Prince Charles And Church of England

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidSears
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DavidSears said:
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?
Click to expand...
Their divorce was final 8/26/96
 
DavidSears said:
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?
Click to expand...
What does it really matter and who cares. Frankly the Church of England was founded by King Henry the eighth who broke with Rome because the Pope would not annul his marriage to his first wife who didn’t bare him a male heir to marry Anne who was pregnant at the time with Queen Elizabeth. With such a great moral example like this and this guy wanting a divorce and dump his first wife, why does it matter that Prince Charles and Camilla are both divorced from their first respective spouses after screwing around with each other for years.
Oh please, there is no scandal here because the whole thing is founded by a big fat jerk anyway. so called royals have been acting bad for centuries, the quicker we learn to ignore them, the sooner we hope they will go away.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Yes, he’s married to a divorced woman…but he’s a divorced man, too!
So whatever the divorce “issue” is, they both have it.
Click to expand...
Since his first wife is dead, his divorce “issue” is a moot point. It is not sin to remarry if your spouse dies. It’s only a sin for a divorced person to marry someone else while their former spouse still lives.
 
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...
No, the queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is Supreme Governor. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England, I think you’ll find (under Christ, of course).
 
paperwight66 said:
No, the queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is Supreme Governor. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England, I think you’ll find (under Christ, of course).
Click to expand...
Per the 1559 Act of Supremacy. Henry was, indeed, the Supreme Head of the CoE, per the earlier Supreme Head Act (1534) but things change.

Cantuar is the Primate of the CoE, but it doesn’t help him a lot.

GKC
 
ltwin said:
Since his first wife is dead, his divorce “issue” is a moot point. It is not sin to remarry if your spouse dies. It’s only a sin for a divorced person to marry someone else while their former spouse still lives.
Click to expand...
The point, yes.

GKC
 
ltwin said:
Since his first wife is dead, his divorce “issue” is a moot point. It is not sin to remarry if your spouse dies. It’s only a sin for a divorced person to marry someone else while their former spouse still lives.
Click to expand...
I think though her ex-husband isn’t but what is the point of sin? Both of them were in a long term affair with each other while they were married to others. It seems like that is a bigger sin than divorcing and remarrying each other afterwards. It seems like the Church of England has bigger issues on it’s hands that whether these two divorced and remarried couple becomes it’s figurative heads. I think I read where the Church of England now has a marriage ceremony for same sex couples, opening gay priests can become bishops as well as women becoming priests and bishops. It was the Church of England that was the first Christian denomination in the 1930’s to approve of artificial contraception. There are much bigger issues than whether two basically immoral people are divorced and remarried and become its figurative head based on some law from the 1500’s. If the CoE is founded by someone trying to dump his first wife to marry his pregnant mistress doesn’t that seem like hypocrisy to worry about Prince Charles? i remember that before he finally married her, they went before the Archbishop of Canterbury to “confess” their sins in a very public show. Then they got married in a civil ceremony. What’s the point of that? Were they truly sorry for their sins of long term adultery resulting in the destruction of their marriages?
Why do we need to even discuss this on a Catholic forum?
 
robwar said:
I think though her ex-husband isn’t but what is the point of sin? Both of them were in a long term affair with each other while they were married to others. It seems like that is a bigger sin than divorcing and remarrying each other afterwards. It seems like the Church of England has bigger issues on it’s hands that whether these two divorced and remarried couple becomes it’s figurative heads. I think I read where the Church of England now has a marriage ceremony for same sex couples, opening gay priests can become bishops as well as women becoming priests and bishops. It was the Church of England that was the first Christian denomination in the 1930’s to approve of artificial contraception. There are much bigger issues than whether two basically immoral people are divorced and remarried and become its figurative head based on some law from the 1500’s. If the CoE is founded by someone trying to dump his first wife to marry his pregnant mistress doesn’t that seem like hypocrisy to worry about Prince Charles? i remember that before he finally married her, they went before the Archbishop of Canterbury to “confess” their sins in a very public show. Then they got married in a civil ceremony. What’s the point of that? Were they truly sorry for their sins of long term adultery resulting in the destruction of their marriages?
Why do we need to even discuss this on a Catholic forum?
Click to expand...
The CoE has a number of problems, in the eyes of a lot of folks; you put your finger on some here. But only the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the CoE, not his/her consort.

