Re: Charlie Farley
 

Ok so I was wrong but you see what I mean about shear volumes of death with nothing to do with religion.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

And that's the key point certain individuals miss, if she'd been wearing a seat belt she'd probably be alive, like another passenger in the car is, the best assassins the world can proffer and after all that planning they'd leave something to chance like a seat belt :spin:

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Who's Harry's father???

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I agree

Re: Charlie Farley
 

The low interest shown in the coronation is indicative of things changing and moving away from the traditions that we expect.

We are doing some articles on the coronation this week and I will ensure this features.

See Day 1's article, any feedback welcomed :-)

Re: Charlie Farley
 

You have some strange sentences in this paragraph:

- the King reigns but does not rule.
- the coronation does not "ensure" the support of the people. It may hope to increase but that would be as far as it goes
- suggest you are overdoing the "inspiring awe & respect" bit :)
- he can't protect or defend the country, nor govern it with or without the merciful part
- hoping for "loyalty and devotion" is a bit of a log shot to be fair

Re: Charlie Farley
 

It could be James Hewitt but to me Harry takes his looks from the Corgis.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

__________________________________________________ ____


Thanks for the feedback we really appreciate your comments and they have spawned other thoughts regarding tradition. I think the way that you have inferred to down play the emotional strength in some of the sentences really does go to show the tradition and loss of interest in the monarchy over the last few years/decades.

Thanks again for your insight. Much appreciated.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Also, we are centuries past the point where the new king wasn’t king until crowned. Succession is determined by Parliament, thanks to the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701) and various subsequent amendments.

Thanks to the rules of succession set out in these acts, Charles became Heir Apparent at the same time his mother became Queen, and became King the moment she died.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I think that this is an important point. The coronation is just the flag waving and crown carriage-ing bit. No significant meaning in the real world for the vast majority of the country.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Much depends on exactly how it’s framed during the coronation service next week. If we are presented with a multi-faith act of worship then we have been left with a meaningless muddle that won’t be true to the confession of any religion represented there. I would be surprised if any senior Muslim or Sikh invited to the coronation would be happy with that, even if some of the liberal twits in the Church of England hierarchy are.

For what it’s worth, I know Archbishop Justin to be an evangelical and while he will be keen to allow the reality of multicultural Britain to be demonstrated I do not believe he will allow the impression that the service is one in which all gods are recognised and invoked.

‘Defender of Faith’ could be an intellectually muddled attempt to construct a single understanding of faith and deity out of all major religions, and actually I suspect that in his youth that’s probably where Charles was leaning. Today, however, I suspect it will be presented to us as a part of a constitutional responsibility to the freedom and wellbeing of all people regardless of their beliefs.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

She was in it because she was returning to the apartment of Dodi Fayed (her apparent lover).

She died because she wasnt wearing a seat belt, when the car she was in (driven by a drunken driver, at twice the speed limit) crashed into a pillar, while apparently being persued by members of the press.

While I dont particularly care for Charles, blaming him for something he had nothing to do with is utter nonsense.