Defensor Fidei (or Is the Queen a Vampire?)

All things must pass, as the Buddha or George Harrison said. And so (in time) of Elizabeth II, Regina, D.F. She's had a good run and (to steal from Lesley Neilson), as ridiculous as the idea of having a queen seems to me, I try to respect the genuine affection many people have for her and her office. Far be it from me to speculate on any connection between the Queen's remarkable longevity and her genealogically demonstrable tie to Vlad Dracula. No, no, she may sleep in whatever soil she chooses, rise whenever she likes, and feast on whatever or whomever takes her fancy. The stake comes too soon for us all.

What I notice about the inevitable transition in the British monarchy is that there has not been a coronation ceremony in 65 years (Winston Churchill was Prime Minister for the last one). At the time, Elizabeth swore the traditional vow that she would "maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel" and to her utmost power "maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law".

Needless to say, times have changed, and the religious composition of Britain lacks the relative homogeneity it had on June 2, 1953 (though even then there was a substantial minority of non-Protestant Christians). I have been told that the Queen's successor will no longer be styled Defender of the Faith but rather the Defender of Faith. I don't know if that is more than a rumor, but it is difficult to imagine the ceremony remaining the same.

My questions are:

Does anyone know what is going to happen? Will the vows be changed? Will the title? In the opinion of anyone who has an opinion on this, should they be changed? Would it have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on British life? After all, the change in form reflects a change in thinking, and formalizing the thought change would likely affect future generations. It's kind of a strange thing to be living through.

Interesting thoughts here my pompey bum chum,have you been listening to David Icke by any chance? Will Charles be king, and will talking to flowers be made into law?
Does anybody care? Times have indeed changed my pompey bum chum,I was there in London in 1953 which the Queen was crowned ,stood ten deep on the pavement
with a periscope to look over the shoulders of all those selfish bastards who stood in front of this little eight year old boy. Was glad when it was over and we went back to the coach
to take us home, and had a hot dog on the way, best part of the day, the hot dog with fried onions and lashings of mustard.

Warm regards Michael.

No Fairy Tale begins "Once upon a time, there was a President." Just saying.

Heh, heh. No, I fist heard these concerns (about the coronation, not vampirism) expressed by Peter Hitchens, the Trotskyite-turned-conservative-Anglican and the brother of the atheist firebrand Christopher Hitchens. I just went looking for the video and found it eventually, but I also found a longer and more interesting conversation between Hitchens and the same interviewer. I'll leave both links.

Here is the one about the Queen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ku4SBJYraM

And this one is about religion and British society in general (if MANICHAEAN is reading this, he may be interested):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GRqrytu5m_E

I saw the Queen and her family in Boston in 1976 when I was a teenager. They were there for the American bicentennial. My friend and I got up before dawn and got a front row place to stand. But as we waited, I was overcome with the only case of agoraphobia I have ever had. I felt nauseated because of all the people crowding around. I had to leave for fear of making a mess. After about 15 minutes, I felt better and tried to return to my friend. Amazingly, the crowd let me back in. The Queen's motorcade came by a few minutes later. At the time, it didn't seem worth the ordeal. But I guess it's something I never forgot.

QEII is related to Dracula, by the way. But genealogically speaking it's not a big deal. Lots of people are.

Thank God Pompey that the Moderators have not driven the final stake into your heart and that I still retain the opportunity to sink my fangs into some USA hemo claret.

Yesterday I must have been in gamekeeper turned poacher mode as I managed to ruffle quite a few feathers in various posts. For that I apologize as I normally couch my parlance in a more restrained and circumlocutory manner.

Anyway, on to the subject in question, The Queen God Bless Her.

I was born under her father’s reign and can still recall seeing her coronation on a small black and white TV in post war Britain.

She will indeed be sorely missed, apart from those of a traitorous ilk with republican tendencies. Rarely has she put a foot or handbag wrong.


Regards the saying “All Things Must Pass,” don’t you perhaps get a teeny sensation that its pre Beatle Biblical origin would be more relevant to the daily unfolding actions and consequences of the current White House incumbent?

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
All these are the beginning of sorrows.”

Apart from our own issues with Europe & Russia, I am thinking of the stormy waters ahead as various scenarios unravel with; North Korea, trade wars with just about everyone, the Middle East and President for Life Putin.

