I'm reading "Latest coronation ‘update’ shows that the palace still doesn’t get it" (WaPo).
The quote I selected has nothing to do with the not "getting it" referenced in the headline. That has more to do with royalty in general. But I don't see how royalty itself is supposed to manifest that it "gets it." If you were royalty and you saw through to some utter absurdity or inequity, but you intended to keep your position, wouldn't you act exactly as though you didn't see it at all?
Posts
50 comments:
So the Head of the Church of England is ashamed to be Christian?
"The first in the procession to enter Westminster Abbey will be representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shiite Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities..."
But no Anglicans, Catholics, or any other Christians?
That's a bit too much truth in advertising, IMO, but if the ruling class of England wants to make it that clear to the peasants that the ruling class is completely foreign to the peasants, I say "go for it!"
Of course, if the peasants decide it's time to roll out the tumbrels, I will just sit back, point, and laugh
Royalty, celebrity, politicians, experts, and other 5 letter words.
The palace aren't the ones that don't get it....
What no reps from the cult of the flying spaghetti monster? No pastafarians? Denied!
Why should Charles, or anyone else for that matter, care in the slightest what the Washington Post writes about anything?
What LOL cow. Where's the Roman Catholic Priest?
By the millennium the Abbey will be a mosque. The monarch, the West in the whole, is committing a slow suicide.
Well, we can agree that somebody doesn't get it. I'm disappointed that the Flying Spaghetti God is not represented, but not doubt all these faith leaders will come prepared with examples of their contribution to British Society and Empires (lost).
What a churlish piece! Lots of people like ceremony, parades etc. Just like lots of people love flowers. If you don't want to watch any ceremonies, and to give all your money to charity instead of buying flowers, go ahead, but why would you criticize the people who enjoy other things?
P.S. My guess is that the WaPo writer does not, in fact, give much money to charity (most liberals don't). She just rants about how other people should be giving money to charity instead of spending it on things she doesn't enjoy.
...The bartender looks up and says, "What is this? A joke?"
Ann Althouse said...If you were royalty and you saw through to some utter absurdity or inequity, but you intended to keep your position, wouldn't you act exactly as though you didn't see it at all?
Something about an emperor and his new clothes?
The always fresh Imus reaction to the Royals being criticized for not showing enough grief when Diana died
Imus: I thought it was extraordinary until Charles explained to me it wasn't, but, ah front page of the Washington Post and the New York Times this morning, above the fold, the story is, ah, well the fold I guess meaning, well you know what it means..
McCord: ..yeah..
Imus: ..ah Can The Royals Survive? and I'm thinking, ah I..di..wo..wu..whuwhu..okay. But I guess that is a significant story..
McCord: ..right..
Imus: ..because ah because people in Britain are calling are questioning their expression of, of ah grief, that it's apparently not appropriate or not what they think it should be or..
McCord: ..um hmm..
Imus: ..[unintelligible]..
McCord (over): ..[unintelligible]..
Imus: ..yeah, they haven't responded well, they haven't ah..
McCord: ..yeah..
Imus: ..they're not flying the flag at Buckingham Palace because..
McCord: ..yeah..
Imus: ..I guess they're not there, but. I mean they haven't they haven't performed, but they they're they they they don't perform well in in virtually almost anything they do, other than wearing hideously stupid hats and looking as though they're all related through obviously more than marriage, just just an inbred bunch of goobers..
McCord: ..they do look goofy I sw..
Imus: ..jug eared..
McCord: ..[unintelligible]..
Imus: ..inbred nitwits..
McCord: ..any formal ceremony and they wander around, and they're in..
Imus: ..well..
McCord: ..the ermine robes and all those goofy little hats..
Imus: ..yeah..
McCord: ..with all the jewel..
Imus: ..the Queen and the Queen-mother and they're just sickening people. Anyway..
McCord: ..carrying scepters and..
Imus: ..But they they are the essence of that country and have been..
McCord: ..yup..
Imus: ..for hundreds and hundreds of years, and they are not going to get rid of them..
McCord: ..yeah..
Imus: ..ah if for no other reason than just to keep them around to beat up on them. Which is somewhat more entertaining..
