Camilla and The Public

[Pranter]

From the religious views, of some Churches, divorce is accepted since sometimes a couple cannot live together and due to legal issues they need to be civilly divorced. It is when there is an attempt at re-marriage it can get sticky depending on the situation.

The rules of the CoE would apply in the situation of Charles and Camilla.


LaRae

I will add Staying married 'for the kids' is an idea that sounds lovely and appropriate in writing but rarely works out in practise. As long as the children know they are loved and did nothing wrong a separation of Parents is so much healthier than being in the middle of two parents who have to pretend to like each other and certainly don't want to do things as a family anymore.

Except in reality it's often as bad or worse for several reasons.


LaRae

 

[amaryllus]

Two parents happy, functional and healthy apart trumps two parents miserable, distant and depressed together IMO. Esp if you have as so often happens parents who use the children as pawns in various ways.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Two parents happy, functional and healthy apart trumps two parents miserable, distant and depressed together IMO. Esp if you have as so often happens parents who use the children as pawns in various ways.

Which, unhappily, was the case in this situation. It was so much better as divorced parents and separate households. Particularly for Charles, though even there, Diana managed to keep the children from him. As early as the mid to late 80's tell-alls reveal this about Diana. Very sad. Oh well, it was what it was. Ancient history. Life has moved on, as has Diana (I am sure). I doubt she would be pleased with the continuing animus. She'd want to undo that, I'm sure. Pure speculation, of course, but imo that would really let her rest in peace methinks.

 

[royal rob]

Except in reality it's often as bad or worse for several reasons.





LaRae

And ain't that the truth


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

" They were able to marry but not in the Church of England"

Let me get this straight.. They were married under Church of England rites by the leader of the Church of England but yet not married in the Church of England?

Yeah, no. They are legally positively technically throughly undeniably and most of all religiously married

They weren't religiously married.

They had a civil marriage conducted at Windsor Guildhall. The marriage was then blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury at St. George's Chapel.

Oh, I think the Church of England still has a problem with it, especially in the case of the woman who might be crowned Queen consort.

The Coronation ceremony includes a lot of mystical stuff and bits about the monarch having been approved, if not chosen, by God. A king's consort is anointed. That anointment business is heavy stuff to the C of E and I think a few of the bigwigs in that hierarchy would be quite bothered by the prospect of anointing Camilla, since many people seem to believe that Camilla & Charles' relationship was a direct cause of the breakdown of Charles' first marriage rather than merely a consequence.

Which is why I am more and more inclined to the view that some deal was done, or "understanding" reached, with the Church which is at least part of the reason for the statement of intention about Camilla being Princess Consort rather than Queen Consort.

This is a load of...

The CoE was willing to crown Edward VIII (they didn't, but they were going to), despite the fact that he had numerous affairs with married women.

The CoE did crown his grandfather, Edward VII, who also had a number of affairs with married women despite being a married man himself.

The CoE crowned William IV who had a 20 year relationship with a woman, and 10 children, who he was not married to, and his brother, George IV, who also had a number of mistresses throughout his marriage.

The CoE also crowned George II, who again had a number of mistresses, and George I who also had mistresses.

The CoE crowned James II who was openly a Catholic and had 7 acknowledged illegitimate children. And his brother, who had 12 mistresses and acknowledged 13 illegitimate children.

So, given the people the CoE has already crowned as King Regent, someone please explain to just what it is about Camilla that makes so unacceptable as a Queen Consort.

 

[amaryllus]

She is not Diana SHE. STOLE. DIANAS. PLACE!! IT IS SO NOT FAIR!!(stomping like a cranky 4 year old)

 

[Roslyn]

She is not Diana SHE. STOLE. DIANAS. PLACE!! IT IS SO NOT FAIR!!(stomping like a cranky 4 year old)

That 's part of it. That and social and institutional sexism.

 

[Curryong]

More people know about Charles and Camilla's relationship while married to others than members of the British public knew about the liaisons of these historical public figures at the time they were crowned, though. Neither William IV nor Edward VIII were married when they began their romances, either.

Even the press coverage of Edward and Mrs Simpson at the time of the Abdication was a deal more restrained than the coverage of the War of the Wales was.

