the head of the Church of England a Buddhist?

[Pavel Mosko]

King Charles has made a lot of statements in his earlier life as the Prince of Wales that has suggested he is a Buddhist. I thought he said that officially a long time ago in an interview, but that doesn't google well.

Prince Charles: Heir to the British throne | Pictures | Reuters


Anyway lots of people have speculated why Queen Elizabeth II didn't resign years ago and have him take over the monarchy, and this is one big reason among others concerning his personal life and past marriage to princess Diana.

It does raise the issue of how will this go over? And if doesn't bother the people that much what does that say about England as far as being a Post Christian nation?



The notion of England as a Post Christian nation has been brewing for years. I currently am working on a video talking about the Amazon, "Rings of Power" debacle where Millennial TV show runners have corrupted the work of J. R Tolkien for their own sociopolitical agenda of Feminism and multiculturalism.

Interesting enough the things that are being bitterly complained about now by Tolkien fans were done 11-13 years ago in a English TV series called Merlin. That series not only had casting choices that broke your immersion (not looking like medieval Europe), but also seemingly erased Christianity from the World as well. That was something very few people noticed, but if you are a Christian or at least like some historical and literary authenticity stood out like a sore thumb. But it made me think of what society must be like in England for the showrunners of that show to make that kind of artistic choice at presenting the legendary Arthurian England in that manner.

 

[lismore]

These are very different times.

 

[PloverWing]

King Charles has made a lot of statements in his earlier life as the Prince of Wales that has suggested he is a Buddhist. I thought he said that officially a long time ago in an interview, but that doesn't google well.
...
It does raise the issue of how will this go over? And if doesn't bother the people that much what does that say about England as far as being a Post Christian nation?

I think that King Charles would do well to leave the theological and pastoral leadership of the Church of England in the hands of the bishops of that church. If he is comfortable leading the church in a ceremonial way, that's fine. But as an Anglican, I look much more to people like Archbishop Welby for theological insights, rather than the current monarch.

It's up to the people of the UK whether they continue to find it useful to have the reigning monarch be the ceremonial head of their national church. As an American, I find the idea of an established church uncomfortable, but I know there are longstanding historical reasons for the UK's policies. They can decide whether those historical reasons are still important.

 

[Laconia79]

King Charles has made a lot of statements in his earlier life as the Prince of Wales that has suggested he is a Buddhist. I thought he said that officially a long time ago in an interview, but that doesn't google well.

Prince Charles: Heir to the British throne | Pictures | Reuters


Anyway lots of people have speculated why Queen Elizabeth II didn't resign years ago and have him take over the monarchy, and this is one big reason among others concerning his personal life and past marriage to princess Diana.

It does raise the issue of how will this go over? And if doesn't bother the people that much what does that say about England as far as being a Post Christian nation?



The notion of England as a Post Christian nation has been brewing for years. I currently am working on a video talking about the Amazon, "Rings of Power" debacle where Millennial TV show runners have corrupted the work of J. R Tolkien for their own sociopolitical agenda of Feminism and multiculturalism.

Interesting enough the things that are being bitterly complained about now by Tolkien fans were done 11-13 years ago in a English TV series called Merlin. That series not only had casting choices that broke your immersion (not looking like medieval Europe), but also seemingly erased Christianity from the World as well. That was something very few people noticed, but if you are a Christian or at least like some historical and literary authenticity stood out like a sore thumb. But it made me think of what society must be like in England for the showrunners of that show to make that kind of artistic choice at presenting the legendary Arthurian England in that manner.

First of, as for King Arthur the popular historical person...is a fairy tale. If he existed in was rounghly in the mid 200/300 BC point in history. A brutal war and diseased time in history there was no noble knights of the round table.

Secondly, who cares if he is a Buddhist, for one thing the King of England has know real power.
Your actually coming off a bit bigoted over someone's religion. In England and in the United States you have freedom of religion...NOT FREEDOM OF CHRISTIANITY...FREEDOM OF ALL RELIGION. Give it a rest and your complaining about Buddhism lol.

