Camilla & Charles: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by wbenson

I can't see the Archbishop being given an option.

And he wasn't a widower in the eyes of the church.

He most certainly WAS a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce.

I remember reading in the NY Times that he signed the register as "widower" which is what he was in Church.

The divorce he received from the late Princess of Wales was considered a civil one....if she had still been alive he would have had to marry in the Church of Scotland as his older sister Anne did when she married Tim Laurence as a divorcee.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Surely the Archbishop has an option. He's the head of the church.

Now, if he does decide to take a stand and refuse to crown Charles, I think the repercussions for the church would be worse than the repercussions for the monarchy. But if the church isn't just an extension of Parliament, the Archbishop has to be free to make this sort of decision.

Thanks for clearing that up Elspeth-you are quite right. The Archbishop of Canterbury ALWAYS has a choice and anyone who thinks otherwise just needs to remember Edward VIII and the "woman he loved". He said straight out that he would not crown Edward if he married Mrs Simpson and there was no talk of forcing him to do a thing.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

He most certainly WAS a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce.

The CofE does recognize civil divorces now.

And I think if the Archbishop ever decided to get on some high horse and decide against the policies of his church that divorce shouldn't be recognized, another prelate would be commandeered very quickly.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by wbenson

The CofE does recognize civil divorces now.

And I think if the Archbishop ever decided to get on some high horse and decide against the policies of his church that divorce shouldn't be recognized, another prelate would be commandeered very quickly.

I think any Archbishop or church prelate who gives a thumbs up to multiple divorces-especially for members of the Royal family-should probablyfind a new vocation.

If the Church does not defend the sanctity of marriage who will??

[wbenson]

What is the "sanctity of marriage"? Does it mean that people should stay married even if their relationship no longer works? Does it mean that people who make bad choices should be punished by churches for not living with those choices for the rest of their lives? If that's what the "sanctity of marriage" is, then I don't want anyone defending it.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by wbenson

What is the "sanctity of marriage"? Does it mean that people should stay married even if their relationship no longer works? Does it mean that people who make bad choices should be punished by churches for not living with those choices for the rest of their lives? If that's what the "sanctity of marriage" is, then I don't want anyone defending it.

wbenson, I do not think this is the proper place for the two of us to debate marriage or it's sanctity. I understand that people make mistakes, I have made enough of them. But I also do not feel that a person with multiple divorces can or should be the King or Queen of a country where he or she is also going to be called upon to be Head of the Church....in the Gospels the Lord did not tell His disciples that men and women are free to marry and divorce until they get it right, quite the contrary.

I understand if you disagree.

[Elspeth]

I think if the Archbishop decided to take a stand on this issue, it'd be a lot more likely to end in disestablishment than abdication.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think if the Archbishop decided to take a stand on this issue, it'd be a lot more likely to end in disestablishment than abdication.

Isn't disestablishment an issue that has been being debated in Britain at least since Prince Charles' divorce, and his controversial statement about wanting to be the "Defender of Faith" rather than the ancient "Defender of THE Faith" which is a title that was never intended for an Anglican monarch to begin with...it was granted by the Pope to Henry VIII whilst he was still Roman Catholic.

But I completely agree with you, if the Archbishop takes a stand that will be the result..

[Elspeth]

Disestablishment has been discussed on and off for a while. But, like a lot of these things, probably nothing will be done till a situation arises that backs everyone into a corner and they have to deal with it.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

He most certainly WAS a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce.

I remember reading in the NY Times that he signed the register as "widower" which is what he was in Church.

The divorce he received from the late Princess of Wales was considered a civil one....if she had still been alive he would have had to marry in the Church of Scotland as his older sister Anne did when she married Tim Laurence as a divorcee.

Somehow I think he should have married her in Scotland in church and she should have used "Duchess of Rothesay" as her title...

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

He most certainly WAS a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce.
I remember reading in the NY Times that he signed the register as "widower" which is what he was in Church..

I was recently a witness at a civil wedding where the bride had been divorced from her 1st husband who later died. The register was filled in for her (as it usually is, so that she only had to sign her name) and her status was divorced.

