people. If it is, it is on par with any other Churches, and many times less egregious than the Vatican, in particular during the time of Pope Francis' predecessor who, overwhelmed by the scandals of fiscal corruption of the Vatican Curia and gross mishandling of the rampant pedophilia acts carried out by its clergy all over the globe, simply "resigned", on the pretext his health was bad. His health is better than Pope Francis' as we speak, and he lives in a luxurious "villa", still wearing his papal red shoes when he showed up in ceremonial occasions at the Vatican. There is no pedophilia scandal in the CofE, most of its priests being married folks, some even women. And thus far no scandals of fiscal impropriety. Altogether a different Church. Many fewer skeletons in the closets - that's for sure. Note: I am speaking of the *organization* that is the Church, a different subject from the Faith the organization is about.

ashbird in reply to jvictor1789

Well, he fulfilled his love dream. They seem happy together. I adore the new Duke and Duchess of Sussex - a pair of genuine people. The wedding, the things they have in mind to do, both bode very well indeed. In a flash of exhilaration, I'd they are the best thing that has happened to the Monarchy since the RAF. My brother-in-law, an Englishman, agrees. PS: Thanks for defending me (above). In truth, the gentleman did not use rude words, but was merely not up to the mission he purported to serve.