Charles to Wed Camilla!

[mercygate]

Almeria:

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.

Oi. So I guess, even in the event that Charles were to become King, since he is marrying civilly outside the CofE, he could not become head of the Church of England. And so much for the title “Defender of the Faiths” (yes, FaithS, – or that’s what pluralism is proposing) because he certainly wouldn’t be capable of defending the Catholic faith.
An Anglican Priest I knew some years ago had an acquaintance with the royal family and had fairly high hopes for Prince Charles. It has been a disappointment but who in the world want to trade places with him. The family business is a frightful burden.

 

[Brendan]

Fitz:

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?

British law prevents a Catholic from being in the line of sucession, or from one in the line of sucession from marrying a Catholic.

If Cadmilla is actually a Catholic, she would have to convert for this marriage to be legal.

 

[_Joshua]

cainem:

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

:bowdown2: :bowdown2: :bowdown: :tiphat:

 

[AmyS]

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.

Jennifer Anistion is free again… I don’t know if that helps.

 

[Fitz]

AmyS:

Jennifer Anistion is free again… I don’t know if that helps.

Not really free, I read when I was getting my hair done yesterday in one of those trashy ET magazines that they are pining away for each other- her and Brad, and that she is looking miserable on the set of her new movie. LOL! I could care less, I just had to include this stupid bit of nothing!

 

[mercygate]

cainem:

monarchy is a sectarian institution and should be abolished

Actually, I regret the passing of the days when the Church anointed monarchs with Holy Chrism, sanctifying them for their office (the same oil as is used in priestly ordinations) and placed the crown on their heads. The king ruled by permission of a higher authority.

Have a look at the biography of the Empress Zita for a taste of this.

In the English coronation ceremony, that is blurred somewhat by the requirement that the monarch sign a document saying that he will uphold parliament before the Archbishop anoints him and plaes the crown upon his head.

 

[beckers]

found the answer on Ananova about why he couldn’t marry her before. Intresting enough it says s"Mrs Parker Bowles is an Anglican and therefore the 1701 Act does not apply." Was she catholic or was just her ex-husband catholic?

ananova.com/news/story/sm_1279054.html

Royal marriages in Britain are regulated by two Acts of Parliament.

The 1772 Royal Marriages Act provides that the marriage of any lineal descendant of George III is invalid unless royal consent is first given.

The 1701 Act of Settlement prevents a Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic from succeeding to the throne.

Beckers

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Her ex-husband is Catholic.

 

[Matt25]

puzzleannie:

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.

No he could have married and remained King in theory. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication_Crisis_of_Edward_VIII
As a result of these rumours, the belief strengthened among the British establishment that Wallis could not become a royal consort. The government of Stanley Baldwin explicitly informed King Edward VIII that it was opposed to him marrying Mrs. Simpson, indicating that if he did, in direct contravention of their advice, the Government would resign en masse. Under pressure from the King, Baldwin (who knew what the answer would be), agreed to suggest three options to the King’s many prime ministers in his other kingdoms throughout the British Commonwealth. These were that:

1. 
   *]they marry and Mrs Simpson become Queen (a “royal marriage”)
   *]they marry and she not become Queen but receive some courtesy title instead (a “morganatic marriage”)
   *]he abdicate to marry Mrs Simpson.
   
   The second option had European precedents (for example, Austria’s heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand - whose assassination in 1914 triggered off World War I) but no parallel in British constitutional history. The Commonwealth’s prime ministers were consulted, and all but one—Eamon de Valera of Ireland, who argued for the first option, on the basis that as divorce was legal, King Edward should be allowed to marry a divorcée—agreed that marriage to Mrs. Simpson in any form was not an option they would accept.
   
   Also see news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2707489.stm
   
   chilit.org/HERMANN1.HTM
   
   This paper examines the Abdication Crisis of 1936 resulting from King Edward VIII’s decision to marry Wallis Simpson. The paper argues that instead of requesting the passage of legislation authorizing a morganatic marriage between the King and Mrs. Simpson, the monarch could have sought public support for his marriage with favorable press coverage from sympathetic newspaper owners such as Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermore. Instead of capitulating to the threat of the Baldwin government’s resignation if the King persisted in his plan to marry Mrs. Simpson, the King could have engaged such supporters as Lloyd George and Winston Churchill to serve as advocates and possible leaders of a coalition government willing to acquiesce in the King’s proposed marriage to Mrs. Simpson. Ultimately, the thesis of this paper is that there was no legal impediment to a marriage between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson; rather the issue raised by the King’s desire to marry Mrs. Simpson was political, and the abdication could have been avoided if political options had been pursued.