Moving onto the reference to Count De Ville, I am as yet unaware of any need to wear garlic around the neck when granted an audience with Her Majesty.

By the way you may be interested to know as another aside, that Bela Lugosi who played the part of Dracula in the film in 1931 was reported to have died from a heart attack whilst clutching the script for “The Final Curtain.” He was subsequently buried in the Holy Cross Cemetery in Culver wearing a Dracula cape costume as per the request of his son and fifth wife. I’m sure Her Majesty The Queen would refrain from getting involved in such unseemly circumstances.


And so we move onto the main course, the accession of Charles. You are most probably versed in the fact that "Defender of the Faith" has been one of the subsidiary titles of the English and later British monarchs since it was granted by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII of England and Ireland (albeit at the time for supporting the Roman Catholic faith!!) After the breach with Rome the King became the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, in effect Protestant.

You are correct in the reports that The Prince of Wales is apparently planning a symbolic change when he becomes King by taking the title “Defender of Faith” to reflect Britain's multicultural society. This has caused controversy within the Anglican Church when he floated the idea several years ago.

However, there would be significant obstacles to overcome before the Prince can fulfil his wish. It would require Parliament to agree to amend the 1953 Royal Titles Act which came into law after changes were made for the Queen's Coronation in the same year.

The Prince has said that he wants to be seen as a defender of all religious faiths and not just the Anglican Church, but the Coronation is an Anglican ceremony. Any change would require legislation. It is plausible that a second service might be held for other denominations and faiths, such as the Muslims and Hindus.

All this is taking place in a background where it must be remembered that immigration was perhaps the biggest issue in the Brexit vote and there is a significant general distaste with Charles behavior in the past with regard to Princess Diane.

The general impression that I get is that the monarchy of Charles will be politely tolerated; perhaps for a relatively short reign, (like Edward the Seventh when Queen Victoria died) and that the British would welcome with open arms the next in line, William.

Dear M. Kirkpatrick

Its worse than that. Schools will have tree hugging and talking to flowers national holidays, the Gherkin will be demolished and your butler will be required by law to squeeze your toothpaste onto your toothbrush.

Best regards
M.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

And so we move onto the main course, the accession of Charles. You are most probably versed in the fact that "Defender of the Faith" has been one of the subsidiary titles of the English and later British monarchs since it was granted by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII of England and Ireland (albeit at the time for supporting the Roman Catholic faith!!) After the breach with Rome the King became the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, in effect Protestant.

---

Yes, something like that. Henry was actually head of the church rather than governor, but the honor was demurred during the restrained and circumlocutory reign of his blushing daughter, Bloody Mary. Governor was a compromise term adopted by Henry's other daughter, Elizabeth. Like most silly things the English do, this had important historical effects. As Hitchens rightly points out, being governor of the church meant that the monarch's formal only role in religion was only to prevent the Pope (or other foreign princes) from running the show. So the current Elizabeth and her successor are not especially hemmed in as Anglican rulers (England was not a signatory of the Peace of Augsburg, so presumably cuius regio, eius religio doesn't count). The head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, and they burn pretty easily.

The problem is the damned title (Defender of the Faith) and especially the vows. The title was a gift from il Papa for a book now thought to have been largely ghost written by Bishop John Fisher (whom Henry later had executed). I appreciate your confirming the rumor about Charles hoping to be "the Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith" (a sleight of hand made possible by Latin's lack of an article). Hitchens and his interviewer mention the issue but don't really say that Charles intends to make a formal change. It sounds like the 1953 Royal Titles Act may come into conflict with the legally mandated Equality and Diversity policy that Hitchens mentions. Too bad Britain doesn't have a Supreme Court. Is it too late to ask Brussels what your law is? Sorry, that was a little snarky. :)

About the vows I am similarly confused. Were the current ones introduced in 1953 (you mention that "changes were made for the Queen's Coronation in the same year.")? They would be easier to get rid of if they weren't traditional. But is getting rid of them a good idea? And does Parliament really have the right to make the Church and Crown behave? I just don't understand how the system works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

It is plausible that a second service might be held for other denominations and faiths, such as the Muslims and Hindus.

---

END QUOTE


Interesting. And will there be a second monarch, too? Khan means king, doesn't it? That could be handy. :) Sorry, snarky again. I admire your patriotism very much.