The only register that is signed at a civil wedding/church blessing, is signed at the registry office, so I think the NY times might have it wrong. There would have been no signing at the blessing, therefore his status would not have anything to do with religious interpretation.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

I think any Archbishop or church prelate who gives a thumbs up to multiple divorces-especially for members of the Royal family-should probablyfind a new vocation.

If the Church does not defend the sanctity of marriage who will??

The church will have to change or lose an even larger number of its devotees. The 'rules' of any church are man made anyway.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I was recently a witness at a civil wedding where the bride had been divorced from her 1st husband who later died. The register was filled in for her (as it usually is, so that she only had to sign her name) and her status was divorced.

The only register that is signed at a civil wedding/church blessing, is signed at the registry office, so I think the NY times might have it wrong. There would have been no signing at the blessing, therefore his status would not have anything to do with religious interpretation.
The church will have to change or lose an even larger number of its devotees. The 'rules' of any church are man made anyway.

I am sorry the the Church does not "have" to do anything. And laws that were instituted by Christ should not and cannot be changed. If people decide to leave that is their choice.

I realize that the Church of England is different historically and theologically from the Orthodox and Catholic one, which is the perspective I am coming from, but do you really think the Christian faith should permit people to get married and divorced as many times as they want?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

And laws that were instituted by Christ should not and cannot be changed. If people decide to leave that is their choice.

But what are the laws "Christ" - if Jesus ever was that, if he even lived! - instituted? There are so many interpretations, so many "facts" disputed so it makes sense that believers organise in churches, so that they at least have like-minded people around.

But what if, like Charles, you "inherit" a church? As there is no factual basis, only belief, but a social position to fulfill, it makes sense to work towards dealing with all problems with common sense, a bit of tact and the hope that all might be turning out as it has been intended all along: well-intentioned.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

I am sorry the the Church does not "have" to do anything.

True. There are consequences for every (in)action, though. The consequence in this case is greater irrelevance.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

but do you really think the Christian faith should permit people to get married and divorced as many times as they want?

I don't understand a moral obligation to divorce, so yes. What good can come from telling people that they are bad people for being in a bad relationship?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

I am sorry the the Church does not "have" to do anything. And laws that were instituted by Christ should not and cannot be changed. If people decide to leave that is their choice.

I realize that the Church of England is different historically and theologically from the Orthodox and Catholic one, which is the perspective I am coming from, but do you really think the Christian faith should permit people to get married and divorced as many times as they want?

If the Church of England wants to survive, then like the monarchy, it has to have the support of the people. Whether a mythical being ever existed or laid down any 'laws' is open to argument, (it was male members of the Catholic church who decided to impose the rule of celibacy for instance) an argument that is not for this forum.

I think that if your god is a forgiving and understanding god, he would want 'his' children to live in peace, harmony and happiness and if that means two or three divorces, being an all forgiving being, that should be acceptable to it/him. It is only man who is deciding what 'god' would want.

I meant to ask for a link to the information that appears to have been published by the NY Times.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

But what are the laws "Christ" - if Jesus ever was that, if he even lived! - instituted? There are so many interpretations, so many "facts" disputed so it makes sense that believers organise in churches, so that they at least have like-minded people around.

But what if, like Charles, you "inherit" a church? As there is no factual basis, only belief, but a social position to fulfill, it makes sense to work towards dealing with all problems with common sense, a bit of tact and the hope that all might be turning out as it has been intended all along: well-intentioned.

Jo you do seriously expect us to use this forum to debate whether or not Christ ever existed? Again, from the Catholic point of view we are discussing apples and oranges when you compare it to the Anglican Church. The Catholic Church can and does trace itself in an unbroken line in time and history back to the Apostles, and according to the Gospels credits Christ as Her founder. No committed member of our Church would even entertain such a ridiculous thought.

As far as Charles "inheriting" a Church...well. This is the problem when one decides to found one's own Church with the monarch as Supreme Head, as the illustrious Henry VIII did in the 16th century isn't it? Perhaps he should have listened to Thomas More and the others who tried to get him to look at the big picture!

I think, as Elspeth pointed out earlier that the Church of England can and should be disestablished. No offense, but what does it stand for nowadays anyway? I can't think of a single thing.