The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #921  
Old 09-14-2015, 08:27 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
The Public vs the Church.

The Church's views in 2005 is different than the Church's view in 2015.

The Church's views in 2025 will be different than the Church's views in 2005.

The Public's perception of Camilla before joining the BRF was crafted by the media to sell papers.

The media deliberately trashed Camilla to increase circulation.

The Public's perception of Camilla changed, not because of anything she did, but because people became aware of the real Camilla.

Now the Public has a realistic view of Camilla and not the distorted view of Camilla the media successfully created.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #922  
Old 09-14-2015, 08:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
My Grandmother used to say, Man plans and God laughs. All of this is supposition. Camilla may be dead when Charles becomes king. He may be dead before his mother. There may be something quite well worked out in the government and the RF as to how this will fly. No one know what tomorrow will being, least who knows when. And when Charles becomes king, he will not be young, so some things may be changed more easily.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #923  
Old 09-14-2015, 08:51 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
My Grandmother used to say, Man plans and God laughs. All of this is supposition. Camilla may be dead when Charles becomes king. He may be dead before his mother. There may be something quite well worked out in the government and the RF as to how this will fly. No one know what tomorrow will being, least who knows when. And when Charles becomes king, he will not be young, so some things may be changed more easily.
True. But it's also possible HM could have a massive heart attack or stroke today and be gone before the day's end.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #924  
Old 09-14-2015, 09:07 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,054
According to the Church and the Law they are married. That is an end to it. To those of you who think Camilla and or Charles are not "repentant enough", I can only believe you are practicing Christians. My advice: look to the lack of forgiveness in your own hearts.

We don't get to decide who is and who isn't deserving of God's forgiveness, that is God's department and I am guessing he's looking really hard at those who would carry on a campaign of anger and hatred in His name.

Man proposes, God disposes.

ps: So Henry VIII was fine and in communion with God and Charles is not! There lies the essence of hard hearts and hard heads.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #925  
Old 09-14-2015, 09:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,219
No, others don't get to decide who should and shouldn't be forgiven. That is God's responsibility. However, adultery isn't a light thing to be dismissed as unimportant either. And, regardless of what Diana and Andrew PB did or didn't do, the actions of Charles and of Camilla helped to destroy their two marriages.

The divorces impacted on their children's lives, four individuals who didn't have any say in what went on. That will always be there as part of their personal history and will be written about in future biographies, however long Charles and Camilla live.
Reply With Quote
  #926  
Old 09-14-2015, 09:44 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,365
Marge-You are a very smart and wise person.
Reply With Quote
  #927  
Old 09-14-2015, 09:52 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I think the solution to all of this would be King Charles, on Day 1, being advised by the PM of the day that his wife should keep and use the title of Queen. This can then be announced, and the matter ends there.

This would be similar, IMO, to QE2 being advised by Churchill that she could not continue to live at Clarence House, as hoped by HM and the DoE, and would have to live at BP.
I think we have it all sorted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
I agree. Giving her a lesser title will keep the Royal family in an ugly past and forever remind people of it... This starts a new chapter and should start clean. I also agree other than a very small vocal minority and the usual trash tabloid nonsense what with mourning for The queen and the excitement and press hoopla over the Coronation no one is going to fixate on it.
Agree 100%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
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.[...] 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.
As always, i remain bemused regarding those 'many people'.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #928  
Old 09-14-2015, 09:53 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
No, others don't get to decide who should and shouldn't be forgiven. That is God's responsibility. However, adultery isn't a light thing to be dismissed as unimportant either. And, regardless of what Diana and Andrew PB did or didn't do, the actions of Charles and of Camilla helped to destroy their two marriages.
Does it really matter? Is it really desirable that a marriage be preserved at all costs, after it has irretrievably broken down? I don't think so and I cannot get worked up about adultery when the relationship between the two parties to the marriage is hopeless. It's cruel to them to put them under pressure to do so, and in my opinion forcing people who can't stand to be in the same room to stay together for appearances' sake is far worse for the children than to allow them to separate and divorce. And I also believe it's cruel to deny people who get together during the demise of their previous marriage/s the right to a wedding in their Church simply on the basis that their relationship provided the impetus to formally end the fatally flawed one.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #929  
Old 09-14-2015, 10:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,365
"The divorces impacted on their children's lives, four individuals who didn't have any say in what went on."

Divorce always impacts children's life's but as far as we know these particular divorces were not particularly traumatic or had any lasting repercussions. Charles was always good father and I assume Camilla was a decent mother whatever else they had going on. Kids adjust accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #930  
Old 09-14-2015, 10:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,219
Yes, kids do adjust, but we really don't know how much of an impact it had on the lives of these four people, especially the aftermath for two boys who one day had their divorced mother (who saw them regularly in the school holidays) and then wasn't there any more. They've never spoken of that period of their lives but I doubt it was as undisturbed and pacific as many like to think.
Reply With Quote
  #931  
Old 09-14-2015, 10:39 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,365
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.
Reply With Quote
  #932  
Old 09-14-2015, 11:00 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,056
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #933  
Old 09-14-2015, 11:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,365
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.
Reply With Quote
  #934  
Old 09-14-2015, 11:38 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
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.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #935  
Old 09-14-2015, 11:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #936  
Old 09-14-2015, 11:40 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
" 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #937  
Old 09-15-2015, 12:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,365
She is not Diana SHE. STOLE. DIANAS. PLACE!! IT IS SO NOT FAIR!!(stomping like a cranky 4 year old)
Reply With Quote
  #938  
Old 09-15-2015, 12:17 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
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.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #939  
Old 09-15-2015, 12:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,219
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.
Reply With Quote
  #940  
Old 09-15-2015, 12:56 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
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).
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, public opinion


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail earthquakes fashion poll germany grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mary style queen juliana queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in oslo royal fashion royalties september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:47 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises