King Charles III

[Subdeacon Joe]

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

P of W on  that tape..

[Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062]

 

 

   ...... that's my King .....   

[Widder, SASS #59054]

He talks just like James Bond.

 

..........Widder

 

[Henry T Harrison]

Please explain to me why people worship these people.

What have they done to deserve all this BS expect be born

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

27 minutes ago, Henry T Harrison said:

Please explain to me why people worship these people.

What have they done to deserve all this BS expect be born

I certainly don’t worship them.  I don’t hold them in contempt like some other world leaders either.

 

I am as intrigued by other international cultures as much I follow the happenings in our 50 states and 5 inhabited territories.

 

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

34 minutes ago, Henry T Harrison said:

Please explain to me why people worship these people.

What have they done to deserve all this BS expect be born

 

How sad that you see respect for tradition, duty, loyalty, and honor as "worship."  Especially since our own laws, traditions, and customs have roots deep in those traditions.  But it goes somewhat beyond that, even though, at least for me, the major focus in on the historical continuum:

Stephen Freeman

 

Cynicism at bay: The death of Queen Elizabeth focuses the world's attention for a time on the strange phenomenon of royalty. It carries with it a numinous sense, a hint of the divine. In the world of modern consumer democracy, we normally see the world through the lens of cynicism. The spectacles of our culture, magnified through hype, tend to pale in comparison to a simple royal wave of the hand.

Modern religion often carries less drama and majesty than a rock concert (which it often resembles). Our institutions and symbols have long been so abused and tarnished that they fail to move us.

As an Orthodox Christian, I am constantly aware of how unusual the dignity and symbolism are that characterize our liturgies. Many of our vestments originated in the courts of kings and emperors. Our bishops wear crowns. I have been the subject of an ordination service where a mere man is elevated to priesthood. In our weddings, a man and a woman are crowned, becoming kings and queens in God's heavenly realm.

For a short time in this next week, much of the world's cynicism will be held at bay as we mourn the passing of a monarch, unable to explain why it seems important.

It is important, I think, because, despite every human weakness, kingship (or queenship) is an echo of heaven, an instinct for hierarchy that we know to be true within ourselves, while we outwardly proclaim our preference for democracy.

In truth, we long for someone better than ourselves to rule us. We sadly know that those who now rule us are no better than ourselves, and often much worse. We are the children of heaven and we long for heaven's king and wish in the depths of our heart for His mercy, goodness, wisdom, and kindness.

For this week, we will rightly honor even a shadow of that heavenly goodness. In doing this, we honor the best that is within our hearts.

May the cynicism of our days be quiet...give us a little time...please.

 

 

[Henry T Harrison]

11 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

How sad that you see respect for tradition, duty, loyalty, and honor as "worship."  Especially since our own laws, traditions, and customs have roots deep in those traditions.  But it goes somewhat beyond that, even though, at least for me, the major focus in on the historical continuum:

Stephen Freeman

 

Cynicism at bay: The death of Queen Elizabeth focuses the world's attention for a time on the strange phenomenon of royalty. It carries with it a numinous sense, a hint of the divine. In the world of modern consumer democracy, we normally see the world through the lens of cynicism. The spectacles of our culture, magnified through hype, tend to pale in comparison to a simple royal wave of the hand.

Modern religion often carries less drama and majesty than a rock concert (which it often resembles). Our institutions and symbols have long been so abused and tarnished that they fail to move us.

As an Orthodox Christian, I am constantly aware of how unusual the dignity and symbolism are that characterize our liturgies. Many of our vestments originated in the courts of kings and emperors. Our bishops wear crowns. I have been the subject of an ordination service where a mere man is elevated to priesthood. In our weddings, a man and a woman are crowned, becoming kings and queens in God's heavenly realm.

For a short time in this next week, much of the world's cynicism will be held at bay as we mourn the passing of a monarch, unable to explain why it seems important.

