I disagree with your characterization of the papacy as a monarchy. In any event, it is not a hereditary monarchy. Succession is not based on birth.
People who believe in Catholicism believe that the Church was founded by Our Lord and his apostles. Catholics believe that the pope is the successor to the apostle Peter .YOU may think that’s a myth–and you are entitled to do so–but Catholics don’t.
Do British monarchists believe in the divine right of kings? Do they really believe that the monarch is the Defender of the Faith? The whole Church of England is premised on the argument that Henry VIII was entitled to declare that the pope had no power to grant him a dispensation so he could marry Katherine of Aragon. He wanted an annulment—not a divorce–and key to his argument was the proposition that he, not the pope, was defending the faith by insisting that his marriage to his brother’s widow was invalid . So current adherents to the C of E actually believe that Henry’s actions were motivated by his deep religious faith?
And why the cheap shot that Americans think the UK is the only one with a monarchy? I’ve never known a single American who thinks that. GIven the publicized recent marriage of a Japanese princess, the well-known saga of Grace Kelly, the publicity surrounding the marriage of the Belgian princess a few months ago, etc., I rather doubt that the ignorant Americans you portray actually exist. If they do, I am certainly not one of them.
Moreover I was not purporting to speak on behalf of all Americans. I was admitting that my attitude towards the British monarchy is due in part to my Irish ancestry and my faith. The love affair many Americans have with the British monarchy is one that Americans of my background don’t share.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but since the restoration of the monarchy after Cromwell revolution, doesn’t the power of the king/queen come from the parliament now, and not from God?
I’ve lost track of who said what on this thread about jealousy, but I wanted to reiterate something I wrote way at the beginning of this thread.
I think the jealousy cuts both ways. Harry probs doesn’t love being and feeling like the spare, but I could see William also being jealous of Harry’s life. The spare leaving the family is tabloid fodder, but it doesn’t really “matter” in the grand scheme of royal life. William knows that if he tried to pull that he’d be crucified. He simply doesn’t have the flexibility Harry does about how to conduct his life. So I can see how anything Harry does that isn’t part of the expected script could cause friction between the brothers. William doesn’t have that luxury, at least not without major implications.
It reminds me of my dad and his youngest brother – the youngest brother of the five was the only one who didn’t serve in the military, and that always tweaked my dad. My dad made that his brother’s defining characteristic. Families are funny.
You’re pretty close. The concept of Divine Right of Kings ended in what is now the UK with the Glorious Revolution and the overthrow of James II and VII.
Not entirely true. It’s more nuanced than that–and that’s especially true when it comes to the role of the Church of England. As I understand it, Parliament doesn’t claim that the C of E is subservient to it. Rather the Church is subservient to the monarch because of the divine right of kings. The Articles which govern the C of E state in relevant part:
“The King’s majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other of his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction … We give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments … but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoer … The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.”
Thus, as I understand it, the idea that the monarch is head of the C of E is STILL based on the concept that there is a divine right of kings. Believing in such a right–that the Church must submit to the monarch–is part and parcel of C of E beliefs. (This is why a Catholic cannot become an English monarch—Catholics don’t share that belief. It’s only fairly recently that anyone in the line of succession could marry a Catholic. )
As I understand it, every time there’s an opening for a new bishop, the PM gives the monarch a list of 3 names, nominated by a synod of C of E bishops, and the monarch picks one of the 3. So this power is not in name only.
Thanks for that heads up. I watched while monitoring the first half of my basketball and I found it revealing. Actually made me lean toward reading the book.
The guy who interviewed him has known him for more than 20 years so there was a familiarity and ability for the interviewer to be a little more forceful and direct in what seemed less threatening to Harry, and Harry was able to comfortably push back on him as well. I do get the sense those of us who are just hearing the news clips are missing out. I was most touched by his obvious love for his dad, which I hadn’t previously felt.
So my point was that your father did go about his life 3 decades later, raised a family, etc. While I am sure he always mourned his mother, it did not become the defining part of his identity, nor did he constantly obsess about his loss, it sounds like. Losing a parent is always sad, moreso when it is a premature and unexpected death and involves young children. Sadly, it happens not infrequently, but generally the children left behind do manage to become emotionally stable adults. That does not seem to have happened in Harry’s case. He seems to cling to the cloak of victimhood and indeed revel in it.
Harry didn’t talk about his dad’s spare, Andrew. He seems to be really close to Andrew’s family and probably Andrew is one person who really understood Harry’s spare issues. However, as an activist he should’ve talked about elephant in the palace.