It's the fact that most adult Britons know all about Charles and Camilla's adultery (unless theyve been under a rock for decades) that makes Camilla such a contentious figure to many, in my view. The Church of England is a fairly conservative body which loathes controversy and that makes it wary of stating publicly it would accept her as Queen Consort.

As far as I know, none of the Queen Consorts (at least in the modern era) were divorced or unfaithful to their husbands. Therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury was able to anoint them with a clear conscience, whatever he felt about the males.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is a difference though in crowning a reigning monarch and crowing a Queen Consort who has committed adultery and/or being divorced.


There is no question of Charles not being crowned - whether married to Camilla or not.


The question is whether the Archbishop of the day would crown Camilla. In 1936 the then archbishop made it clear he would not crown Wallis due to the fact that she had two living ex-husbands. Camilla's is in that position - with a living ex-husband - and so it may be that the Archbishop of the day says he won't crown her (doubt that would happen but it is possible).

 

[Queen Camilla]

It's the fact that every single person knows all about Charles and Camilla's adultery (unless you've been under a rock for decades) that makes her such a contentious figure to many, in my view. The Church of England is a fairly conservative body which loathes controversy and that makes it wary of stating publicly it would accept her as Queen Consort.

Every single person

When a marriage breaks down and the couple continues to be married but have separate lives is it adultery or an open marriage?

The clergy that will anoint Camilla and Charles is not the clergy that anointed the Queen.

No one thought the church would embrace homosexuals.

In the U.K. homosexual activity was a criminal offense until 1967. Homosexuals in the U.K. were still treated differently until the 21st century.

In 2000, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 were invoked to ensure the passage of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 which equalised that age of consent at 16 for both homosexual and heterosexual behaviours throughout the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

Open marriages and affairs were not a criminal offense.

The churches view on open marriage may not be the same as in the 1950s.

Look at how far the world has come on homosexual relationships.

 

[Pranter]

And ain't that the truth


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Yep...but no one ever talks about that.


LaRae

 

[Curryong]

Yes, but look how long it took for those measures to be accepted. I don't think Charles and Camilla have a couple of decades or more to spare waiting for attitudes in the upper ranks of the Church of England to change.

Charles may succeed as king next week and be crowned next summer. We hope not, but you never know. I don't think the stance of senior clergy would undergo a huge sea change in the next year or two.

 

[amaryllus]

I am sure something has been worked out and set in stone years ago either way.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Yes, but look how long it took for those measures to be accepted. I don't think Charles and Camilla have a couple of decades or more to spare waiting for attitudes in the upper ranks of the Church of England to change.

Charles may succeed as king next week and be crowned next summer. We hope not, but you never know. I don't think the stance of senior clergy would undergo a huge sea change in the next year or two.

It has already been a couple of decades. Camilla divorced in 1995.

 

[Lady Nimue]

She is not Diana SHE. STOLE. DIANAS. PLACE!! IT IS SO NOT FAIR!!(stomping like a cranky 4 year old)

The hard truth is, Diana exited herself from her 'place'. It's a very sad story.

More people know about Charles and Camilla's relationship while married to others than members of the British public knew about the liaisons of these historical public figures at the time they were crowned, though. Neither William IV nor Edward VIII were married when they began their romances, either.

Even the press coverage of Edward and Mrs Simpson at the time of the Abdication was a deal more restrained than the coverage of the War of the Wales was.

It's the fact that most adult Britons know all about Charles and Camilla's adultery (unless theyve been under a rock for decades) that makes Camilla such a contentious figure to many, in my view. The Church of England is a fairly conservative body which loathes controversy and that makes it wary of stating publicly it would accept her as Queen Consort.

As far as I know, none of the Queen Consorts (at least in the modern era) were divorced or unfaithful to their husbands. Therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury was able to anoint them with a clear conscience, whatever he felt about the males.

Why is it that so much is known? It's because of Diana, pure and simple. It was she who was broadcasting it. A less discreet member of the BRF there has not been, I think. Why are Diana's serial transgressions less known? Because Charles never breathed a word disgracing his wife. Never once. Charles' one mistress is pilloried forever, yet Diana's numerous liaisons, and embarrassing conduct stalking men, gets a pass. Curious. Just saying.

