My Thoughts on the Coronation of King Charles III

Like many of you, I will be watching the coronation of King Charles III on Saturday.  It’s a paradox I grant you as we live in a deeply materialistic, post-Christian world.  Republicanism has been in the ascendant ever since the late eighteenth century and many crowned heads have fallen since then.

Yet I believe that millions of people throughout the world will be transfixed at what will be going on at Westminster Abbey.  I dare say that it might be the most-watched event in history.

Is it because it’s a spectacle? 

No.  I think it’s deeper than that.  What we will be seeing is an ancient Christian rite, one with deep spiritual meaning; yearnings which are embedded in the human psyche and go back to the mists of time.  In fact, we would do well to remember that Charles’ paternal lineage is Orthodox and that the Patriarch of Jerusalem confected (and consecrated) the Oil of Anointing. 

If the coronation of Charles III is as huge as I anticipate, one wonders why this is so. 

Perhaps something is missing from the lives of most people.  The liturgical elements that reinforced the sacral elements of land and culture have all but evaporated.  A coronation brings back that historical memory.

Many blame the Enlightenment (and justly so) for this sad state of affairs.  I would push it further back, to the Reformation itself, that philosophy which stripped the numinous from Christianity, thereby making rationalism –and therefore atheism–inevitable.

This why I sense an impending disappointment in the upcoming ritual.  For Charles has not only trimmed down the ancient rite from three hours to one, he has let it be known that he will not be known as “the Defender of the Faith” but “the Defender of Faith”.

This is more than a grammatical error; the dropping of the definite article as it were. 

You see, Charles wants to be “inclusive”.  For many of us, that’s an admirable trait because to be exclusive offends our modern sensibilities (which is nonsense on its face).  Inclusiveness has all but destroyed the Church of England.  As we speak, many of the churches which make up the Anglican Communion have cut all ties with their mother church for reasons too numerous to mention here (rhymes with lobotomy).  

Unfortunately, he is losing a golden opportunity, one which could bring a dose of wonder to a world gone mad. 

He should remember that it was because of his royalty, that even a commoner like his late wife Diana, Princess of Wales, was able to enchant tens of millions of people throughout the world.  People didn’t turn out to see the daughter of an English nobleman –they are a dime a dozen–but to see the future Queen of England.  

This was not because of PR but because there is something special about kingship.  Indeed, history is marked by the names of kings from Cyrus the Great to Nicholas II.  One only has to mention a single name –Alexander, Constantine, Richard the Lionheart or Saladin–to know that we are not dealing with ordinary men.  Even the great republican leaders stand out because they embodied kingly attributes, especially the martial ones.  (Was it Churchill who said nobody ever erected a monument to a committee?)  

I’m afraid that Charles does not see this and we will be poorer for it.

How different it was with the passing of Constantine II of Greece, where thousands of Greeks lined the streets of Athens to get a glimpse of his coffin.  As it exited the cathedral, crowds of people roared his name and then his son’s.  None of the presidential mediocrities that succeeded him since 1974 have ever experienced such adulation.  Nor could they.

I actually have some interesting thoughts about the late king which I hope to share with you at some future date.  

Now I realize that Charles is an Anglican, while most of us on this blog I presume are Orthodox.  So rather than take him to task for his revisions of the rite and what this portends for the future, I’ll step aside and direct your attention to the following video.  It’s given from an Anglican perspective and is consistent with the historical and theological context of that church.  

 As for myself, I hope to live long enough to see a God-pleasing Tsar undergo the complete sacrament someday in the near future.  Perhaps Charles’ coronation will whet the appetite of the world for such an event.  Regardless, I see nothing wrong with raising a glass of whiskey on Saturday and saying along with thousands of Englishmen, “Long live the King! God save the King!”


  1. the Patriarch of Jerusalem confected (and consecrated) the Oil of Anointing.

    I’m still honestly perplexed by this. Why? Is this common to “anoint” a non-Orthodox ruler? In Orthodoxy we use oil as a sacrament of healing for those who profess the Orthodox Faith, I dare say that King Charles does not hold that Faith.

    “the Defender of the Faith” but “the Defender of Faith”

    In contrast to my above statement, maybe Charles no longer sees Anglicanism as the faith, he does seem to have a great affinity for Orthodoxy. Maybe in his inclusivity he will drop the requirement of royals to be Anglican.