Basic tenets of Buddhism

• Human life is beset with suffering.
• Suffering is caused by our desires and attachments.
• There is the possibility of breaking free from that cycle of suffering.
• The method to end suffering is an eightfold path of conduct that emphasizes moderation in all actions.

It is one of the least violent of religions. I swear Christians think only there religion and religious beliefs count.

 

[Fantine]

It is possible that Charles is an Anglican who may have studied Buddhist philosophy, taken yoga, or practiced transcendental meditation. There are many positive beautiful aspects of Buddhism (as there are in Islam, Judaism, and most other religions) that may have inspired him without causing him to relinquish his Anglican faith.

Since England (and the U.S.) are multi-cultural nations, it is not a bad thing for people to learn about other faiths and develop a respect for one another's traditions.

I don't think that a monarch should be the titular head of a church--but I also think that it is enlightening to see how God has revealed himself to other cultures and nationalities and historical eras.

 

[Brother-Mike]

First of, as for King Arthur the popular historical person...is a fairy tale. If he existed in was rounghly in the mid 200/300 BC point in history. A brutal war and diseased time in history there was no noble knights of the round table.

Secondly, who cares if he is a Buddhist, for one thing the King of England has know real power.
Your actually coming off a bit bigoted over someone's religion. In England and in the United States you have freedom of religion...NOT FREEDOM OF CHRISTIANITY...FREEDOM OF ALL RELIGION. Give it a rest and your complaining about Buddhism lol.

Basic tenets of Buddhism

• Human life is beset with suffering.
• Suffering is caused by our desires and attachments.
• There is the possibility of breaking free from that cycle of suffering.
• The method to end suffering is an eightfold path of conduct that emphasizes moderation in all actions.

It is one of the least violent of religions. I swear Christians think only there religion and religious beliefs count.

For the record there’s modern-day Buddhist violence in Thailand and Myanmar.

 

[Strong in Him]

King Charles has made a lot of statements in his earlier life as the Prince of Wales that has suggested he is a Buddhist. I thought he said that officially a long time ago in an interview, but that doesn't google well.

King Charles said in his speech;

"The role and the duties of monarchy also remain, as does the sovereign's particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England - the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted.

"In that faith, and the values it inspires, I have been brought up to cherish a sense of duty to others, and to hold in the greatest respect the precious traditions, freedoms and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government.

"As the Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the constitutional principles at the heart of our nation.

Anyway lots of people have speculated why Queen Elizabeth II didn't resign years ago and have him take over the monarchy, and this is one big reason among others concerning his personal life and past marriage to princess Diana.

Personally I think it was her enormous sense of duty and the vows she made.
Plus, maybe, the fact that she saw the hurt caused over Edward VIII's abdication. I think she respected the monarchy too much to start assessing whether or not a person was suited to take over.

 

[Vinter]

The notion of England as a Post Christian nation has been brewing for years. I currently am working on a video talking about the Amazon, "Rings of Power" debacle where Millennial TV show runners have corrupted the work of J. R Tolkien for their own sociopolitical agenda of Feminism and multiculturalism.

This sounds very interesting. Do you post you videos here?

About the church and England. Time will tell.

The church in Denmark is not doing well. They allow gay marriage. A church even held childrend's pride for the 2nd year in a row. 8 out of the 10 Danish Bishops say yes to female priests. Some of the Bishops themselves are women.

 

[Laconia79]

For the record there’s modern-day Buddhist violence in Thailand and Myanmar.

Then they are not real Buddhist. If your not practicing the tenants of Buddhism your not a Buddhist. And that goes for any religion. I would say at least half of the 2 billion Christians on this planet are not really Christian

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Do you post you videos here?

yes I do from time to time. Most of the time I do so on my Blog

Example the 1st Christian Churches
The 1st Christian Churches

Thanks

 

[Blade]

Hard to know.. even with the late Queen on just what she personally believed. Only those around her/them know.. well God. Some will just blindly believe anything someone they like says. I know he has said things in the past that would at that time he would have had to give up the throne. So well see.