 

[Lisa_N]

FightingFat:

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!

I agree, the Queen is a class act and takes her duties and responsibilities seriously. She’s rather in the mold of the Queen Mum who stayed in London during the bombing of WWII.

I have a British friend who says she hopes the Queen will live a LOOOOOOONG time, that Prince Charles will abdicate and leave the throne to his son. Charles seems like an OK guy but his reign would always be plagued by some of the past pecadillos. Oh for the days when the royal romping didn’t make the dailies.

Lisa N

 

[David_Oatney]

mercygate:

Actually, I regret the passing of the days when the Church anointed monarchs with Holy Chrism, sanctifying them for their office (the same oil as is used in priestly ordinations) and placed the crown on their heads. The king ruled by permission of a higher authority.

Have a look at the biography of the Empress Zita for a taste of this.

In the English coronation ceremony, that is blurred somewhat by the requirement that the monarch sign a document saying that he will uphold parliament before the Archbishop anoints him and plaes the crown upon his head.

**This is quite correct. Throughout history, monarchy has been the Church’s preferred form of government. Indeed, the Church’s hierarchical structure is, for all intents and purposes, monarchical in nature. **

---

I think it is a shame that more Catholic countries do not utilize the benefits of a Catholic Crown. For monarchy’s sake, it is a shame that the House of Windsor has fallen so far, so fast.

 

[Marsu54]

Basically - Who cares? These people are a joke! And they can’t be voted out! All the $$$$ wasted on this bunch!

Now Tony Blair, that’s another story. I really like this man and his family! I think they are true Christians, which is more than can be said for the “Royals” and a lot of the English people these days.

 

[INRI]

Brendan:

British law prevents a Catholic from being in the line of sucession, or from one in the line of sucession from marrying a Catholic.

If Cadmilla is actually a Catholic, she would have to convert for this marriage to be legal.

Since the head of the Church of England is, nominally, the British monarch, it might result in a situation in which a Catholic was put in charge of the Church of England! Of course, that did kind of happen before…

Matt25:

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

I assume you mean Henry VIII? An easy mistake to make. Of course, we did have a certain recent presidential candidate who made reference to Pope Pius XXIII…

From First Things Magazine June/July 2004 Issue (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’s monthly column):
The New York Times reports that John Kerry became “combative” with reporters when asked about critics who say he does not follow Catholic teaching on questions such as abortion and same-sex unions. “Who are they?” he demanded. “Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?” He went on to explain: “I’m not a church spokesman. I’m a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic Church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am.” We had better tread lightly here. We’re dealing with the inner sanctum of the conscience. This is a man who apparently has taken a private oath under the tutelage of a pope of whom most of us have never heard. Rumor has it that members of the very secretive Society of Pius XXIII are taught to be so careful about not imposing their religion that, just to be safe, they do not impose it upon themselves. It has also been said that “Pius XXIII” is a pseudonym used by Father Robert Drinan, a Jesuit who has contrived a moral rationale widely employed by Catholic politicians inconvenienced by Catholic teaching. I have no idea whether such rumors are true, but I have a strong hunch that during the course of this campaign we may be learning a great deal about Catholicism that nobody knew before.

Sorry to go off on a tangent. Just get rid of the royals altogether I say. Imagine what the government could do with the money it is using to support these clowns.

 

[Joe_Dunelm]

Marsu54:

Now Tony Blair, that’s another story. I really like this man and his family! I think they are true Christians, which is more than can be said for the “Royals” and a lot of the English people these days.

Sorry, there’s not much about Blair that suggests he’s a true Christian - attending Mass and receiving Holy Communion (as an Anglican, he’s barred anyway), while at the same time voting for abortion up to birth is hardly a stance any Catholic should uphold. The public persona he exudes, particularly to our US friends, is often hypocritical. To my mind he’s a con merchant. Many of the Royal Family do indeed support a lot of true charitable work - as do many ‘English’ (read ‘British’) people!

