Charles to Wed Camilla!

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252795.stm

The ceremony will be held at Windsor Castle and Mrs Parker Bowles will take the title HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.

When the Prince of Wales, 56, becomes King, Camilla, 57, will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the Princess Consort, Clarence House added. Charles said he and his wife-to-be were “absolutely delighted” at the engagement.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said: “I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step.” He added that he hoped the marriage would be “a source of comfort and strength” to the couple and those close to them.

What do you guys think about this? Should he marry her? Should the Archbishop condone it so thoroughly? How will it affect his position as head of the Anglican Church should he ascend the throne?
 
Good Morning, Mark

I’m not too surprised…Princess Diana has died and I guess he is free according to his Church to marry again.
I never understood the Royal family anyway. My guess is he will never be King.

What is the thought of your fellow countrymen?
 
Mr Parker-Bowles, a Catholic, is still alive. Mrs Parker-Bowles, I think, in the eyes of the Catholic Church is still married to him civil divorce or no civil divorce. ‘Marrying’ Charles would not therefore be possible. I might be wrong but I don’t think Camilla’s marriage was annulled.

Be all of that as it may what I think is that it is high time we had a Republic in this country.
 
Who cares? They have been having an affair for years. The royal family has become a disgrace to The UK.
 
I would comment more meaningfully on this topic, but I am still in shock and mourning that Britney Spears got married, and that Halle Barry has swarn off men (for a while anyway). Sorry, I’ll be over there sulking in the corner.
 
40.png
aimee:
Good Morning, Mark

I’m not too surprised…Princess Diana has died and I guess he is free according to his Church to marry again.
I never understood the Royal family anyway. My guess is he will never be King.

What is the thought of your fellow countrymen?
Click to expand...
I think he suffers from a quandry; to put his service his country before his personal happiness, as his mother has, or put his personal life first, as his great uncle did. I think he can’t quite make up his mind, and there’s the rub!

I do think a lot of the Queen, but I think the whole Charles and Di think has mudied the water quite a bit. I can’t help feeling compassion, he’s just a bloke with a nightmare job and people following him around ready to report it if he wears the wrong colour shoes with his jacket or picks his nose. People say he’s priveledged, but I don’t think money means priveledge, for him it means lack of freedom.

I think this will cause problems in the Cof E. Doctrine has been that you can remarry if niether partner has been involved in the break up of the other’s previous marriage. Well, that’s obviously not the case here! Still, many say that ultimately break ups do happen and people have to move on. Just it’s another nail in the coffin of the Anglican community and the lack of an authoratative source of Anglican dogma.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
I would comment more meaningfully on this topic, but I am still in shock and mourning that Britney Spears got married, and that Halle Barry has swarn off men (for a while anyway). Sorry, I’ll be over there sulking in the corner.
Click to expand...
Well I posted it because it is news and it does have a religion bent (what with him becoming the head of the Cof E and all) and I knew if I didn’t someone would bring it up later and ask why someone of us Brits didn’t!
😛
 
40.png
FightingFat:
I think this will cause problems in the Cof E. Doctrine has been that you can remarry if niether partner has been involved in the break up of the other’s previous marriage. Well, that’s obviously not the case here! Still, many say that ultimately break ups do happen and people have to move on. Just it’s another nail in the coffin of the Anglican community and the lack of an authoratative source of Anglican dogma.
Click to expand...
They are actually not having a church wedding–it’s just going to be a civil one, due to the divorces. That’s why she’s not going to be queen, but just princess consort. I do agree with you though–it’s definately going to be causing problems when the head of their religion doesn’t follow his faith.
 
Their affair was on apparently the entire marriage he had to Diana. I don’t think the world cares for Camilla. Not that any of that matters. Charles used Diana to get children and provide and heir to the throne, so it seems. The whole thing is sordid and to have the C of E tied to this immorality seems sick to me. How does a church reconcile that?
 
40.png
Fitz:
Their affair was on apparently the entire marriage he had to Diana. I don’t think the world cares for Camilla. Not that any of that matters. Charles used Diana to get children and provide and heir to the throne, so it seems. The whole thing is sordid and to have the C of E tied to this immorality seems sick to me. How does a church reconcile that?
Click to expand...
The C of E was created in order to allow Henry XVIII to get a divorce. It is remaining faithful to its traditions over this matter also
 
Sorry fighting fat if I restrain myself from doing an Irish jig in response to this, Big Deal, and SO WHAT !!! is all I can think off.

Getting married on taxpayers money, seems like some things never change.
 