Diana would have been Queen and I am assuming you would have been fine with it.

The double standard is glaring.

 

[Curryong]

Camilla is, in 2015, still a divisive figure as far as some sections of the British public is concerned and it's not because of anything other than her role in Charles's past.

Look at her poll numbers just this year and she and Charles have been married since 2005. It's all very well saying that people should move on and get over it, when it's crystal clear that that's not happening.

The Archbishop of Canterbury may not want to speak to this issue at this time, or he may not want to anoint and crown a divorced woman who quite clearly was involved in an adulterous affair, as Queen Consort, and that's the question isn't it, not how long Camilla has been divorced from her first husband?

 

[Zonk]

Let's stay on topic. This thread isn't about Diana.

Any and all additional posts will be deleted as off topic.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[....]
The Archbishop of Canterbury may not want to speak to this issue at this time, or he may not want to anoint and crown a divorced woman who quite clearly was involved in an adulterous affair [...]

Not so very long ago it was unithinkable that the Church of England would anoint female vicars. They did.

Not so long ago it was unthinkable that the Church of England would anount female bishops. They did.

Until recently it was unthinkable that the Church of England would allow same-gender couples to be blessed. They are moving towards it.

Previous Archbishops of Canterbury have anointed and crowned previous Kings whose extramarital escapades and even extramarital children were known to the public.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will be the last to block anything regarding Camilla. These days the Church of England is as fexible as the elastic of a bungee-jumper.

 

[muriel]

I think the CoE has a far greater issue to contend with at the moment: how to be relevant in the life of the modern Briton. Most people I know only visit the Church for Weddings, Christenings and Funerals. Attendance is dismal and dropping. I think the CoE is increasingly have to move with the times, and adapt to changing social norms. I would be surprised if the CoE would, in practice, have an issue with C&C. Yes, they were divorced and remarried, but they are practicing Christians, and regular churchgoers (and that is a rarity!)

 

[Honeybees]

I think the CoE has a far greater issue to contend with at the moment: how to be relevant in the life of the modern Briton. Most people I know only visit the Church for Weddings, Christenings and Funerals. Attendance is dismal and dropping. I think the CoE is increasingly have to move with the times, and adapt to changing social norms. I would be surprised if the CoE would, in practice, have an issue with C&C. Yes, they were divorced and remarried, but they are practicing Christians, and regular churchgoers (and that is a rarity!)

Okay that is a bit of a huge statement. There are sections of the Church of England growing and there are people such as myself who go to Church several times a week. The Church of England remains part of The House of Lord's. Christmas and Easter messages by Justin Welby make the news. Ms. Middleton was confirmed in the Church of England prior to her marriage in the Church of England, they remain a powerful and important part of this country in my humble opinion. Does H.M ever have a Christmas message were she does not mention her personal faith?

 

[Mbruno]

Every single person

When a marriage breaks down and the couple continues to be married but have separate lives is it adultery or an open marriage?

The clergy that will anoint Camilla and Charles is not the clergy that anointed the Queen.

No one thought the church would embrace homosexuals.

In the U.K. homosexual activity was a criminal offense until 1967. Homosexuals in the U.K. were still treated differently until the 21st century.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

Open marriages and affairs were not a criminal offense.

The churches view on open marriage may not be the same as in the 1950s.

Look at how far the world has come on homosexual relationships.

Same-sex marriages have been legalized in civil law in the UK, but not in Church canon law. On the contrary, as I understand it, when the Uk parliament legalized same-sex marriage, it also explicitly forbade the CoE from celebrating religious same-sex unions,

Besides, I don't see what your argument has to do with the fact that Charles and Camilla were not (and actually could not) be remarried in the CoE, even though the Church blessed their civil marriage.

 

[Mbruno]

I think the CoE has a far greater issue to contend with at the moment: how to be relevant in the life of the modern Briton. Most people I know only visit the Church for Weddings, Christenings and Funerals. Attendance is dismal and dropping. I think the CoE is increasingly have to move with the times, and adapt to changing social norms. I would be surprised if the CoE would, in practice, have an issue with C&C. Yes, they were divorced and remarried, but they are practicing Christians, and regular churchgoers (and that is a rarity!)