 

[BobRyan]

King Charles has made a lot of statements in his earlier life as the Prince of Wales that has suggested he is a Buddhist. I thought he said that officially a long time ago in an interview, but that doesn't google well.

Prince Charles: Heir to the British throne | Pictures | Reuters


Anyway lots of people have speculated why Queen Elizabeth II didn't resign years ago and have him take over the monarchy, and this is one big reason among others concerning his personal life and past marriage to princess Diana.

It does raise the issue of how will this go over?

first we have this --

Prince Charles' Religious Views Against Royal Family Tradition

"the reigning British Monarch is crowned the title of supreme governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, Henry VIII by the Pope in 1521 for his early support for Roman Catholicism," the clip said (via Daily Express)."

Charles stated he wants to restate that as "Defender of Faith" so then not aligning with any of the major monotheistic religions specifically - just the more generic idea of "faith".

And it raises the "functionally they do what?" question when it comes to British monarchs.

When a king from some other nation comes around to negotiate peace or treaties does he go to the PM or to a British monarch? So for example a monarch from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates etc. Are they going to meet with a British monarch to negotiate treaties or resolve national disputes, preserve security etc??

When a theologian wants to discuss some fine point of theology in the church of England do they hash it out with a Monarch? When someone wants clarification on a doctrinal position inside the church of England - do they go to a monarch? What actually are the monarch's doing?

In America we have Disney and it is responsible for a lot of tourism even from other nations coming to America. So outside of tourism - what do the monarch's in Brittan affect?

 

[Paidiske]

In England and in the United States you have freedom of religion...

The monarch doesn't, though. As things stand, the monarch must belong to the Church of England.

Personally, I think that the time when England was well-served by an Established church may be passed, or passing, and that perhaps a different church-state arrangement ought to be considered. But I'm in Australia, and it's not my call to make.

 

[Fantine]

In his first address King Charles refers to his strong faith in the Church of England.

So much for the rumor he was born again.

 

[JacksBratt]

King Charles said in his speech;




Personally I think it was her enormous sense of duty and the vows she made.
Plus, maybe, the fact that she saw the hurt caused over Edward VIII's abdication. I think she respected the monarchy too much to start assessing whether or not a person was suited to take over.

I thought that the crown was going to go to William... Either way, Chuck is old and I don't think he will stay on the throne long. We'll have to see how much of an impact this even has on countries other than England.

 

[Strong in Him]

I thought that the crown was going to go to William...

There was speculation for a while, especially after Diana's death and Charles' remarriage, that William should succeed. But Charles has always been heir to the throne.

Either way, Chuck is old and I don't think he will stay on the throne long.

His parents both died in their late 90's.
It's no guarantee, of course, but it's not impossible he could reign for 20 years. He might even make a silver jubilee.

We'll have to see how much of an impact this even has on countries other than England.

The Queen was head of the Commonwealth, so other countries are affected.
Whether, in time, they will vote to keep the monarchy or become republics, remains to be seen.

 

[DerSchweik]

I never did have much respect for Charles, particularly after his "affair" with Diana. It does seem his religious views are rather um, "all encompassing," and not strictly those of the Church of England. He did in fact express the desire to be known as "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of THE Faith" (caps added), going counter to centuries of tradition for the monarch. Link.

We'll see. Personally, I think him ascending the throne does more damage to an already dwindling monarchy than his religious beliefs do.

 

[Fantine]

Queen Elizabeth signed a rule decreeing future monarchs must retire at 80.
Although I suppose a new monarch could rescind it.
If he honors her wishes, he will retire in 5 or 6? years.

 

[Strong in Him]

Queen Elizabeth signed a rule decreeing future monarchs must retire at 80.

That's news to me.
Monarchs don't retire; they abdicate. Or, in case of illness, like with George III, the heir/a regent carries out their duties. A regent is also appointed for a child monarch under 18.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Then they are not real Buddhist. If your not practicing the tenants of Buddhism your not a Buddhist. And that goes for any religion. I would say at least half of the 2 billion Christians on this planet are not really Christian

Really? The media still calls non-practicing Catholics, Catholics.