    All of that may just be wishful thinking I’m sure.

    As to why people are fascinated by royalty, I think it’s because it’s a major difference to the constant modernism we are constantly bombarded by in our day to day lives and it’s something we romanticize. Unfortunately the European royalty is now largely woke and those countries that have royalty (who are all but figureheads) oversee state “churches” that are all but woke as well: Netherlands, England, Norway, Sweden, etc.

    • Antiochene Son says

      The monarch is required by law to swear he is “a faithful member of the Reformed Protestant religion.” If he or any of his heirs were to cease so being, he would be ipso facto deposed.

      Were he to sack all the liberalism from the Anglican Church and bring it into acceptable communion with Orthodoxy, he might get away with it. But let’s be honest, his prayer at the coronation was to unite all the religions in pursuit of goodness or somesuch. Most or probably all of the secularist nonsense at the coronation came at his request.

      I don’t know the man’s heart, but at least publicly he is doubling down on his mother’s aim to be unobtrusive and skate by in the godless society, ignoring his sworn role to promote Christianity and root out evil with the Bible as his guide, so he doesn’t get replaced by a president.

      Don’t rock the boat is the only task of British royalty.

      • Brendan says

        Their aim is to preserve the dynasty, not the people.
        They are allied with, not against, the oligarchs.
        But it was not always so when we had Scots Kings.

        James I, King of Scots, swore to make the key
        keep the castle and the bracken bush the cow.
        For his pains he was murdered on the very night
        Catharine Douglas earned the name Kate Barlass;
        which is the origin of the phrase: Katie, bar the door.

    • yannaro says

      I also thought of why an Orthodox bishop would consecrate oil to be used in the coronation of an heterodox person. What’s the meaning of consecrating the oil? Also, is this a one off? Was only a certain amount of oil “consecrated” and if not all was used, what’s to be of the rest. I don’t think any Orthodox bishop should “consecrate” oil to be used by heterodox “bishops” in a religious service. Finally, a heterodox monarch cannot profess to defend the faith. He can profess a faith, or faith, but there is only one faith, THE faith, the New Israel what already worships in the New Jerusalem, so what he says is irrelevant.

  2. Brendan says

    As far as I am concerned, the only King Charles III we have
    ever had (or ever will have) is Charles Edward Stuart…

  3. Illumined says

    Do not be deceived, Prince Charles is fully committed to defending the faith of the Church of Gaia and its Davos World Economic Forum acolytes. It’s a great temptation to look to the powers of this world, but all are fallible and even though such systems may on occasion produce pious, godly rulers like Justinian this is the exception and not the norm.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Sadly, I can’t say that I disagree with you.

      That said, the Lord has a way of getting through to people through His sacraments, no matter how debased they are or how unworthy the recipient.

      • The sacraments are only found within the Orthodox Church, not a twice removed, heretical, schismatic, amoral religious organization pretending to be Christian.

      • There is something to be said for George’s point here. Though of course the coronation is graceless, the form has a certain significance, even the simple existence of the notion of monarchy. Devout republicans would ban the very idea.

  4. Mark E. Fisus says

    A tree is known by its fruit, and the Anglican Church started because philandering King Henry VIII wanted a divorce.

    • Brendan says

      That is a trifle harsh. It started because he wanted a male heir
      (which Catherine of Aragon could not give him) to avoid any
      repeat of the disasters resulting from the Wars of the Roses.

      • If I understand the history accurately, Henry also believed that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was incestuous (she had been married to his older brother Arthur, who died shortly after marrying Catherine). The sons born to Henry and Catherine died and he viewed this as judgment from God.

        • Brendan says

          This is correct, though Catherine had testified
          that the marriage to Arthur was not consumated;
          therefore, being annulled, there would be no incest.

          What was the truth of the matter, only she (and Arthur) knew.

          • Solidarity Priest says

            He suddenly discovered the marriage was incestuous when he wanted to get out of it. That reminds me of Filaret Denisenko suddenly remembering that he was Ukrainian when he was passed over for Patriarch of Moscow.

            • Johann Sebastian says

              That reminds me of Filaret Denisenko suddenly remembering that he was Ukrainian when he was passed over for Patriarch of Moscow.

              This is the best (and most concise) explanation of the Ukrainian schism that I’ve ever read.

