During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

A new monarch got to be introduced by a ceremony of coronation, in which they had to swear their loyalty to the Providence.

Now you are really not only changing history but a couple of traditions and laws as well.

Congratulations!!!

2 Replies

@oristarA,

The law today (and since 17th century):

Quote:

Accession describes the event of a new Sovereign taking the throne upon the death of the previous King or Queen.

A new Sovereign succeeds to the throne as soon as his or her predecessor dies and is at once proclaimed at an Accession Council in St James's Palace.

Source: Royal Household

Of course we can discuss the differences between Catholic and Protestant coronations and why most were abolished in the medieval times, if the surving ceremonies are only propaganda or still follow the Catholic tradition or ...
Well, we could do so as long as I, uneducated and with my low IQ, can follow you. And can catch the nuances. (The English/British coronation ceremony was in Latin ... even after the Catholic Church was "thrown out" ...)

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oristarA wrote:
Though inheriting, the preparations for ascending to the throne
are not simple. Kings or queens have to swear their devotion to God
and pray for God's divine help: par for a state religion course.

"The King is dead. Long live the King." = a monarch accedes to the throne the moment their predecessor dies, not when they are crowned.
(All those e.g. English/British monarchs who weren't crowned at all, were still legal regents!)

oristarA wrote:

A new monarch got to be introduced by a ceremony of coronation,
in which they had to swear their loyalty to the Providence.

""Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio"
Since ancient times, it has been recognized
that the burden of proof is on he who asserts a proposition.

Will u be good enuf to quote and exhibit the specific oath that u have in mind,
for our analytical scrutiny, Oristar ?

The coronation ceremony takes quite a while,
during which the king or queen might swear all kinds of oaths,
of un-certain quantities of oaths, as the minutes and hours roll along.
We look forward eagerly to your citation to the particular one that u mean.

David

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, forgive my rare shot in the dark, but isn't it evidence that they were worshiping a god at the time? The founding fathers left the religious intolerance based on the same subject, no?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I don't think that this is a plaintiff presentation here. And even it was - we don't have US-laws here.

This is about history! Just some hinds: English kings were crowned, while the ruling king still was alive, English kings ruled without coronation, there's alway a time gap between the start of the rule and the coronation (about one year)

Beside that, I didn't have any oath in mind but responded to

Quote:

A new monarch got to be introduced by a ceremony of coronation, ...

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

This is about history!

It certainly might be the topic of legal history courses at law schools as well (it wasn't at mine), but generally it's more something for historians.

The latest book about it, though, was written by a Senior Lecturer in English - but she's a historian, too.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't think that this is a plaintiff presentation here.
And even it was - we don't have US-laws here.

I m endeavoring to get better clarification
of Oristar's question in regard to royal oaths,
the specific ones that she mentioned.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

This is about history! Just some hinds: English kings were crowned, while the ruling king still was alive, English kings ruled without coronation, there's alway a time gap between the start of the rule and the coronation (about one year)

Beside that, I didn't have any oath in mind but responded to

Quote:
A new monarch got to be introduced by a ceremony of coronation, ...

The principle that the burden of proof
is on the affirmative side, is not confined to litigation, Walter.

Do u disagree with that ?

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Will u be good enuf to quote and exhibit the specific oath that u have in mind,
for our analytical scrutiny, Oristar ?

David

Of course I will. Here's a request: would you please use "you" instead of "u"? The letter u usually refers to a base in RNA or the notorious radioactive element used for atomic bombs. It gives me an unpleasant feeling.

I appreciate Walter Hinteler's earnestness on history. But his question is too simple. I've been busy reading some scientific literature on other matters. I'll reply later.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

But his question is too simple.

You really should publish your result in a book or as an essay in a magazine!!! Other historians are disputing and discussing this (especially after the publications by Hunt!).

1 Reply

@oristarA,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Will u be good enuf to quote and exhibit the specific oath that u have in mind,
for our analytical scrutiny, Oristar ?

David

oristarA wrote:

Of course I will. Here's a request: would you please use "you" instead of "u"? The letter u usually refers to a base in RNA or the notorious radioactive element used for atomic bombs. It gives me an unpleasant feeling. . . .

I can make exceptions for ESL students.

David

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

oristarA wrote:

But his question is too simple.

It really is rather simple to explain why Saxons and Angles had only "princes" in their countries of origin but hereditary kings in England.

It's simple, of course, even with my low knowledge of medieval history to get why the English monarchy was following the same/a similar procedure as did any other European hereditary monarchy before.

It's even simple for my uneducated mind why the English monarchy kept the Latin Catholic rite of the coronation for quite some time though being Protestants (Anglicans).

Simple, too, why they kept the ceremony of a coronation even if other monarchies had abandoned it.

All that wasn't questioned but oristar claims that only the ceremonial coronation established a king/queen.
I don't need a burden of proof to show that this is wrong, David: more than 1400 years of history are proof enough

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I can make exceptions for ESL students.

David

Do you know what is English writing etiquette?

You're selfish, Dave.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The nuances are buried in (1) and (2) of mine:

(1) Though inheriting, the preparations for ascending to the throne are not simple. Kings or queens have to swear their devotion to God and pray for God's divine help: par for a state religion course.

Pay attention to "the preparations". It is a long way to go. A ruling king or queen has to choose one of their sons or daughters or etc. to be heir apparent to the throne. Who will be the heir apparent? You have to educate and train them all very well and then find the best candidate. Once the heir apparent has been picked up, formal preparations for ascending to the throne begin and often will take years before the ruling king or queen dies. During the period, anything can happen. One of the worst situations is that the heir apparent dies unexpectedly, The process of picking up a new heir apparent will get started once again. In all these processes, state religion requires the heir apparent always keeps faith in God and keep it in daily life (e.g. grace before the meal).

(2) A new monarch got to be introduced by a ceremony of coronation, in which they had to swear their loyalty to the Providence.

It could be rewritten this way with the same meaning:

A new monarch had to be formally crowned by a ceremony of coronation, in which they had to swear their loyalty to the Providence.

That is, the formal crowning cannot be cancelled.

Now, is there any more problem in understanding the nuances?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

I do understand your English very well. Thank you!

I don't understand why the official website of the British monarchy, lawyers and historians don't follow your argumentation.

(And what about all those monarchs, who weren't crowned at all?)

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

How do you explain, as an aside, that for decades the crowning ceremony in England was done in a different rite to that of the "state religion"?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I do understand your English very well. Thank you!

I don't understand why the official website of the British monarchy, lawyers and historians don't follow your argumentation.

(And what about all those monarchs, who weren't crowned at all?)

You still haven't got the nuance there: theirs and mine are consistent:

Quote:

The coronation of the British monarch is a ceremony (specifically, initiation rite) in which the monarch of the United Kingdom is formally crowned and invested with regalia. It corresponds to coronation ceremonies that formerly occurred in other European monarchies, which have currently abandoned coronations in favour of inauguration or enthronement ceremonies.

The coronation usually takes place several months after the death of the previous monarch, as it is considered a joyous occasion that would be inappropriate when mourning still continues. This also gives planners enough time to complete the elaborate arrangements required. For example, Elizabeth II was crowned on 2 June 1953, having ascended the throne on 6 February 1952.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_British_monarch#Recognition_and_oath

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

How do you explain, as an aside, that for decades the crowning ceremony in England was done in a different rite to that of the "state religion"?

You've mixed two different things up.

I said "state religion requires the heir apparent always keeps faith in God and keep it in daily life". It doesn't need to hold a state religion rite for demanding such requirement. The rules of the state religion are already there. The heir apparent must abide by the rules.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I can make exceptions for ESL students.

David

oristarA wrote:

Do you know what is English writing etiquette?

I 've not studied it. No.

oristarA wrote:

You're selfish, Dave.

Yes, Oristar.
Its a lifelong trait, well suited to Individualism.

I recommend it.

David

0 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

You still haven't got the nuance there: theirs and mine are consistent:

As said: I'm not on your intellectual level and certainly less educated (only one of my years paper was about the legacy of the coronations in hereditary European monarchies - unfortunately, we didn't have wikipedia in those days but had to use "real" sources).

But thank you for trying to explain it to me! Much appreciated.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

I said "state religion requires the heir apparent always keeps faith in God and keep it in daily life". It doesn't need to hold a state religion rite for demanding such requirement. The rules of the state religion are already there. The heir apparent must abide by the rules.

After reading your informative response again, I must admit that I do understand it, but might got it wrong.

So Henry VIII separated of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church, became "head" of it. As did all the following monarchs.

But only since the time of William III the king has sworn to maintain "the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law",before it was the Church of God ('ecclesia') - something which I don't get either since the Church of England isn't protestant but "catholic and reformed" according to self-description.

Would you kindly help me again, oristarA? I'm really eager to learn and get better educated!

2 Replies

During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know