McCord: ..keep them around for amusement..
Imus: ..yes, yeah..
McCord: ..rope them off, sell tickets..
Imus: ..rope them off, and sell tickets and charge admission to look at them. Which is essentially what they do now. Their they they their their primary source of ah, they are a tourist attraction.
McCord: ..that's right..
Imus: ..So.
September 4 1997 Imus in the Morning
Winning our war against Great Britian was one of the greatest achievements in human history. And we easily could have lost.
If we would have lost, Washington, Franklin and the rest would have been executed and their wealth confiscated.
We should never forget this.
Yes, we are allies now with the Brits but this royalty thing is nutty.
"But no Anglicans, Catholics, or any other Christians?"
Well, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be placing the crown on his head. So there's that.
Charles is on record for over a quarter of a century saying that he intended his reign to reflect diversity of religion. I for one do not care what he does.
England is lost.
The Church or England is a woke disaster.
Charles will soon reign over a nation that is less than 50% Christian...
The British - always there when they need us.
And the nonsense of all this British pageantry . . .
I think Charles, like his mother, considers himself not King of England, but King of the British Commenwealth. So, I'm not sure why some African pagan witchdoctors, or the Shinto religionists weren't asked, but I guess they ran out of space.
Interesting to see what the ratings are. I'm sure they'll be huge, but far below Princess Diana's wedding or the Queen's Funeral.
'
Serious Questions..
Doesn't The King of Great Britain, OWN his own church?
Aren't the Kings of Great Britain, REQUIRED to be members OF THAT CHURCH?
I Know what Oliver Cromwell would say about all this
I keep thinking he'll ask everyone to join in a chant: Woodstock Baby! Ban the Bomb! Green is Good!
i'll sound like a broken record..
But THIS is What Happens when you replace the Scottish Kings that GOD gave you, for an inbred german "elector"
I watched some sections of the Queen's funeral. There were Christian elements to the ceremony that were deeply moving. The hymn singing, for example. It felt like the Christian culture that once animated Great Britain was enjoying one last homage, before it also died completely.
This coronation ceremony appears to confirm that the old Britain is dead. The new globalist and "tolerant" culture which excludes Christianity has taken its place.
As was once said in a different context, "The lights are going out all over Europe."
Reverse colonization.
I think Charles, like his mother, considers himself not King of England, but King of the British Commenwealth.
Who gives a shit? He is quite literally and legally the head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.
This is every bit as absurd as the next Pope doing the same thing at his coronation.
Ficta said...
Me: "But no Anglicans, Catholics, or any other Christians?"
Well, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be placing the crown on his head. So there's that.
I was reacting to this:
"The first in the procession to enter Westminster Abbey will be representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shiite Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities..."
One would expect that FIRST in the procession would be the CoE. One would be wrong to expect that
I do like the symbolism of having representatives of all the faiths of all the regions subjugated under the British Empire leading the procession to bless the new British Monarch.
“If you were royalty and you saw through to some utter absurdity or inequity, but you intended to keep your position, wouldn't you act exactly as though you didn't see it at all?”
It would be hard to put on all that goofy garb if you can’t use a mirror.
Greg the Class Traitor said...
"But no Anglicans, Catholics, or any other Christians?"
Ficta responded...
"Well, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be placing the crown on his head. So there's that."
So, no Christians then.
There are about 4,000 practitioners of Zoroastrianism in the U.K.
Why no Wiccans?
there is also Digambara Jainisim
should tell quite few tickets
Charles will be the end of it, I think.
I've had an earworm the past few months of Steve Martin reprising his king tut song.
This time as King Chuck
John Henry
Re: Greg the Class Traitor:
But no Anglicans, Catholics, or any other Christians?
I think the Archbishop of Canterbury will actually perform the coronation, so don't worry -- it's still a Christian ceremony.
The deemphasis on the Lords sort of makes sense, given that the constitutional role of the Lords was gutted in 1999. Not sure how many British subjects are going to be keen to swear their own loyalty oath, though.