            • Brendan says

              As Flaubert might have said:
              “Ce sont les mots justes.”
              These are the right words.

      • Mark E. Fisus says

        It’s not harsh, it’s just an observation.

        They even cut the Creed (butchered as it is with a filioque, at least it affirms the divinity of Christ) out of the coronation. Count that with woke ideology, she-priests, and sexual deviants in the episcopate as among the fruit of Anglicanism.

        That Henry VIII might have sought a divorce to avoid a succession war doesn’t make what he did less wrong. The ends do not justify the means. Divorce is wrong.

        • Brendan says

          Mark E. Fisus: “…the Anglican Church started
          because…King Henry VIII wanted a divorce.”

          Moi: “It started because he wanted a male heir
          (which Catherine of Aragon could not give him)”.

          I excuse nothing. I simply mark the cause of the matter.

      • Also, trying to remember history I learned long ago, the kings of England we’re getting tired of sending tax money to Rome, and having what amounted to an absentee landlord. Somewhere along the timeline, state churches were beginning to form, where the pope was no longer the head or ruler of a distant land.

        We tend to forget, or overlook, the whole situation occurring during that time. We also seem to forget the trials and battles our forefathers endured to bring us where we are today. We retrojudge them by our standards without delving into their story.

    • Jeff Moss says

      A divorce is just what King Henry did NOT want…at least, not when he was seeking to marry Anne Boleyn. He wanted the marriage with Catherine of Aragon annulled, so that he could legitimately claim to be still a bachelor…

      Unfortunately, Catherine’s nephew was the Holy Roman Emperor, who had sacked Rome just months before and was effectively holding the Pope prisoner…so, no annulment for Henry.

  5. Well, I welcome the change in England from a matriarchy to a patriarchy . . .

    Just kidding. Ok, so Charles is not much of a man, I get it. As a monarchist, I wonder why they bother. I suspect it’s all just a function of British pretense. But if he grows a pair, somehow, miraculously, then perhaps it will benefit the Anglosphere.

    But don’t hold your breath.

    I’ll be watching the Derby.

    • Illumined says

      Even if somehow a genuinely pious king or queen was put on the throne in today’s society that fact alone would instantly discredit them, and I doubt they’d last. The social rot under that golden throne is far too deep at this point.

    • Mark E. Fisus says

      He’s not half the man his mother was, but he’s the man the UK deserves. He reflects their present society.

  6. Antiochene Son says

    Sadly I think that if Charles (or the Anglican Church) actually believed anything that is said in the rite of coronation, they wouldn’t have slashed its contents. Even the Nicene Creed, which was recited at every British coronation, was cut.

    Not that I have any illusions that the Anglican Church is even remotely Orthodox; it has always been thoroughly Protestant. The radical Cranmer is venerated as a saint, after all.

    It is nice to see at least a vestige of what was lost and I will be waking early to watch it tomorrow, but it will be as entertainment, and perhaps the last gasp of an overtly Christian state. I suspect if the monarchy contines, the coronations of William and George will be even further reduced, if the rite survives at all.

    While the late Elizabeth II adjusted to save her own position, it came at a huge cost. The Church and State that she is the (nominal) head of are both in shambles. She was too permissive, giving assent to gay marriage and every other vile thing that was legalized. Perhaps a greater witness would be to have gone down with the ship.

    The Holy Tsar Nicholas was the right example in this, refusing to violate his oath even at the cost of his own life.

    • Jeff Moss says

      Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Hindu, was chosen to read the Epistle, Colossians 1:9-17:

      “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light…and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins…For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

      What better evidence could there be that those involved in the coronation didn’t believe what they were saying?!

    • Solidarity Priest says

      Yes, and the world still repeats all the filthy lies and half-truths about the Tsar Martyr while heaping praise on King Charles. Tells you all you need to know, doesn’t it?

  7. Evidently Gonzalo is in the pokey again:

  8. Well, our supposedly RC prez swore on an RC bible to uphold the constitution and the teachings of the Bible. We are finding out what it means when someone has no intention of carrying out his promises. He has cut himself adrift and trying to take us with him.

  9. Jeff Moss says

    It’s curious to me that most of Europe’s surviving kingdoms (all except Spain and Belgium) are Germanic Protestant monarchies. I would have expected Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism to be more hospitable to the continuance of monarchy than Protestantism is.