It is important, I think, because, despite every human weakness, kingship (or queenship) is an echo of heaven, an instinct for hierarchy that we know to be true within ourselves, while we outwardly proclaim our preference for democracy.

In truth, we long for someone better than ourselves to rule us. We sadly know that those who now rule us are no better than ourselves, and often much worse. We are the children of heaven and we long for heaven's king and wish in the depths of our heart for His mercy, goodness, wisdom, and kindness.

For this week, we will rightly honor even a shadow of that heavenly goodness. In doing this, we honor the best that is within our hearts.

May the cynicism of our days be quiet...give us a little time...please.

 

 

And none of   that answered the question.

Honor are you kidding Charles was as faithful during his marriage as a randy alley cat and Diana was no better 

I believe we fought not one but two wars to get out from under 

their rules 

[Subdeacon Joe]

13 minutes ago, Henry T Harrison said:

And none that answered the question

I believe we fought not one but two wars to get out from under 

their rules 

 

No, sir.  I did answer.  That my answer is something you don't like does not mean that I didn't.  And, what a shame that you exactly equate tradition with rule.  Take a look at the Federalist Papers, and the works of our founders, and see how often English Tradition is cited.   Clear back to The Great Charter.   

 

Quote

When the first Continental Congress met in September and October 1774, it drafted a Declaration of Rights and Grievances claiming for the colonists the liberties guaranteed to them under “the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts.” The colonists sought the preservation of their self-government, freedom from taxation without representation, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s countrymen, and their enjoyment of “life, liberty and property” free from arbitrary interference from the crown. On this title page is a symbol of unity adopted by the congress: twelve arms reaching out to grasp a column that is topped by a liberty cap. The base of the column reads “Magna Carta.”

Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress, Held at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774. Philadelphia: William and Thomas Bradford, 1774. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (031)

 

 

 

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

The Royals of today are not the monarchy of yesterday. They represent the highest level of Great Britain's governmental system. And they also represent the tradition and history of one of the greatest nations ever throughout history. The people of England don't worship these people. They embrace the tradition and honor of their history that royalty represents.

I would offer to shake the hand of King Charles III is no different than any citizen, anywhere, shaking the hand of their leader.

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

 

LL

[Buffalo Creek Law Dog]

When I joined the military, I swore allegiance to the Queen and to her heirs and successors.  As one Australian general once said (can't remember his name), "A soldier serves his queen, not his government."

[DocWard]

2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

No, sir.  I did answer.  That my answer is something you don't like does not mean that I didn't.  And, what a shame that you exactly equate tradition with rule.  Take a look at the Federalist Papers, and the works of our founders, and see how often English Tradition is cited.   Clear back to The Great Charter.   

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget that in addition, many of the things we consider rights trace back to our English forebears. Among them is the right to bear arms, believe it or not. Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote a book on the subject, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. The fact that the English have since allowed their own rights to fall can serve as a warning, but the fact remains, we owe much of our culture and tradition to our historic relationship with the UK.

Going back to the original post on the matter, I fail to understand why one would equate it with "worship" of Charles, or of any other person who would do similar. Simply put, at the age of 29, he decided that to be the bona fide CinC, and to have the respect of the men he had titular charge of, he needed to be one of them, to have gone through the same training as them, to include jumping from perfectly good airplanes. As retired military, that earns my respect.

[Dubious Don #56333]

I do believe the small matter of 1776 excused me from EVER caring who was king or queen.....just sayin'. Nice we're still friends and all, but this sure isn't the 1950's......things have changed.

[MizPete]

1 hour ago, Dubious Don #56333 said:

1776 excused me from EVER caring who was king or queen...

Agree totally.  But we can recognize quality when we see it.

[Texas Joker]

The UK has a new king AND England has a new PM the measure of these new leaders should be known. In the above example while HRH has the luck and station to be appointed  a Colonel and not have to work his way up the ranks, at the every least he was willing to train and qualify for the basic earning of his badge of honor the maroon beret.

