i realize you may disagree, ahinton - but the idea of kingship stems from the bible itself. the king being a servant of the people - originally. one who is both ordained by God and man. but, lately, it seems - leaving God out is easier -especially when it comes to divorce.
No such rulers before Biblical times? Oh...
the coronation anthems often come from psalms and other places with distinction that they obtained this title from both God and man. the coronation ceremony itself - being very old and stemming back to biblical times and the very throne of David - which was said to never lack an heir to the throne (which it hasn't to this very day).
Coronation anthems and such like draw on such texts (when they do) because that it what is commissioned for the purpose; this would only happen in a country where the monarch is to preside over a nation whose principal religion - or rather "establishment" one - is Christianity, so it would be a bit silly in Thailand, for example...
the modern day interpretation is that kings are not necessary. too much unsubstantiated spending and noone seems to value genetic heirs to a throne.
King George the Bush, as in? I don't think that this is the case, actually, even if only because plenty of non-monarchical premiers of nations have similarly been accused of such financial corruption and self-serving. As to genetic heirs to the throne, there's no absolute guarantee that the longest serving monarchy - i.e. the British one of which you write here - will always have such heirs ready and willing to assume the increasingly perilous position of monarch in the present and future world where Britain is part of an ever-expanding EC and where the so-called "British" sector of the population will likely no longer be in the majority in 20 years' time.
and, yet - you have to admit 'the crown' has a long and distinguished history and that the queen herself has been cause for much honor
If you mean the English (later British) one, then yes, it does indeed have a long and distinguished history; to what extent the present Queen "has been the cause for much honor" depends on individual viewpoints, I imagine, but there can be no doubt that she has continued to work tirelessly and, although she certainly isn't short of a pound or two in the bank, she has put the country before self pretty much consistently and, given that she has such personal wealth, she certainly ain't doing it for the money.
(in the way she dealt with world war II) being quite fearless
Her accession was some eight years after WWII ended...
and the way her mother has been.
Ah, yes, that; keeping the English gin industry alive all by herself while maintaining an overdraft at Coutts & Co. even larger than the one that I have there!...
as i see it - kings represent their country. if a history of scandal or divorce is prominent among a christian nation...people talk.
You mean that they don't do so when the same circumstances arise in non-Christian nations?...
even if we think it is obsolete. they still do. it wouldn't be gossip if noone cared.
Oh, come now! It's the job of the news media to decide what people will gossip about and what they're supposed to be interested in...
there is something that people innately understand is 'not right' about a person in high places having 'scandals' surround their name.
Maybe so, but aren't people so used to it by now that, when they encounter the known history of Queen Elizabeth II of Britain, their jaws drop in sheer disbelief at the extent to which she appear to be the exception to this?
i stand by what i said - no matter what - because it is my opinion and i feel that i have as much right to feel what i do about the matter as you, ahinton.
Of course you do! Quite right, too. But do plase stop calling me "ahinton". I call you "Susan", don't I? I'll stop doing so if you'd rather I didn't, however...
and, if you do not like 'my God' - then that is your right.
It's not quite as straightforward as that; I just don't feel drawn towards certain things that you have written about and attributed to Him at the points where I have replied to you thus.
in my heart - on the day she died - it was as if God showed his love for her great sufferring by taking her out of her misery and still allowing her boys to have the integrity of an intact family.
Not only do you appear to ascribe to God exclusive responsibility for the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, you seem also to believe that robbing those boys of their mother was considerate to them; where's your Christian compassion now, Susan? - did you accidentally leave it in Church?
they were royal blood and deserved the honor and distinction of a royal name that was not shared by other sibilings from the next marriage (if there was to be one).
But there wasn't another such marriage until several years later in any case! - and was it OK to leave them motherless and carrying that Royal name when not only had their father's marriage hit the rocks but their Aunt Annie's and Uncle Andy's had done so as well?...
i think dodi had good intentions and probably would have married her if it were possible. the thing is - i don't think God had this in mind.
Perhaps he did and perhaps he would have done that; we'll never know for sure now, will we? As to whether or not God had it in mind for these two to marry, it is not difficult to extrapolate from what you write here that you appear to believe that God felt that it would be inappropriate for Diana, Princess of Wales to marry a Muslim (despite the fact that she could conceivably have been stripped of her title had she done so and the Royal household determined such a marriage to be inconsistent with retenton of such a title - remember the case of Edward VIII?), so He arranged all the circumstances that led to the two of them being killed in that car crash and then let the whole thing rumble on and on in the public media as her motherless children grew up under perpetual public scrutiny until the point at which He would finally hand on a plate not the head of John the Baptist but a possible opportunity for Mohammed al-Fayed to interrogate the Princes Philip and Charles at the British taxpayers' (very considerable) expense in a court of law that would surely be far better used for the hopefully forthcoming trials(s) of one William Barrington-Coupe. Were you to be correct about God's rôle here, you would be illustating just why I'd want to have nothing to do with a God that behaved like that; fortunately, however, I do not believe that you
are correct in this. It gives me a heavy heart indeed to think that your Christian beliefs lead you to imagine such cruel scenarios as this. It also occurs to me that it's a very good things that you're an American citizen, since this fact will exonerate you from serving on the jury in this case and the remaining jurors from treating you in a way that I would not want to see anyone treat you. Furthermore, were the court to conclude that the sole perpetrator of the crash that caused the deaths of those two was God, some might see this as a very convenient means by which to avoid having to convict and send anyone to prison for conspiracy to commit murder.
Susan, you can come across as remarkably hard-hearted sometimes, for all that I'm quite sure you don't really mean to; it's not a pretty sight, believe me.
As to the possible outcome of this hearing, one may suppose that the worst imaginable situation might be one in which Prince Philip and Prince Charles and - dare one even think it - Queen Elizabeth Herself were, by dint of the skilful manipulation of lawyers, pronounced jointly and/or severally guilty of conspiracy to commit murder when in fact they were innocent; if a British court under the Queen's own ultimate jurisdiction were to convict them all of this, innocent or not, I think that another handing on a plate would result pretty swiftly - that of the Presidency of the People's Democratic Republic of Britain to one James Gordon Brown...
Best,
Alistair
Topic: Princess Diana Conspiracy.