    Of course, several of the more prominent Orthodox and Catholic monarchies (Russia, France…) came to spectacularly violent ends…their states weren’t exactly holding to their ancestral religions when those monarchies ceased to be.

    • Brendan says

      “The Catholic Church is the State Church and as such
      shall enjoy the full protection of the State”

      “Catholicism is the official church of Monaco, and is the majority religion.”

    • Illumined says

      Most Orthodox monarchs had a nasty habit of being overthrown by communists.

      • Antiochene Son says

        Communism is Orthodoxy without Christ, much as Capitalism is Protestantism without Christ.

        • …and Roman Catholicism is
          Catholicism without Christ…?

          • Rather than entertain what others are or are not, I marvel that God saw fit to allow me to find the fullness of the faith, which does not mean that others do not have it to varying degrees or that they don’t avail themselves to what they have more fully than I do with what I have. At the end of the day, we won’t be judged on the pedigree of where we worship, but the degree to which we allowed it to draw us closer to Christ.

            Comparing ourselves to others could even be used to our detriment because God will rightly expect more.

            Certainly in my case, where my being in the Church and my partaking of it has had so much to do with the effort of other people God brought into my life, who, for whatever reason (now, this is truly the great mystery), love me enough to gently take my hand and pull me closer to the Church, including my husband.

            Nothing in or about the Church was acquired though my efforts. I am simply the beneficiary. At the end of the day, I imagine Christ will say, “I see you were afforded the benefit of the Orthodox Church. Let’s examine who are you are as a result of this great blessing and what you have you done with it. That’s what we’re here to discuss today!”

        • Very well summarized in a nutshell, more or less! I may use this quote, if it’s OK with you!

          I recall about 30 years ago when reading Frank Schaeffer’s “Dancing Alone” and in his old print newspaper “The Christian Activist” (before Schaeffer went off the deep end) — how he outlines that it was no accident that communism took hold in what were traditionally Orthodox Christian lands. It was the first time I had read someone who had put those pieces together.

          The concept that “we are all ultimately responsible for each other” is a very Orthodox Christian belief, and which is very true. We find our salvation within community. The American Thoreau to “find salvation with God alone in the woods” makes no sense in an Orthodox Christian framework.

          The communists took/used/distorted this truth for their own ends. And yes, as you state, they tried to eliminate Christ from the picture. The people saw through the ruse, though, and fought back, saying “no way.”

          I worry far more about America and the Western lands, at this point. At least Russia and Eastern Europe had about 1000 years of Orthodox Christian history to fall back on. America and the West ain’t got nothin’ like that. What are we going to fall back on? Jonathan Edwards?

    • Solidarity Priest says

      No, the Russian people held to the faith as did the Tsar. It was the rotten intelligentsia which welcomed the revolution. Then, many of them fled to Paris when the revolution went far past what they envisioned for Russia. Vladimir Nabokov might be considered a good example; a liberal, an agnostic, probably a Mason. Anyone who has read his novel “Lolita” might think of another name for him.

  10. And of course, Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury, a deeply ridiculous figure in his own right, will not issue the right words when presenting Charles the Sword of State:

    “Hear our prayers, O Lord, we beseech thee, and so direct and support thy servant [name], that he may not bear the Sword in vain; but may use it as the minister of God for the terror and punishment of evildoers, and for the protection and encouragement of those that do well.”

  11. As long as you are calling Welby ridiculous, what nomers would you apply to the EP wannabe pope and warfomenter, and the Ab spy here. Come to think of it, they are in a whole other league. But all three are doing their best to destroy Christianity.

    • I would label him dangerous.

      My assessment of Welby is that his persona, his physical presence as well as the thoughts that emanate from his mind make him ridiculous.

    • Brendan says

      Starkey is good fun:
      critical, but not too serious;
      except that he always is…

    • Calvin Robinson, who is the host of this video that George has linked here, was denied ordination by that nurse-cum-bishopess of London, Sarah Mullally. The bishoprick of London is third in what we Orthodox might call, the “diptychs” of the Church of England. Ms. Mullally isn’t a graduate of any of the finer universities in England, and she came to ordained ministry later in life, so it is likely that other more-qualified churchmen were passed over so that this feminist could be elevated to her lofty position in the Church. Apparently she denied ordination to Mr. Robinson because he was too, too traditional for the Church…the Church that is steeped in tradition. Robinson left the C. of E. and joined a breadaway Anglican denomination, where he was ordained deacon.