I am not a religious person and it is not up to me to tell any Church how to run their affairs. However, based on statistical evidence, all Protestant churches mostly in northern and northwrstern Europe that have taken líberal positions on issues like ordination of women or same-sex unions continue to see sharp declines in membership whereas the Catholic church, which has broadly stuck to a conservative position, has suffered a slower membership decline in comparison.

My point is not that liberal positions have hurt European Protestant churches and that they would have been better off with a conservative stance, but rather that secularization in northern Europe is part. of a much broader and multi-factor social trend and , therefore, it is misleading for the churches to think they will stop or reverse their decline in attendance and membership simply by taking liberal views on marriage, divorce and sexuality for example,

When churches take those positions, they should do it because they genuinely believe it is the right thing to do so and not because they hope to boost their membership ,

 

[Roslyn]

When churches take those positions, they should do it because they genuinely believe it is the right thing to do so and not because they hope to boost their membership ,

 

[muriel]

There are sections of the Church of England growing and there are people such as myself who go to Church several times a week.

Said with the utmost respect, there are always people who are regular church goers, but I personally don't know very many.

The Church of England remains part of The House of Lord's. Christmas and Easter messages by Justin Welby make the news. Ms. Middleton was confirmed in the Church of England prior to her marriage in the Church of England, they remain a powerful and important part of this country in my humble opinion. Does H.M ever have a Christmas message were she does not mention her personal faith?

I am not doubting the institutional role of the Church, I am merely querying its relevance in the life of the average Briton today.

To go back to your point about the Easter message of the AoC, it may make the news, but not many people know what was said in the message. IMO, to most Britons, Easter is that nice long weekend, and a time to get away.

 

[Curryong]

Whatever the views are of the average Brit about the Church of England, that isn't going to affect Camilla being crowned as Queen Consort, however. I think both CP and the senior clergy will be watching for any softening of public opinion about the title she is to bear in the future.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Same-sex marriages have been legalized in civil law in the UK, but not in Church canon law. On the contrary, as I understand it, when the Uk parliament legalized same-sex marriage, it also explicitly forbade the CoE from celebrating religious same-sex unions,

Besides, I don't see what your argument has to do with the fact that Charles and Camilla were not (and actually could not) be remarried in the CoE, even though the Church blessed their civil marriage.

They could have been married in a CoE church IF they found a minister who would have done so (my late minister would have had they asked as he didn't believe that Camilla contributed to the break down of Charles and Diana's marriage in the first place believing that the marriage was over before Charles returned to Camilla - in other words he believed Charles' version of events rather than Diana's).

That is the limits placed on the clergy - if they believe that the two people haven't contributed to the breakdown of either person's first marriage he or she is able to marry them in the church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, of the day, decided that he couldn't marry them and as the heir to the throne Charles should only be married by the AoC. He could have gone north of the border and married in any Church of Scotland church if he had so desired but then wouldn't have had the blessing of the Archbishop.

 

[Mbruno]

Camilla is, in 2015, still a divisive figure as far as some sections of the British public is concerned and it's not because of anything other than her role in Charles's past.

Exactly. The proof is that , in the YouGov poll, almost a third of the respondents thought Camilla should be given no royal title at all and only 16 % wanted her to be known as queen.

I think it became clear in Diana's funeral that the BRF can no longer ignore public opinion and will not do it in the future. As long as the public doesn't want Queen Camilla, she won't be referred to as queen when Charles becomes king.

 

[muriel]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, of the day, decided that he couldn't marry them and as the heir to the throne Charles should only be married by the AoC.

I take it that is your presumption rather than a statement of fact?

 

[Osipi]

When given a reality check, what it all boils down to is that we still have absolutely no real clue what will happen when the time comes and Charles is crowned as King. We can speculate all we want and we can turn to what has happened in the past and the results of different polls that were taken but we still are left with pure speculation on what will happen.

We do know that short of death, Camilla will be by his side as the strong, supporting spouse that she is and that, to Charles, is what matters the most. She doesn't actively seek any kind of recognition or limelight or fame or fortune but does what she does admirably in my book.

 

[Pranter]

We all know the CoE will just change the rules again ...if Charles wants her to have the title, she'll have it.


LaRae