As to your last question, I think this is a RC board, and this specifically is a forum on non-Catholic stuff. Certainly, over the years, I’ve found myself discussing a lot of history, with Anglican themes.

GKC
 
GKC said:
The CoE has a number of problems, in the eyes of a lot of folks; you put your finger on some here. But only the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the CoE, not his/her consort.

As to your last question, I think this is a RC board, and this specifically is a forum on non-Catholic stuff. Certainly, over the years, I’ve found myself discussing a lot of history, with Anglican themes.

GKC
Click to expand...
Even if supreme Governor, it seems like that is more figurative and meaningless in the long run. From some of the interviews I’ve seen of Prince Charles, he seems more new age than orthodox Christian so I guess I would think that would be a bigger concern than being divorced (ex-wife dead) and remarried. But no one has answered by point in that King Henry broke from Rome to divorce his first wife. Since that is the case, why is there any concern over Prince Charles?
 
robwar said:
Even if supreme Governor, it seems like that is more figurative and meaningless in the long run. From some of the interviews I’ve seen of Prince Charles, he seems more new age than orthodox Christian so I guess I would think that would be a bigger concern than being divorced (ex-wife dead) and remarried. But no one has answered by point in that King Henry broke from Rome to divorce his first wife. Since that is the case, why is there any concern over Prince Charles?
Click to expand...
It certainly is a figurehead and symbolic (though not totally toothless) position the Sovereign holds, yes. In Henry’s day, not so.

No, Henry broke from the RCC over his failure to receive a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, a historical story with many complications, as the history of the period is equally complex. Not a divorce, that is. And a hobby of mine for many years, Henry’s Great Matter.

GKC
 
robwar said:
I think though her ex-husband isn’t but what is the point of sin? Both of them were in a long term affair with each other while they were married to others. It seems like that is a bigger sin than divorcing and remarrying each other afterwards. It seems like the Church of England has bigger issues on it’s hands that whether these two divorced and remarried couple becomes it’s figurative heads. I think I read where the Church of England now has a marriage ceremony for same sex couples, opening gay priests can become bishops as well as women becoming priests and bishops. It was the Church of England that was the first Christian denomination in the 1930’s to approve of artificial contraception. There are much bigger issues than whether two basically immoral people are divorced and remarried and become its figurative head based on some law from the 1500’s. If the CoE is founded by someone trying to dump his first wife to marry his pregnant mistress doesn’t that seem like hypocrisy to worry about Prince Charles? i remember that before he finally married her, they went before the Archbishop of Canterbury to “confess” their sins in a very public show. Then they got married in a civil ceremony. What’s the point of that? Were they truly sorry for their sins of long term adultery resulting in the destruction of their marriages?
Click to expand...
Yes, their adultery was scandalous, but I personally refuse to judge people I don’t even know for their past. I have no idea if they really repented of their sins, just as I have no idea whether other people truly repent. These aren’t normal people though. They are royals, and stuff like confessing to the Archbishop of Canterbury in a public manner (whether a show or sincere) comes with royalty and politics.

Anyway, the Anglican Church (worldwide) has a lot of problems. They are in a big mess, and the monarchy doesn’t really have much to do with that. The Church of England’s hierarchy and legislative processes seem perfectly suited to self-destruction, without reference to the Supreme Governor.

And I think its too simplistic to judge the founding of the Anglican Church to hypocrisy of King Henry. Yeah, he doesn’t come out looking too good, but few people involved do. King Henry, by the standards of the time, had every reason to expect that when it came to Queen Catherine he could get what he desired. The Pope’s objections had a lot to do with political considerations at the time.
robwar said:
Why do we need to even discuss this on a Catholic forum?
Click to expand...
I suppose it isn’t necessary, but at least the OP thinks its something worth discussing. And this is the Non-Catholic Religions sub-forum, so???
 
Nine_Two said:
Didn’t know it was only Americans on the internet. The things you learn!
Click to expand...
Sorry for sounding provincial, but what can I say. I’m a yank, and I’m uniformed. At least you proved the stereotype correct that Canadians are polite, yet have a good sense of humor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top