      Mullally can be seen reading the gospel at King Charles’ coronation, another liturgical mistake in a troubling coronation. Anglicanism has enough vestiges of Tradition that call for the gospel to be read by a deacon, if there is one present. The choice by Charles, or whoever was on the coronation committee, to have the bishopess of London read it was not only a departure from the rubrics, it was a contemptible bit of virtue signaling – an obvious sop to the feminists in the crowd. Just think – if Mullally had ordained Robinson, she could have bowed out and allowed the black deacon to read the gospel. Wouldn’t that have ticked a similar box for the notion of intersectionality?

      The whole coronation was so replete with politically-correct multi-culturalism that it came off looking contrived to me.

      • As I watched the ceremony unfold, I kept thinking that God sure has a sense of humor. Here we had the two main protagonists, Welby and the king, in a sort of forced dance. Everyone knew that both had rejected Christianity for wokism. But there they were in the sight of millions proclaiming in word and deed what they had renounced.

        God sure has a sense of humor. God loves to allow ourselves to be boxed in.

        By the way, Welby has just recently been notified by the majority of Anglicans who live in what is called the Global south, that he is no longer their leader.

        He no longer represents 85% of the Anglican Church.

        • I understand what you are getting at, Lina, but I would argue that both the archbishop and the king consider their individual working philosophies to be improvements on musty old Christianity. Either way, the king is set for the rest of his earthly life, but the archbishop’s seat is not quite so secure.

          Since Anglican Church polity is conciliar – somewhat like our Orthodox polity, but less authoritarian – the Abp. of Canterbury has about as much authority over Anglicans in the rest of the world as Pat. Bart. has over the world’s Orthodox. However, he does have a high profile. Opposition from the more conservative black and brown Anglicans of the Global South has been going on for years. The perennial question is: how far can the bough bend before it breaks?

          Liberal churchmen could make a strong case against white supremacy there in the upper echelons of the Anglican Communion…if they themselves weren’t on board with a lot of the nonsense that exudes from white Canterbury!

  12. Our good friend, Father Joseph Wilson, sent us the following which we found interesting:

    No one seems to remember this, judging from the public commentary, but the title “Defender of the Faith” was granted by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII in 1521.

    He granted the title in reward for the book “Defense of the Seven Sacraments,” which Henry authored and promulgated as a response to the heresies of Martin Luther. Luther posted his XCV Theses in 1517; Henry prepared his reply with the assistance of St Thomas More.

    O the irony: I wonder if King Charles even knows this bit of history. The English monarchs have been bearing a title granted their predecessor by the Pope as a reward for defending the z Catholic Faith.
    Fr W

  13. So whose going to see the movie Nefarious? Phycological Triller / Not Horror

    I was given a “heads-up” about the theme and I can’t think of a better way for it to play out than what promises to be in this movie. I can understand why Rotten Tomatoes panned it and why not everyone (or even most) agree. I suspect the truth is a little too hardcore for them, but I’ve got to tell you I’ve wondered about this myself.

  14. “The Archbishop of Canterbury has abrogated his fiduciary responsibility and violated his consecration vows to “banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word” with his advocating this change in the Church of England. He is shredding the last remaining fragile fabric of the Anglican Communion. It is time for the Primate of All England to step down from his role as “first among equals” in leading the Anglican Communion. It is now time for the Primates of the Anglican Communion to choose for themselves their “first among equals” rather than having a secular government of only one nation appoint our leader. We are no longer colonies of Great Britain.”

    The Most Rev. Dr. Foley Beach
    Chairman, Gafcon Primates Council
    9 Feb. 2023

    (GAFCON stands for the Global Anglican Future Conference, a large group of mostly evangelical Anglican bishops, clergy and laity most heavily populated in the Global South and represents the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide. This letter was written in response to the Church of England’s decision this past winter to permit the blessing of homosexual couples.)

  15. Brendan says

    Jacobite Toast:
    God save the King! God save the Faith’s Defender!
    What harm in saving the Pretender?
    But who Pretender is? And who is King?
    God save us all! That’s quite another thing!

  16. Antiochene Son says

    Vacuous as it may have been, the service still had a transcendent quality that is largely lost on modern people. That transcendence, exhibited par excellence in Orthodox liturgy, always forces a reaction, either positive or negative. One cannot feel neutral about it.

