Prince Charles And Church of England

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidSears
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maltmom said:
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.
Click to expand...
See my post #3 above. Since 2002, the possibility of, not a decree of nullity, in this case, but a dispensation, has existed.

GKC
 
maltmom said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you!! I forgot she was married before!! (Duh on me.) Hence, the civil wedding between her and Charles… ahhhh.
Yes, so maybe Wills will get the crown…
 
GKC said:
See my post #3 above. Since 2002, the possibility of, not a decree of nullity, in this case, but a dispensation, has existed.

GKC
Click to expand...
DUH, I had read that yesterday and completely forgot. Thanks.
 
GKC said:
The older I get, the more I need help like that.

GKC
Click to expand...
I feel your pain.

To stay on topic. 😉 Based on his having an affair with Camilla while married to Diana makes him a very good role model. Two marriages broke apart b/c of it. Does that mean at the end of the day that he won’t be a good King? I don’t know.
 
maltmom said:
I feel your pain.

To stay on topic. 😉 Based on his having an affair with Camilla while married to Diana makes him a very good role model. Two marriages broke apart b/c of it. Does that mean at the end of the day that he won’t be a good King? I don’t know.
Click to expand...
In fact, I don’t either. But I am of the mind that he will not be on the throne for long, in any case. I suspect a fix is in the works.

Not that I have any acquaintances in those circles. Just a guess.

GKC
 
George_Stegmeir said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍 THANK YOU, someone finally said it.
 
GKC said:
Possibly you wandered into this thread by mistake?

GKC
Click to expand...
Nope, i’ve always wondered why people here in the states love the monarchy so much. Honestly, they are just classier versions of the celebrity trash we have here in the states, who happen to be rulers (and really the don’t rule, they don’t have any power) of another country.
 
WildCatholic said:
Nope, i’ve always wondered why people here in the states love the monarchy so much. Honestly, they are just classier versions of the celebrity trash we have here in the states, who happen to be rulers (and really the don’t rule, they don’t have any power) of another country.
Click to expand...
Me, I’m interested in history. Not Charles in particular, or ncessarily, but the current situation as it may be seen to relate to Henry VIII’s Great Matter; that latter a hobby of mine for over 10 years.

Impediments/dispensations/decrees of nullity. Parallels. Interesting stuff, for some.

GKC
 
What hurts us is the level of devotion to the Lord that Her Majesty has shown. Even through her public pronouncements.
 
Indifferently said:
What hurts us is the level of devotion to the Lord that Her Majesty has shown. Even through her public pronouncements.
Click to expand...
I have no insight into this but I would not be surprised if Her Majesty has been part of advanced planning for the succession.

GKC
 
cheezey said:
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.
Click to expand...
They might as well prepare for a different dynasty with every second monarch or for multiple tiers of inheriting dynastic membership through the female line. Sooner or later they will have to rely on nobless uterine for the monarch, which isn’t allowed to peers or simple gentlemen (except in Canada, sort of).

They will also need to make children of princesses princes, which is currently not the case.

Wow, they might actually run out of duchies at some point! 😛
 
chevalier said:
They might as well prepare for a different dynasty with every second monarch or for multiple tiers of inheriting dynastic membership through the female line
Click to expand...
Royal Houses haven’t followed the rule that dynasties are male-line for a while. The Romanov’s had several female leaders who weren’t necessarily blood, and Europes most famous dynasty, the Habsburgs legally became the house of Habsburg-Lorraine with the death of Maria Theresa, although if you followed technicalities, it was really the House of Lorraine (A house with a longer history than that of Habsburg, it might be noted).

I believe Charles has already referred to his house as “Montbatten-Windsor”, and I’m sure we’re going to see a chain of “___-Windsor” dynasties.
 
WildCatholic said:
Nope, i’ve always wondered why people here in the states love the monarchy so much. Honestly, they are just classier versions of the celebrity trash we have here in the states, who happen to be rulers (and really the don’t rule, they don’t have any power) of another country.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know it was only Americans on the internet. The things you learn!
 
Nine_Two said:
Royal Houses haven’t followed the rule that dynasties are male-line for a while. The Romanov’s had several female leaders who weren’t necessarily blood, and Europes most famous dynasty, the Habsburgs legally became the house of Habsburg-Lorraine with the death of Maria Theresa, although if you followed technicalities, it was really the House of Lorraine (A house with a longer history than that of Habsburg, it might be noted).

I believe Charles has already referred to his house as “Montbatten-Windsor”, and I’m sure we’re going to see a chain of “___-Windsor” dynasties.
Click to expand...
Charles and William are most likely still Windsors dynastically, though Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname used on some occasions. But after three queens in a row this would begin to look silly. At the same time one can’t really have a dynasty of Average with exactly 1 member just because the female heir married a Joe Average.
 
chevalier said:
Charles and William are most likely still Windsors dynastically, though Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname used on some occasions. But after three queens in a row this would begin to look silly. At the same time one can’t really have a dynasty of Average with exactly 1 member just because the female heir married a Joe Average.
Click to expand...
The House of Orange has had three queens in a row. It isn’t unprecedented. 😉
 
Dumb question, were Charles and Diana divorced? Or were they just separated? I know Camilla Parker Bowles is divorced (her husband is awfully close to Princess Anne now). i thought Diana and Charles were just separated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top