Yeah, I knew that he'd said he wanted to be more pluralistic, but the oath he made was very specific. I, Charles III by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled ‘An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’ and by the Acts passed in the Parliament of both Kingdoms for Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland. So help me God. Archbishop Cranmer
Yeah, it does need updating, but as you say, these texts haven't been used for 70 years and only this time in public.
The thing is, this was the opportunity for the oath to be updated. Preparations for the Queen's passing have been going on for years, I can't believe that this wouldn't have been considered.
I don't do Twitter, so wouldn't have known about the vitriol if it hadn't been brought up on here. Don't you have to 'follow' people to see their Tweets? It seems to me that there are people seeking out this stuff just so they can get mad about it. Ignore it.
‘Defender of Faiths’ doesn’t make much theological sense, as all faiths are mutually exclusive, only one faith can be ‘right’, if you believe in that sort of thing. I suppose Charles wants to be defender of the right to have (any) faith, or be religious or whatever. Might be clearer just to go for Defender of Freedom of Belief, which would also encompass non religious belief and the freedom to change ‘belief’. All sounds a bit woke. Probably to do with his belief in homeopathy and that kind of stuff.
You can read the comments people make under a Tweet from those you follow. Sadly, it also uses algorithms to stick up stuff it thinks you might be interested in. I don’t actively seek this stuff out, nor do I get mad about it per se, but I do have an interest in what makes people tick and why some feel the need to say what they do. (I am prone to that too from time to time.)
You're right, Ubes, it's always the woke "Love everyone, be kind" vegan types that want to burn people at the stake for disagreeing with them.
The problem comes from believing that you are right. That belief leads to a closed mind. If your instinct is to shut down dissent you’re admitting a refusal to consider alternative opinions and an unwillingness to learn. Much easier to shout down those pointing out flaws in your argument than change your own position.
This is the whole basis for cancel culture and no- platforming, and why books are being written about the "New Puritans", making reference to the religious bigotry of the C17th both here and in the US. It's infecting schools and universities where open debate (within the law obviously) was once the lifeblood which is really worrying.
They were privately educated. But there's a mix of public and state schooling in Parliament. Labour's Harriet Harman went to St Pauls, one of the country's foremost public schools. Why single out black politicians as "Coconuts" because their modest income parents paid for their education?
They can’t win, can they? Wrong kind of black, presumably? I guess they’re only true to their race if they’re working class, Labour-type blacks.
I agree to, to an extent. People did have real affection for the Queen, but it can be mawkish to take it too far. The news channels encourage it with roving reporters. I wish I had a pound for every time I heard, "She's with the Duke of Edinburgh now" For all we know, the Duke may by now have taken up with Marilyn Monroe