    The last vestiges of Byzantine coronations were nice to see in living color—the king wearing priestly vestments, the thrones, and the anointing screen created by, I believe, Andrew Gould.

    And I did enjoy the music. (Except for that ridiculous Gospel choir that looked totally out of place.)

    Despite being the traditional role of the Prime Minister, seeing a practicing Hindu read the Epistle at a Eucharistic service was bizarre.

    • Charles is a globalist. I am not interested in this ceremony. I love America. Charles is tight with City of London money changers. Let’s be transparent. Fawning over this ceremony?

      I am not entranced by globalists whether in Congress or anywhere.

    • There is a line, though hard to define, between those who simply accept all traditional religions as valid but separate manifestations of the Divine Will and those who actually believe in the particular truth of their own confession as definitive, anything to the contrary being mutually exclusive. Some of the latter can adopt a chivalrous attitude of respect for people and their customs toward non-believers, notwithstanding their heresy, apostasy or heathenism. One can see good points in many other faiths and a desire for The Good. And not everyone is fortunate enough to have been baptized into Orthodoxy as a baby and raised in the faith. This does not mean that they can’t be good people to varying extents, though they cannot attain to theosis outside the Church.

      But the former tribe of ecumenists (as opposed to tolerant traditionalists) simply turn off the possibility of exclusive truth. “Equally true, equally false, equally useful.” It is from these types you usually get observations like the Hindu story about God being like an elephant in the presence of blind men. There is some truth to this, but a Christian should not lose his faith in relativism.

      “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

      • Precisely, Misha! Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ – and no other – is Lord. This is the cross that all convicted Christians must bear, to wit: the narrow particularity of our religion, which due to its maddening exclusiveness, invites the concomitant disdain that we often receive from many in our relativist culture. The “spiritual-but-not-religious” phonies who consider all religions to have comparative value are too lazy or too dimwitted to see the intellectual dishonesty of their positions.

        Here’s a case in point: Decades ago, I used to teach English as a second language in a couple of Christian churches in Japan. One student of mine was a Shinto priest. It was a rare opportunity for this young American to chat with this man. The priest gladly admitted that Shintoism has no theology, but rather is a vague animism with local manifestations, e.g. veneration of trees, rocks and emperors. Shintoism bears no comparison to the sophisticated theology of our Christian religion, especially as it is so thoroughly expressed in our Orthodox Tradition.

        • Brendan says

          “…all convicted Christians”

          An evocative phrase…

          • Perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of wording! I could have put it, “all convinced Christians” or “all Christians with strong convictions”, but “all convicted Christians” seemed to fit with the metaphor of “the cross that” we “must bear”, the cross being the instrument of execution.

  17. Meh. Seems that the only segment of Americans who get excited about English royalty anymore are some older white ladies.

    For the rest of us, they are completely irrelevant.

  18. “ Despite being the traditional role of the Prime Minister, seeing a practicing Hindu read the Epistle at a Eucharistic service was bizarre.”

    Oh my God!!!

    • Mark E. Fisus says

      Hm, what do the Hindu traditionalists think of Mr. Suank’s ecumenism.

      At least he didn’t recite some pagan sutra.

      • yannaro says

        Unlike what happened at Ground Zero in New York a few years ago. It was bad enough to have to listen to other “Christian” leaders recite their prayers, but there were also at least two who said their “prayers” in a language not understood by most in the world. The service was led by GOA then Archbishop Demetrios, who read a Gospel passage in Greek, which few, if any of those assembled there, or watching, understood.

  19. Brendan says

    Ireland longs for her gallant darling – Charles Edward Stuart

    Mo Ghile Mear – Irish Jacobite Song

    [Video – 03:55]

    ‘ This was a poem written by Seán Clárach Mac Domhnaill in the aftermath of the disastrous Battle of Culloden.
    It’s sung by a woman who longs for her loved one. The woman in question is a representation of the island of Ireland herself, and her longing for Bonnie Prince Charlie.
    Many of Séan’s poems talked about Ireland’s longing for a fair and just Catholic ruler that would reestablish the old order destroyed by the Revolution.
    As a result of the Hanoverian victory, Ireland (as well as Scotland and the other places of the Kingdom to some extent) experienced the replacement of local nobility by English nobles, faithful to the Protestant crown.
    This eventually helped greatly the downfall of native languages like Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and Scots all throughout the United Kingdom.
    The meaning of this song is often forgotten and it’s famously sung as a simple love ballad.
    Indeed it is, but a different kind of love. … ‘

    It’s sung by the Choral Scholars of Dublin University. You can see them here:

    Though I must admit, the portrait of Tearlach Og
    (Young Charlie) does help focus the meaning

    • Next time we write ANYTHING about your part of the world again, we will be checking in with you to see what color you can bring to the story before we publish it. It’s always the story behind the story that is the most interesting.