I've difficulty with the Charles III moniker as a retired public historian of the period. The first two were proper Stuarts, one stupider than the second, but still. Charles is a less distinguished Hanoverian at best. My wife and I just discussed the 'Queen' title for the second wife. She's ambivalent, I'm against. Consort might suit, but not Queen.
I am just reading Mark Steyn's delightful Prisoner of Windsor (a sort of reverse take on The Prisoner of Zenda:this time it's the Ruritanian tourist who is made to impersonate the British PM). In the book, as well as IRL, there's an upcoming coronation and the new King has to figure out what to do about that pesky "Defender of the Faith" bit in the ritual. So it's now "Defender of the Faiths."
Charles is on record for over a quarter of a century saying that he intended his reign to reflect diversity of religion.
Where are the Agnostics, Atheists, Feminists, Climatologists, Wokeists and the TikTokers?
Doesn't Sunak appoint the C of E archbishops?
I refuse to read anything sourced from WaPo on principle, and a snowball's chance in Hell is pretty good compared to the probability of Quaestor paying the WaPo gatekeeper, so if I misapprehend the cited article cut me a bit of slack. That said, the pathetic twits who write for that fish wrap fail utterly to appreciate their absolute lack of standing regarding the coronation. If anyone doesn't get it, whatever it may be, it's the editorial staff of The Washington Post. Perhaps they all failed geography, or they confused New England with the old one. Or maybe it's just the breathtaking arrogance that goes hand-in-glove with the gobsmacking stupidity of the American left. Whatever. Here's the real news, Sally F-ing Buzbee, the United Kingdom is not a secular state and a coronation is a religious and ecclesiastical rite, not just a ceremony.
I'm not a fan of H.M. In British English terms, Charles is a royal wanker. Divorcing Diana, because she had a pathological dread of horses, was downright nasty, but Charles, being only a quarter Bowes-Lyon, can hardly help his dunderheaded caddishness. (Given the sad truth of the current dynasty with only two solid jolts of real brains in 300 years, the U.K. has done pretty well, nevertheless.) Perhaps Queen Camilla can do for the Brits as that Jill person does for us, keep the absurd cogger placated with ice cream until Nature runs Her inevitable and merciful course. Then they can be done with this nonsense and get a real constitution, or, better still, go to Australia and get some real Plantagenets.
Do minorities ever tire of being blatantly patronized? People of Color need some People of Pride.
But, yeah, the irony implicit in Chuck's little durbar is delicious.
"Well, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be placing the crown on his head. So there's that."
The African Anglicans say AoC isn't really Anglican anymore.
Anyway, I didn't vote for him.
There are no representatives from Progressive Liberal sects? Feminists? Masculinists?
Given the sad truth of the current dynasty with only two solid jolts of real brains in 300 years
Assuming you mean George III and Prince Albert (not in the can), I would add Phillip. Limited formal education, but bright enough to choose Britain over Nazi Germany, unlike his sisters, and to fly 50 different airplanes without crashing.
I wonder if Charles still plays the cello.
Maybe they should have included a married, lesbian Anglican pastor of color to touch all the DEI bases and give a nod to their Anglican heritage....I read somewhere that there are now more practicing Catholics than Anglicans in England. That whole brouhaha with Henry VIII was all for nothing. People look askance at Joseph Smith and the Renaissance Popes, but Henry VIII was a serial murderer. Well, anyway the C of E produced the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer so maybe it wasn't all for nothing.
Lol, the desire for a return to the Jacobite Kings is amusing, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea, but any proponents whining about the Germanness of the royals ought to be aware that the current Jacobite pretender is, um... Franz, Duke of Bavaria.
Also, he's gay, so there's that.
One would expect that FIRST in the procession would be the CoE. One would be wrong to expect that....
In ecclesiastical and state processions, as a general rule, the lesser dignitaries precede the greater, and the greatest is in the last place. The relics of the True Cross, given by the Pope to King Charles in honor of his coronation, have been enclosed within the processional cross that will be used on this occasion.
Charles is just leading from behind. If he wants to remain king, he needs to appease the citizenry, which is no longer predominantly English.
But the Indians and Muslims which are slowly taking over will toss him out eventually.
I don't believe any other culture in history has been so giddy about its own destruction.
Post a Comment