As for Mrs Parker-Bowles, according to an item on BBC4 Radio News this lunch time, she is apparently a Catholic (presumably she converted?) - and that will seemingly bring constitutional problems because of the Act of Settlement. Even if she remained an Anglican when she married Andrew Parker Bowles (a Catholic), the Catholic Church could surely not condone this so-called ‘marriage’ to the Prince of Wales, since her husband is still living. If she did convert on her marriage and now apostasises from the faith, presumably that would clear the way for this ‘marriage’!! It would be good to think we’d get some moral leadership from our bishops, but that seems highly unlikely. They’re more likely to participate in the ceremony if invited!

Another point… after Charles inherits the throne and makes a visit to the Vatican. How would the pope receive his ‘consort’ in such circumstances, particularly if she had apostasised or her husband was still alive? Too many ifs and buts.

 

[CinciMom]

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.

Scout :tiphat:

Not only that, but if you really think about this, if it were not for Camilla, the divorce would not have happened and Diana may be alive today. I am not saying that Charles was all wrong here, Diana was no saint. I am not buying that the boys are “delighted” about the marriage.

 

[Erich]

mercygate:

… who in the world want to trade places with him. The family business is a frightful burden.

I, for one, would not want to trade places with him.

Think about it… anyone who wants to become the reigning monarch basically has to just sit around doing nothing all day except wait for the current monarch to pass on.

 

[caroljm36]

puzzleannie:

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.

My memory fails me but I think he wanted her to have Her Royal Highness designation, if not Queen, and the govt wasn’t about to give it to her. She could have been royal consort but he was so google-eyed over her he wanted only the best.

 

[caroljm36]

Matt25:

No he could have married and remained King in theory. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication_Crisis_of_Edward_VIII
As a result of these rumours, the belief strengthened among the British establishment that Wallis could not become a royal consort. The government of Stanley Baldwin explicitly informed King Edward VIII that it was opposed to him marrying Mrs. Simpson, indicating that if he did, in direct contravention of their advice, the Government would resign en masse. Under pressure from the King, Baldwin (who knew what the answer would be), agreed to suggest three options to the King’s many prime ministers in his other kingdoms throughout the British Commonwealth. These were that:

1. 
   *]they marry and Mrs Simpson become Queen (a “royal marriage”)
   *]they marry and she not become Queen but receive some courtesy title instead (a “morganatic marriage”)
   *]he abdicate to marry Mrs Simpson.
   
   The second option had European precedents (for example, Austria’s heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand - whose assassination in 1914 triggered off World War I) but no parallel in British constitutional history. The Commonwealth’s prime ministers were consulted, and all but one—Eamon de Valera of Ireland, who argued for the first option, on the basis that as divorce was legal, King Edward should be allowed to marry a divorcée—agreed that marriage to Mrs. Simpson in any form was not an option they would accept.
   
   Also see news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2707489.stm
   
   chilit.org/HERMANN1.HTM
   
   This paper examines the Abdication Crisis of 1936 resulting from King Edward VIII’s decision to marry Wallis Simpson. The paper argues that instead of requesting the passage of legislation authorizing a morganatic marriage between the King and Mrs. Simpson, the monarch could have sought public support for his marriage with favorable press coverage from sympathetic newspaper owners such as Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermore. Instead of capitulating to the threat of the Baldwin government’s resignation if the King persisted in his plan to marry Mrs. Simpson, the King could have engaged such supporters as Lloyd George and Winston Churchill to serve as advocates and possible leaders of a coalition government willing to acquiesce in the King’s proposed marriage to Mrs. Simpson. Ultimately, the thesis of this paper is that there was no legal impediment to a marriage between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson; rather the issue raised by the King’s desire to marry Mrs. Simpson was political, and the abdication could have been avoided if political options had been pursued.

1. 
   Reading large bold type really makes me appreciate those who just use normal type.

 

[_Joshua]

Marsu54:

Basically - Who cares? These people are a joke! And they can’t be voted out! All the $$$$ wasted on this bunch!

.

True, so many love to follow this Alice in Wonderland royal family, and yes they are a joke, a very expensive one.
How can anyone support someone that signed the abortion act, it’s like giving credence to John Kerry.

 

[Fitz]

(Joshua):

How can anyone support someone that signed the abortion act, it’s like giving credence to John Kerry.

I don’t think I could be Catholic in a country that forbid Catholics to ever be a royal. I would be too insulted or feel second class. The whole system is archaic.