      I was in an Irish pub a few years ago and I left in tears when this man sang an Irish or Scottish song about a mother who lost her son in battle. I think she was with him or she found him. I would love to know what that song is called. I was later told by the owner he vaguely remembered it on the night I was there and it was one that others had sung so it was a well-known one. If you know the name of it, I would be most grateful if you could pass it on.

      • Brendan says

        Don’t recognise the description, but try this:

        Robert Burns: The Highland Widow’s Lament

        Oh, I am come to the low Countrie,
        Ochon, Ochon, Ochrie!
        Without a penny in my purse,
        To buy a meal to me.

        It was na sae in the Highland hills,
        Ochon, Ochon, Ochrie!
        Nae woman in the Country wide
        Sae happy was as me.

        For then I had a score o’ kye,
        Ochon, Ochon, Ochrie!
        Feeding on yon hill sae high,
        And giving milk to me.

        And there I had three score o’ yowes,
        Ochon, Ochon, Ochrie!
        Skipping on yon bonie knowes,
        And casting woo’ to me.

        I was the happiest of a’ the Clan,
        Sair, sair may I repine;
        For Donald was the brawest man,
        And Donald he was mine.

        Till Charlie Stewart cam at last,
        Sae far to set us free;
        My Donald’s arm was wanted then
        For Scotland and for me.

        Their waefu’ fate what need I tell,
        Right to the wrang did yield;
        My Donald and his Country fell,
        Upon Culloden field.

        Ochon, O, Donald, Oh!
        Ochon, Ochon, Ochrie!
        Nae woman in the warld wide,
        Sae wretched now as me.

      • Brendan says

        Here is a Kipling song about a mother lamenting the loss of her son Jack:

        There’s a couple of things going on here. Jack (Jolly Jack Tar) is the
        eponymous Royal Navy sailor, as Tommy Atkins is the British soldier.
        At the same time, Kipling’s son John (Jack) was killed on the Western Front.
        He had twice failed the medical due to poor eyesight but was so keen
        to serve that his father petitioned Lord Roberts to get him a commission.
        So he was enrolled in the Irish Guards and was last seen at Loos
        “…stumbling through the mud blindly, with a possible facial injury.”

        His father then wrote the following couplet:
        “If any question why we died / Tell them, because our fathers lied.”

        The song My Boy Jack is heartbreaking
        Debra Cowan’s performance is perfect.

        • This was probably it. Thank you, Brendan. It made quite an impression on me.

  20. Sean Richardson says

    Interesting that one of the British commentators stated that the ceremony was “Byzantine” … if for no other reason, like or dislike King Charles III, the Church of England or the King’s family, what we saw reflected at least some of how Emperors were crowned during the Byzantine era. In no other ceremony can we see even a hint of how non-ecclesiastical leaders are enthroned. Yes, there are a multiple ways to criticize, but we should at least appreciate that which is to be appreciated.

    • rdrjames says

      Part of the coronation reminded me of how we treat our bishops: i.e. the vesting and the crowning. Seems a bit familiar, eh? at least in the Russian version.

  21. Brendan says

    “…we should at least appreciate that which is to be appreciated.”

    Humphry Ward, art critic of The Times, was at an exhibition of Whistler’s paintings, expressing his opinion that one work was good, another bad, and so on.

    “My dear fellow,” said Whistler, “you must never say this painting is good or that bad. Good and bad are not terms to be used by you. But you may say ‘I like this’ or ‘I don’t like that,’ and you will be within your rights. Now come and have a whisky: you’re sure to like that.”

    “I wish I had said that!” exclaimed Wilde delightedly.
    “You will, Oscar, you will,” retorted Whistler with his loud “Ha-ha!”