Is There A Link Between Having A Religious Belief And Supporting A Monarchy?

[fiveleaves]

Watching some of the non-stop Jubilee coverage on the BBC and some of it seems to come quite close to worship of the Queen. I have a strong religious conviction but consider myself largely indifferent to the royal family. I am neither pro Monarchy or anti Monarchy, but I do wonder if in others following a religion makes one more presupposed to support a hierachical authority such as royalty. Or maybe there is no link whatsoever

[Neveracrossword]

Non-stop coverage? BBC1 had just over five hours today, BBC 2 had none.
I have no religous convictions whatsoever, but would hope that there is no link.

[sandyRoe]

Could it be that religious people are more conservative and support the institutions of the state?

[Zacs-Master]

‘ Is There A Link Between Having A Religious Belief And Supporting A Monarchy?’

‘ I have a strong religious conviction but consider myself largely indifferent to the royal family’

That will be a ‘no’ then.

[barry1010]

No.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah
no big deal
they have kings - even of Israel and Judah - in the OT
oops and a few in the NT

didnt some white honky say - - give to caesar what is caesar's

move on, nothing new here

[Peter Pedant]

Much bigger deal in the 1640's - the King obviously was set up by God to rule over the proles. The King loudly claimed this god given ( or divine right) to rule.
and they were thinking seriously of chopping his head off. - which is not really in the Bible

Sparkly: sparkly translation. Ever so long ago, longer than last week ( Sparko squeals: "thatth a long time that ith!") - they choplicated a king. And then they said 'what now?' And they made do without a King and then they didnt. And they appt a king. The end

[Old_Geezer]

I'm so sure any royal is completely beyond reproach, but royalty is still an anachronism in this day. No religion is likely to be completely correct, their views are haphazardly formed from different folk's unsubstantiated conjecture; but there may well be something in spirituality generally.

Maybe those easily taught a specific religious doctrine and take it to heart on faith are the same when told that royalty are such a wonderful asset.

[Buenchico]

There is probably a more direct link between those who DON'T believe in religion and those who DON'T support the (so-called) Monarchy.

Societies across the world have, for centuries, tended to follow orthodoxies, rather than to challenge them. For example, if my parents were asked to enter their religion onto a form, they'd almost certainly have filled in 'Church of England'. That wasn't because either of them actually believed in God but simply because, being British, that's what they'd been brought up to do.

Similarly, people from working class backgrounds almost universally voted Labour ("because that's what our family have always done"), whereas those from the more privileged classes automatically voted Conservative ("because that's the party for people like us"). Equally, people supported the monarchy, simply because that's what they'd been brought up to do, rather than because they'd actually given any thought to why one group of people should be regarded as 'superior' to others simply because of who their parents are.

These days, fortunately, schools teach young people to constantly challenge orthodoxies. As a result, many people grow up actually examining the policies of political parties before deciding how to vote. They also think about whether Christianity, or any other religion, makes sense before deciding whether or not to believe in it and whether there's any real point in the Monarchy before deciding whether or not to support it.

So those (often older) people who're happy to leave orthodoxies unchallenged tend to believe in God (or, at least, to say that they're 'C of E', even when they don't actually believe in a deity) and, equally, they tend to support the Monarchy. Meanwhile those who've learned to think for themselves tend to reject religion as being preposterous and the Monarchy as being an outdated anachronism.

[Canary42]

Yes, both believe in unelected folk making the rules. But you could say that about a lot of institutions - Answerbank for example :-)

[ToraToraTora]

canary, you do realise the HM does not create laws don't you? Are you familiar with the magna carta etc? Did they do history on your planet?

[William51]

I do not think there is a link, you can believe in one or the other or both.

[nailit]

Have you read 1st Timothy chapter 2?
Have you even read the Bible at all?
All the way through by chance???

Have you ever questioned anything about it, or just accepted what you have been told?

[steg]

Up here aye…. the link is football

[nailit]

1st Timothy, Ch 2.
//1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people-- 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness//

Do you not pray for our Royal Family?


I certainly dont but your own scriptures requires YOU to.

[goodlife]

The good qualities of earthly representatives of monarchy, endear to many. Yet their good qualities pale before those of Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God,” (Colossians 1:15) Really, is there anyone who would make for this earth a better ruler than Christ? No!

How do we know that God’s kingdom will really rule this earth, and that it is not just a vague state of mind as so many believe.

The evidence we see all around us (2 Tim 3:1-5) is one evidence. So the kingdom rule will begin very soon, certainly within the lifetime of most earthly monarchs.

[TantP]

fiveleaves:

The Queen is head of the Church in Britain so I expect if you are Church of England you will be a Royalist, but you are not so that's that theory out the window.

I personally dont think there is a link at all, save that those inclined to believe a fairy tale omnipotent being ruling over the entire universe, would probably be inclined to believe a King or Queen has a divine right.