 

He could have just said 'do you know who I am?' And 'respec my authoritay!'

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

In the Summer of 2002, I spent several hours with Air Commodore Sir Archie Winskill DFC* at his home at Henley-on-Thames. He was a Spitfire ace in WWII, and in 1968 became Captain of the Queen's Flight, a position he held until 1982, longer than any other in that office. The Queen's Flight (since disbanded) was the unit of the Royal Air Force responsible for the transportation by air of the royal family, among other duties.

 

He supervised the instruction of Prince Charles as a helicopter pilot, and he said very good things about Charles. He described to me an incident in which Prince Philip wanted Charles to fly certain members of the Royal Family in a chopper, which he as Captain vetoed as Charles was not adept enough at the time.

 

Anyway, he respected Charles, who was of course  a generation younger than him, and spoke well of him.

 

Sir Archie died at 88 in 2005. He had been a close personal friend of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother (mother of Queen Elizabeth). His obituary in the London Telegraph quotes the Queen Mother as having been heard to say, "It's for men like Sir Archie that makes in worthwhile to put my lipstick on in the morning." How's that for a line in your obit-- even when you were a Battle of Britain RAF vet?

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

I actually felt sorry for my King, when he was forced to marry a woman he did not love, because of outdated, perceived Royal requirements for a Queen in Waiting.

(I understand there was even a physical exam to ensue the potential Queen was a virgin! )  

I think think the Royal family and it's advisors came to regret the manner in which they forced(?) Prince Charles into his first marriage to an eligible consort, to produce heirs, forgetting the days of Edward the VIII and Wallis Simpson, (Horrors - A Divorcee!) were long over and the world had moved on!

 

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

His sons, too, trained and served.  

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

16 hours ago, Buffalo Creek Law Dog said:

When I joined the military, I swore allegiance to the Queen and to her heirs and successors.  As one Australian general once said (can't remember his name), "A soldier serves his queen, not his government."

An interesting contrast to my oath of commission where I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, not a person.

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

As for the original question, I have great respect for Queen Elizabeth and find the monarchy interesting.  But worship is far too strong a word.

[Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L]

not to get too far off course but impressed KCIII became a para

 

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

7 minutes ago, Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L said:

not to get too far off course but impressed KCIII became a para

 

 

 

That was the point of my original post - he takes his responsibility seriously.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

26 minutes ago, Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L said:

not to get too far off course but impressed KCIII became a para

 

Yeah, I don’t think Anne every became a sailor.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

Yeah, Prince Harry walked the walk as well.

 

It's just a shame he doesn't have the same courage to face his controlling, manipulative wife as he did actual combat.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

11 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

Yeah, I don’t think Anne every became a sailor.

 

 

Princess Grand Admiral Anne has never been in the military.

 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

3 minutes ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

 

 

Princess Grand Admiral Anne has never been in the military.

 

Oh, that’s right. The Brit navy does a proper salute.   )))))))

[Sixgun Sheridan]

3 minutes ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

 

 

Princess Grand Admiral Anne has never been in the military.

 

 

Maybe not, but she's got more balls than most men. Read up on the failed kidnapping attempt in 1974. A crazy man with a gun shot her bodyguard and ordered her out of the car, and she basically told him where to shove it.

[Subdeacon Joe]

4 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

Yeah, Prince Harry walked the walk as well.

 

It's just a shame he doesn't have the same courage to face his controlling, manipulative wife as he did actual combat.

 

 

He has also on several occasions rendered first aid to people.  If I recall correctly, one was a guy who got thrown from a horse, one a woman who passed out, and one to a woman in a wheelchair (don't recall the circumstances of that).

 

Re: Princess Anne, what does her lack of military service have to do with HM Charles III?  And, even if she wasn't active military, did she fill the role that she had been given as a ceremonial head well?  

 

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Just for perspective.... 

 

              Anne or Rachel?