As far as his love for his family, I think after their public humiliation to build his media empire, he burned all bridges.
It seems he truly adores his wife and his savior, Meghan. She took a huge risk marrying a person with PTSD and other psychological issues, chronic history of alcohol and substance abuse, complicated family dynamics, history of failed short romantic relationships. She gave him courage and helped him get out from a life he hated to build a respected brand of activism.
One confusing issue is why he isn’t moving on. Why is he stuck on his past and revenge. I guess because its a good source of generating revenue but it sounds really unhealthy. He has a beautiful family, making millions a year and celebrities fall right and left to be friends with him. Hire good security and live peacefully. He was extremely privileged then and he is extremely privileged now, nobody’s life is perfect.
No, the monarch has nothing to do with it beyond formally making the appointment. The PM picks from a list of two names, although in recent years the convention has been not to override the C of E’s recommendation:
I stand corrected. Thanks. I wasn’t aware of the change. Still, the fact that the monarch has to make the appointment symbolizes the fact that theologically the C of E is subservient to the crown.
That’s one area where I think the Royals can improve things is by no longer heading up the C of E. UK is quite diverse due to their former world empire, and there are many Hindus, Muslims, other Christian denominations, Jewish people, etc., that would feel more welcomed I imagine if that was done.
Having an official religion sends a subtle and not-great message.
Interestingly, in the past, Charles has made statements reflecting that same view. He wants the title to be “Defender of Faith” rather than "Defender of the Faith, " with the Faith understood as C of E. More recently, he “clarified” his earlier remarks to say he wanted to be both Defender of the Faith AND Defender of Faith, indicating a support of the right to worship God in other ways.
Not really. Everything is theoretically subservient to the crown, for example after the Queen died, the new PM was unable to appoint ministers for a couple of weeks because the monarch needed to formally “make” (sign letters patent for) those appointments.
What’s more relevant is that the C of E is actually subservient to the PM who has the power to choose the Archbishop of Canterbury. But that’s what you get with an established church.
After the interview last night I had both a greater desire to read the book, and a desire to never hear another peep out of him again!
Hearing him talk about the death of his mother made me sympathetic in a more visceral and less abstract way.
He appears to be on a mission to change the way the tabloid press operates. It feels to me he is obsessed with them, which is understandable I guess, considering the circumstances of Diana’s death, and that he is certain his family uses them to disparage him/his wife. But I’m increasingly wanting to know more about the whole issue of the tabloids and put it in a larger context. Maybe after reading the book I’ll agree with his point of view .
I missed the interview, but your thoughts of him moving on and not hearing him complain anymore is spot on. I have a lot of sympathy for him after the book.
He is sort of a man-child. However he doesn’t hold back his faults and things he’s done. I got the feeling he thinks some of it was amusing (not all), but I find some of it distasteful. And frankly maybe William does too.
Born into the wrong family, that one. I’m glad he got out. What a terribly family and institution. Im actually really surprised by a lot in this book.
My understanding is the CBS interview is the same one that was aired in ITV last week. Since you’ve already read the book, you’ll probably find nothing new in it. But if you care to watch, you can find it on YouTube, and there’s also a transcript here:
I’ve expressed why I am hesitant to completely believe what he says about Charles and others (not that I believe it can’t be true). One reason I want to read the book is to see if I am more inclined to believe him after hearing his full story.
As far as moving on, I don’t know the exact timeline but haven’t H&M been out of royal life longer than they were in it? And they’ve done nothing but talk about it since. I hope they don’t plan to make a career out of telling “their side of the story”.
Agree that (for me at least) Charles is not the most likeable royal, and his wife even less so.
For those who think he should have forged a new identity as opposed to being “son of…”, in his case of a publicly warring couple, both publicly humiliated, with mom killed in horrific circumstances and being made to be chief mourner for the nation…what other identity are you thinking was on offer? That’s literally what “Prince” means in his case. Second son of Charles is what he is and will ever be. He can’t ever graduate to being king, or even Prince of Wales. His two mediocre A levels are useless for any kind of career. “Party Prince” wasn’t exactly sustainable either. The one career that he, by all accounts, wanted and wasn’t totally useless at, military officer, was denied to him.
Now he is making a new career out of “husband to” and maybe “father of” and in a perverse way, remains “son of” and brother of”.
and I found it revealing. Actually made me lean toward reading the book.
.