I know I'm a republican but...

It's hard to get excited about the general assembly of the church of Scotland. William's role is purely ceremonial like so many of the other roles. Dull stuff.

The Queen isn't the head of the Church of England

Callistemon there have been so many splits and schisms it’s not surprising! There’s the ‘free Kirk’, the ‘wee frees’ and many more.

The correct title is "The Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland". Note that "to the General Assembly" has been missed from the Newspaper headline. It's absolutely nothing for assorted republicans and Scot Nats to get their knickers in a twist about, as a brief glance at the relevant Wikipedia page will confirm. The appointment has been in existence since 1690, and entails a few days residence at Holyrood Palace; attending the opening and closing of the annual General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as the monarch's representative, spending the rest of the few days carrying out visits to worthy causes around Edinburgh, and hosting a Garden Party (and lunches and dinners) for deserving invitees. HM the Queen has attended herself some years; in other years she has appointed other members of the Royal Family as Lord High Commissioner, as well as a broad range of distinguished Scottish "commoners". As a member of the CofS, I had a supporting role many many years ago, and I can testify to the very broad range of people visited and entertained by the Lord High Commissioner, and their enjoyment and appreciation of being included.

Not "oneupmanship" - alcoholism!

Two glasses of wine at a party = alcoholism?

Oh dear, have to have a re-think

Thank you Bodach

JaneJudge

The Queen isn't the head of the Church of England

No just the Supreme Governor, ie titular Head, - is that not Head enough?

Callistemon There is no "Anglican Church of Scotland".

There is a Scottish Episcopal Church (with bishops) which is part of the Anglican communion and recognises the Archbishop of Canterbury as president of the Anglican Instruments of Communion, but without jurisdiction in Scotland per se. Episcopalians today constitute well under 1 per cent of the population of Scotland, making them considerably smaller than the Church of Scotland. (Wikipedia)

There is a "Church of Scotland" which is certainly not Anglican, but Calvinist. That is the leading church in Scotland, and any official public prayers are said by someone of that denomination, but it is not the established church in Scotland, intertwined with Government and Society, as the C of E is in England.

Prince William is this year's "ambassador" from the Queen to the summer Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Next year, someone else will take a turn. Don't panic. It isn't a Royal takeover bid.

vampirequeen Please don't turn this into a generalised republican/royalist row. Just focus on this one issue.

Where did you think this might go then?

Prince William is this year's "ambassador" from the Queen to the summer Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Next year, someone else will take a turn. Don't panic. It isn't a Royal takeover bid.

Thanks, Elegran
I'm not panicking! I do understand the role as ambassador.

I was misled by other Google attempts last week where it said that the NI Church and Church in Wales are not established (which I knew), unlike the churches in England and arguably that in Scotland.

Just wondering Charles 1 was captured by the Scots and held prisoner until they sold him to the Parliamentarians who of course executed him, should Will take care? x

"There is a "Church of Scotland" which is certainly not Anglican, but Calvinist." Absolutely correct, Elegran - at least it's supposed to be. On a visit to Edinburgh a couple of years ago, I went along to St Giles' Kirk on Sunday morning, expecting to sing the old psalms and hymns I learned in my Highland youth, ask forgiveness for my 'debts' rather than my 'trespasses', and enjoy a lengthy traditional Calvinistic roasting from the pulpit. Not a bit of it! Instead, I got a mish-mash of modern trendiness and high church mumbo-jumbo. Bring back John Knox, I say....

Callistemon

JaneJudge

The Queen isn't the head of the Church of England

No just the Supreme Governor, ie titular Head, - is that not Head enough?

someone will be along to explain to you soon hopefully

I think I need to lie down in a darkened room. It's all getting too much for me.
Or at least in a sunny conservatory. I'd invite the vicar round for a cuppa and quiz him but we're not allowed.

I think that mocking the Queen is sick and disgusting, Have you got nothing better to do?

How are these comments mocking?!

Well, I got lost somewhere along the thread
Am I the only one?

Kapitan is obviously stalking me and knows I have been sitting in my lounge in my underwear wearing a crown from cracker repeating 'the Queen is not the head of the Church of England'

JaneJudge

On another thread someone has compared the Queen's 10th great grandchild's name to a bathroom floor. Imagining the Queen's inner dialogue seems quite tame compared to that.

Sorry to have mentioned another thread.

JaneJudge

Kapitan is obviously stalking me and knows I have been sitting in my lounge in my underwear wearing a crown from cracker repeating 'the Queen is not the head of the Church of England'

I do hope it's Union Jack underwear, JaneJudge...

the Queen is not the head of the Church of England

No, she's the Supreme Governor. Is there a difference or is this just semantics?

Sorry, should have read more of the thread. But as no-one has explained, perhaps you'd be so good as to enlighten us, JJ

As I said, I got lost somewhere along this thread
Perhaps JaneJudge is aka Geri Halliwell?

I might not even be on the right thread. It's been one of those mornings.

Apparently the Queen appoints on the advice of the prime minister

Previously The Princess Royal (twice), The Duke of Rothesay, The Duke of York and The Earl of Wessex have all been appointed, also the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensbury.

"the Queen is not the head of the Church of England

No, she's the Supreme Governor. Is there a difference or is this just semantics?"

The head of all Christian churches is Christ (although the trinity of God the father, God the son, and the Holy Spirit is regarded as all a "three-in-one" entity)

In His physical absence, He put the governance of the early Roman Catholic Church onto his trusted disciple, Peter. Peter became in effect the first Pope and handed down authority to subsequent pontiffs. One of the Pope's names is "The Vicar of Christ" - vicar in its original meaning of susbstitute or stand-in, as in "A filmed car-chase is a vicarious thrill". The vicar of a parish was originally the stand-in for the rector, who was often a son of a local bigwig and too posh to take care of the parish himself.

As Christ's substitute, the pontiff can make all kinds of rules and regulations about worship and morals, and can (and does!) pontificate on matters concerning the personal and public behaviour of his flock.

Henry VIII removed his kingdom from the power of the Vatican, making himself the Supreme Governor. The Queen inherits that position, but she does not have, (or want, I am sure) any power over the ways that services in the Cof E are conducted, or what the congregation does in bed, or any of the Pope's almost supernatural-seeming powers. She is a kind of Chairman of the Board to the bishops and archbishops who run the organisation.