D
DavidSears
Guest
What will happen to the Church of England after Prince Charles becomes king? Can he be the leader of the church because he is married to a divorced woman, Camilla Parker Bowles? What’ll happen there?
I’m guessing it has been addressed. Just not in the press.Thank you, I’ve been pondering that. Because if Charles takes the throne while under an unlawful marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall, it seems as though the church would seem to have a bit of a problem. I wonder why Queen Elizabeth II or Charles never addressed this…
I am guarding my counsel here. But I think such will turn out to be the case.I’m guessing it has been addressed. Just not in the press.
Since the Queen is the head of the church of England, I’m sure all I’s have been dotted.
As stated, probably already covered, though admittedly, I forgot it was a civil ceremony.What will happen to the Church of England after Prince Charles becomes king? Can he be the leader of the church because he is married to a divorced woman, Camilla Parker Bowles? What’ll happen there?
Hehe, yeah I had that in my signature because here in Rhode Island, it has become normal even for people who appear to be in their 30’s! It disgusts me. But I digress, yeah I have been watching documentaries on the royal family and just took a book out of the library on Diana which had an interview in it with her. Then it dawned on me because not only was it a civil ceremony, it was also to a divorced woman, so it begged me to ask the question I suppose.As stated, probably already covered, though admittedly, I forgot it was a civil ceremony.
But to part of your signature…
(And wear pants on my waist, yes we still exist)
THANK YOU!!!
Kinda wish you didn’t change your signature!Hehe, yeah I had that in my signature because here in Rhode Island, it has become normal even for people who appear to be in their 30’s! It disgusts me. But I digress, yeah I have been watching documentaries on the royal family and just took a book out of the library on Diana which had an interview in it with her. Then it dawned on me because not only was it a civil ceremony, it was also to a divorced woman, so it begged me to ask the question I suppose.
Sorry! Haha it was old. I have an impulse to change things a lot. And that whole family has become a mess. The past 25 years must have been the worst for the queen. Scandal after scandal, divorce, death, illicit marriages. Poor Elizabeth…Kinda wish you didn’t change your signature!
But back to the subject; Henry did what he wanted, and they changed the line of succession for boy or girl of Will and Kate, so they will adapt yet again and somehow.
But doing that required legislation passed by the parliaments of all the Commonwealth Realms. It isn’t exactly a simple undertaking, nothing that can be done on the spot during a succession crisis.Kinda wish you didn’t change your signature!
But back to the subject; Henry did what he wanted, and they changed the line of succession for boy or girl of Will and Kate, so they will adapt yet again and somehow.
Understood. I didn’t think it was an easy process. Little in politics is. Anywhere, it seems…But doing that required legislation passed by the parliaments of all the Commonwealth Realms. It isn’t exactly a simple undertaking, nothing that can be done on the spot during a succession crisis.
It can’t be unlawful for him to marry a divorced woman as it would be to marry a Catholic (not that either are actually illegal, simply that royals who marry Catholics lose their place in line to the throne, which hasn’t happened to Charles with his marriage to a divorcee.)Thank you, I’ve been pondering that. Because if Charles takes the throne while under an unlawful marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall, it seems as though the church would seem to have a bit of a problem. I wonder why Queen Elizabeth II or Charles never addressed this…
The hard part in these cases is that everyone has to pass an identical law. If Wikipedia is up to date it seems the new law allowing a firstborn daughter to inherit still hasn’t been passed in all the realms, given that it was agreed to change that law back in 2011, that shows what you’re up against with these issues. Not necessarily politics, but bureaucracy.Understood. I didn’t think it was an easy process. Little in politics is. Anywhere, it seems…
Some Americans think that bitter war was a mistake, believe it or not. But even if American independence was a good thing, it’s still perfectly reasonable to hold a special affection for the Mother Country.Who cares?: I cannot understand the American facination with the English Monarchy. We fought a bitter war in order to be free of the British Royals, and the Episcopal Church seceeded from the Anglican Church in order that the British regent would not be the head of their church.
Jesus Christ is head of the Church. The Queen is merely Supreme Governor.I’m guessing it has been addressed. Just not in the press.
Since the Queen is the head of the church of England, I’m sure all I’s have been dotted.
Help me to understand, if you please. (Not smart in this department.)It’s a grave matter, I suppose. How can a church go against the Gospel? Jesus is very clear in condemning the divorce. Charles is unworthy to become the head of the church as long as he is with his wife, because he can bring confusion in the world about the Christian teachings.
His marriage to Diana did. Camilla is also divorced. So in the eyes of the church she is still married to the man she is civilly divorced from. Does the COE have the equivalent of our decree of nullity? Maybe she has one and it hasn’t been make public.Help me to understand, if you please. (Not smart in this department.)
Even though Charles was divorced, from Diana, didn’t her death break the marriage contract? I understand the condemming of divorce.
I understand his marriage to Camilla was a civil one, that that’s not upholding the COE , either.
And does Camilla espouse the COE? I am assuming yes.
I don’t think he’s the best man for the job, but that’s my opinion, not knowing the protocols of the COE aside. I do know that Henry went against the Gospel, though.