King Charles supports?
Discussion
One month away from the ceremony to confirm HRH as King, we have this from the BBC!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
I trust the PhD will include all the slavery from other parts of the world?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
I trust the PhD will include all the slavery from other parts of the world?
pequod said:
One month away from the ceremony to confirm HRH as King, we have this from the BBC!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
I trust the PhD will include all the slavery from other parts of the world?
Does all the slavery from other parts of the world have links with the Royal Family?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
I trust the PhD will include all the slavery from other parts of the world?
pequod said:
One month away from the ceremony to confirm HRH as King, we have this from the BBC!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
I trust the PhD will include all the slavery from other parts of the world?
Quite an impressive number of misconceptions in so short a post!https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
I trust the PhD will include all the slavery from other parts of the world?
The coronation does not confirm Charles as king - there is no need for confirmation. He ascended the instant HMQ died, and was acknowledged (not confirmed) as such by the privy council shortly afterwards.
What relevance is slavery in other parts of the world?
The whole point of a PhD is to go into a great amount of depth and detail on a very specific subject - usually one that hasn't been gone into at that level before or where new knowledge or understanding can be gained.
pequod said:
One month away from the ceremony to confirm HRH as King, we have this from the BBC!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
I trust the PhD will include all the slavery from other parts of the world?
Very sensible move and something to applaud. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
I trust the PhD will include all the slavery from other parts of the world?
2xChevrons said:
Quite an impressive number of misconceptions in so short a post!
The coronation does not confirm Charles as king - there is no need for confirmation. He ascended the instant HMQ died, and was acknowledged (not confirmed) as such by the privy council shortly afterwards.
Thank you.The coronation does not confirm Charles as king - there is no need for confirmation. He ascended the instant HMQ died, and was acknowledged (not confirmed) as such by the privy council shortly afterwards.
The Coronation Ceremony is a religious rite and, until then, the King is Ruler of the Realm but not Confirmed by God! Or have I misunderstood?
BTW, I'm not being contentious... this is only my understanding?
pequod said:
Thank you.
The Coronation Ceremony is a religious rite and, until then, the King is Ruler of the Realm but not Confirmed by God! Or have I misunderstood?
BTW, I'm not being contentious... this is only my understanding?
That's probably the traditional basis of the ceremony, as well as it being a big impressive ceremony full of bling where all the lords (temporal and spiritual) and other power-wielders gather to watch the monarch be literally crowned and invested, and then swear allegiance to them. But the ceremony holds no actual meaning and hasn't done for centuries. The Coronation Ceremony is a religious rite and, until then, the King is Ruler of the Realm but not Confirmed by God! Or have I misunderstood?
BTW, I'm not being contentious... this is only my understanding?
A British monarch has full status and power the moment their predecessor dies - technically it's the government that doesn't have power until the privy council confirm the monarch, because what they're actually confirming is that the new monarch is still delegating the same powers of governance that the old one did. That's what Charles was signing in front of the assembled members a couple of days after HMQ's death.
Edward VIII was never crowned, but for his entire brief reign he had all the same power and status as any of the other British monarchs that were.
2xChevrons said:
pequod said:
Thank you.
The Coronation Ceremony is a religious rite and, until then, the King is Ruler of the Realm but not Confirmed by God! Or have I misunderstood?
BTW, I'm not being contentious... this is only my understanding?
That's probably the traditional basis of the ceremony, as well as it being a big impressive ceremony full of bling where all the lords (temporal and spiritual) and other power-wielders gather to watch the monarch be literally crowned and invested, and then swear allegiance to them. But the ceremony holds no actual meaning and hasn't done for centuries. The Coronation Ceremony is a religious rite and, until then, the King is Ruler of the Realm but not Confirmed by God! Or have I misunderstood?
BTW, I'm not being contentious... this is only my understanding?
A British monarch has full status and power the moment their predecessor dies - technically it's the government that doesn't have power until the privy council confirm the monarch, because what they're actually confirming is that the new monarch is still delegating the same powers of governance that the old one did. That's what Charles was signing in front of the assembled members a couple of days after HMQ's death.
Edward VIII was never crowned, but for his entire brief reign he had all the same power and status as any of the other British monarchs that were.
Back on topic, what possible reason does CR have to support this dissection of the slave trade, whether or not, the British Royal Family engaged in such practices? Will it matter if the King publicly renounces His forebears for 'buying' slaves, and will He apologise on behalf of most of the Commonwealth, who have engaged in slavery for centuries, before our involvement?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Reading the thread title, I thought this was a football question. Anyway, the answer is King Charles supports Burnley. William supports Aston Villa but his wife is the brains of the outfit as the Princess of Wales supports Chelsea.
Are you suggesting the Princess of Wales was complicit in the appointment of Frank?pequod said:
Back on topic, what possible reason does CR have to support this dissection of the slave trade, whether or not, the British Royal Family engaged in such practices? Will it matter if the King publicly renounces His forebears for 'buying' slaves, and will He apologise on behalf of most of the Commonwealth, who have engaged in slavery for centuries, before our involvement?
Perhaps it's as simple as his previous statements such as "I cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many, as I continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery’s enduring impact.’" and he wants to learn more about the role his own family in that kind of thing.It's because it's right-on to self-flagellate over the sins of our past generations, and to not be seen to be doing so will cause angst among the snowflakes who think we should all (all apart from themselves) feel guilty for matters in which we personally played no part (by reason of not being born at the time).
thegreenhell said:
It's because it's right-on to self-flagellate over the sins of our past generations, and to not be seen to be doing so will cause angst among the snowflakes who think we should all (all apart from themselves) feel guilty for matters in which we personally played no part (by reason of not being born at the time).
Whilst that is certainly true, what's he supposed to do? Tell PHD students they're not allowed access to the archive? The downside of living in a free country is that some people use that freedom to find sticks to beat ourselves with.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff