Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 5,345
Reply with quote  #1 
In addition to the traditional Christmas address by the Queen, this year the Prince of Wales has also made an address to mark the holiday.  Prince Charles spoke to warn about the rising tide of populism around the world and it's effects on minorities, particularly religious minorities.  He reminded people of the horrors of World War II, and the danger of repeating those horrors today.  He also spoke in support of those who have had to flee violence around the world, and the need to treat them with compassion, calling attention to the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt to escape violent oppression.

Some are saying that the prince is treading dangerously close to political comment.  Other are applauding him.

The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #2 
Disappointed in the Prince of Wales comments here (very much so), but have agreed with other things that he's said in the past.   However, since I am a monarchist and a royalist – no further comment.
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."

Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #3 
The Guardian has, perhaps expectedly, given a slightly misleading portrayal of HRH's comments. He did criticise populism and intolerance in the West, but he also spent as much or more time on the general theme of rising religious persecution, especially of Christians (which is obviously a reference to the Near East more than anything). The full address gives fuller context to the slice quoted and focused on by the Guardian. The comments are more or less what one would expect given the prince's beliefs (he is heavily influenced by people like Guenon, Martin Lings, Dr. Nasr, Corbin, and Kathleen Raine).

Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #4 
The Prince's address, given on the 22nd, was not as such a Christmas message supplementing the Queen's, though it was at Christmas time and naturally related to the events commemorated by the season. The full text is given below; I would not myself have found anything in it criticising the future President, who for all his manifold defects has shown no particular sign of religious intolerance that I can recall (his remarkably if characteristically stupid call for a ban on Muslim entry to the United States was as far as I can see a response to terrorism, even if a highly impracticable one, not an attack on faith), or the vote to leave the EU, or any other far-fetched thing that might be ascribed to it. Rather, it seems to me for the most part sincere, thoughtful and entirely unexceptionable.

It might be pointed out that Mohammed never showed too much interest in allowing anyone else to enjoy religious freedom, nor have Christian churches through the ages, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether modern-day Muslims and Christians should be able to practice their faith free from persecution and fear. Of course they should, wherever in the world they might live, and that was the thrust of the Prince's remarks, unfortunately obscured by the whipped-up controversy that followed.

In London recently I met a Jesuit priest from Syria. He gave me a graphic account of what life is like for those Christians he was forced to leave behind. He told me of mass kidnappings in parts of Syria and Iraq and how he feared that Christians will be driven en masse out of lands described in the Bible. He thought it quite possible there will be no Christians in Iraq within five years. Clearly, for such people, religious freedom is a daily, stark choice between life and death.

The scale of religious persecution around the world is not widely appreciated. Nor is it limited to Christians in the troubled regions of the Middle East. A recent report suggests that attacks are increasing on Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Baha’is and many other minority faiths. And in some countries even more insidious forms of extremism have recently surfaced, which aim to eliminate all types of religious diversity.

We are also struggling to capture the immensity of the ripple effect of such persecution. According to the United Nations, 5.8 million MORE people abandoned their homes in 2015 than the year before, bringing the annual total to a staggering 65.3 million. That is almost equivalent to the entire population of the United Kingdom.

And the suffering doesn’t end when they arrive seeking refuge in a foreign land. We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive towards those who adhere to a minority faith.

All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s. I was born in 1948 – just after the end of World War II in which my parents' generation had fought, and died, in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe. That, nearly seventy years later, we should still be seeing such evil persecution is, to me, beyond all belief. We owe it to those who suffered and died so horribly not to repeat the horrors of the past.

Normally, at Christmas, we think of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I wonder, though, if this year we might remember how the story of the Nativity unfolds – with the fleeing of the Holy Family to escape violent persecution. And we might also remember that when the Prophet Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina, he did so because he, too, was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship.

Whichever religious path we follow, the destination is the same - to value and respect the other person, accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of God. That’s what I saw when attending the consecration of the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral in London recently. Here were a people persecuted for their religion in their own country, but finding refuge in another land and freedom to practise their faith according to their conscience.

It is an example to inspire us all this Christmastime.


Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #5 
The Prince has again inadvertently found himself at the centre of a controversy, this time over his use of an RAF VIP transport for a goodwill visit to European capitals at the same time that the Prime Minister was making a negotiating trip to Gulf states. She, poor thing, was forced to charter a private aircraft for the trip, which has caused outrage on the basis that an 'elected ruler' should always take priority over the unelected Royal Family.

The Prime Minister as it happens was not elected to that position, though that is irrelevant, it is still properly hers. And she is not a ruler, that would be the Queen. Mrs May is the Queen's principal minister and exercises her powers on her behalf during the Queen's pleasure; the Queen appointed her and can dismiss her. In theory, but the formal subjection to the Crown is I think among the most valuable functions of a constitutional monarchy, keeping politicians in check and stopping their invariably inflated egos from running away with them, as the nation's premier position is always and forever out of their reach.

So I think it quite right that Royal family members should always take priority over servants, aka ministers, including the Prime Minister. The article suggests that use of the transport, a modified Airbus A330, is actually on a first-come-first-served basis. Another article I read said that there is a fixed order of priority, namely 1. the Queen, 2. the Prince of Wales, 3. the Prime Minister. The first appears to be correct but in my view the second ought to be.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.