I know the C of E was established to allow divorce. However, they are a church and to sanction the type of affair that Charles and Camilla have had before, during, and after his marriage to Diana is rather sick for a church. I am sure that they might have guidelines for divorce and this affair doesn’t qualify in any moral discussion. I read the man on the street comments in the BBC and it seems that most people consider the monarchy to be irrelevant in their lives anyway. Some are outright hostile to paying tax dollars for the nonsense of the monarchy. Only one comment was about morality. How in the world could they be so deadened to morality there. This nation loved Diana. The world loved Diana. This is sick. Charles is sick. How do they forgive him for his part in what happend to Diana? I don’t see that they will in fact forgive him. Any way you look at it, it is immoral. Even a secular person with no religion can see that how Charles conducted his private life was/is immoral…Sort of Hollywoodesque…
 
40.png
FightingFat:
I do think a lot of the Queen,
Click to expand...
Well I don’t, didn’t she sign the death warrants of thousands of British and Irish babies, (abortion) the Royal family :yawn:
 
I was just wondering how Diana’s children feel about this. I don’t know how they feel, but I know I’d be just a little sickened to know that my father was marrying the woman he had an affair with while married to my mother.

Scout :tiphat:
 
the bigger deal is the act of settlement, if camilla were catholic charles would never marry her, for he could not be king if he did, the monarchy is a sectarian institution and should be abolished
 
Why can’t the King to be marry a Catholic? Is that because a Catholic would never be in the elite pool that he can choose from? Imagine the archaic rules these people live under! I agree with a poster that said that the monarch is not a life of privledge but a life n prison. I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for the monarchy? They could drop it altogether since they don’t really rule anyway. They are a liability it seems.
 
40.png
Matt25:
Mr Parker-Bowles, a Catholic, is still alive. Mrs Parker-Bowles, I think, in the eyes of the Catholic Church is still married to him civil divorce or no civil divorce. ‘Marrying’ Charles would not therefore be possible. I might be wrong but I don’t think Camilla’s marriage was annulled.

Be all of that as it may what I think is that it is high time we had a Republic in this country.
Click to expand...
since you are closer to the situation than we are in understanding British law, why can he marry a divorcee if Edward VII was not allowed to do so?
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
since you are closer to the situation than we are in understanding British law, why can he marry a divorcee if Edward VII was not allowed to do so?
Click to expand...
Edward was legally entitled to marry a divorcee in a civil cermony, indeed he did so. As the Supreme Governor of the C of E in the very different moral climate of the 1930’s a King could not practically do so. The implications of doing so might have led to dis-establishment of the Church (its separation from the State) or schism within in it or some other complication. Edward abdicated for political, practical reasons, not legal ones.
 
40.png
Matt25:
Edward was legally entitled to marry a divorcee in a civil cermony, indeed he did so. As the Supreme Governor of the C of E in the very different moral climate of the 1930’s a King could not practically do so. The implications of doing so might have led to dis-establishment of the Church (its separation from the State) or schism within in it or some other complication. Edward abdicated for political, practical reasons, not legal ones.
Click to expand...
As I read the history he had to choose: the crown or Mrs. Simpson, he had no option legally either by the British Constitution or the Church of England to have both, so chose “the woman he loved”, correct me if I am wrong, most knowledge of this is based on TV dramas.
 
40.png
Scout:
I was just wondering how Diana’s children feel about this. I don’t know how they feel, but I know I’d be just a little sickened to know that my father was marrying the woman he had an affair with while married to my mother.
Click to expand...
Well, I had a bit of a punt about…There not much at all on the Queen’s site-
royal.gov.uk/output/Page3742.asp

Although the BBC has this piece which states she condones the marriage-
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4253029.stm

So does Tony-
number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7098.asp

There’s a bit more on Prince Charles’ site-

princeofwales.gov.uk/news/index.php

But I have heard a press release on the radio stating that the young Princes were happy. I found a couple of references to it on the web-
smh.com.au/news/World/Princes-William-and-Harry-delighted/2005/02/11/1107890353701.html?oneclick=true

opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/15/do1501.xml

I think they would be happy, they, as opposed to the rest of the world, seem to have been desperately trying to put the ghost of their Mother to rest and get on with their lives.
(Joshua):
Well I don’t, didn’t she sign the death warrants of thousands of British and Irish babies, (abortion) the Royal family
Click to expand...
I know Josh and I think that’s cool, I can understand why you’d feel like that.

I have an Irish background too, but I still have to admire the Queen on a very human level. Her commitment to her Country is awe inspiring in my opinion. She never puts a foot wrong and keeps a punishing schedule. She is the greatest ambassador Britain has!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top