The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #641  
Old 04-28-2008, 05:15 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.
__________________

  #642  
Old 04-28-2008, 05:21 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
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.
__________________

  #643  
Old 04-28-2008, 05:56 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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.
  #644  
Old 04-28-2008, 06:32 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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??
  #645  
Old 04-28-2008, 08:10 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
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.
  #646  
Old 04-28-2008, 08:45 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.
  #647  
Old 04-28-2008, 09:25 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
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.
  #648  
Old 04-28-2008, 09:38 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
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..
  #649  
Old 04-28-2008, 10:04 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
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.
  #650  
Old 04-29-2008, 04:05 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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...
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #651  
Old 04-29-2008, 01:36 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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.
  #652  
Old 04-29-2008, 03:38 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
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?
  #653  
Old 04-29-2008, 03:45 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #654  
Old 04-29-2008, 03:58 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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?
  #655  
Old 04-29-2008, 04:00 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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.
  #656  
Old 04-29-2008, 04:05 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
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.
  #657  
Old 04-29-2008, 04:10 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
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.
Why bother to get married at all then? Why not just scotch the entire institution and just live together if it ultimately is A) NOT a commitment and B) not instituted by Christ? and C)people should feel free to do as many times as necessary??

And I read the NY Times article in Apr 2005, the time the wedding took place. Even if I could access it there is no way I could link it...you are speaking to a person who only recently learned to cut and paste!
  #658  
Old 04-29-2008, 04:17 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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.
If the church is disestablished, it doesn't cease to be, it just means it is separated from the government.
Quote:
Why bother to get married at all then? Why not just scotch the entire institution and just live together if it ultimately is A) NOT a commitment and B) not institued by Christ?
Commitment and/or marriage has nothing to do with religious views. If someone chooses to marry, they can choose to have a civil ceremony or a religous ceremony. Couples committed to each other long before religion was involved!
  #659  
Old 04-29-2008, 04:20 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
If the church is disestablished, it doesn't cease to be, it just means it is separated from the government.
Commitment and/or marriage has nothing to do with religious views. If someone chooses to marry, they can choose to have a civil ceremony or a religous ceremony. Couples committed to each other long before religion was involved!
I know that "disestablishment" doesn't mean it ceases to be...I believe it should be separated from the government.

But I am not a citizen of the UK, and that is a matter that should be decided by Her Majesty's subjects.
  #660  
Old 04-29-2008, 05:19 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
Why bother to get married at all then? Why not just scotch the entire institution and just live together if it ultimately is A) NOT a commitment and B) not instituted by Christ? and C)people should feel free to do as many times as necessary??
There are important legal rights that come with a marriage that do not come with living together. Otherwise, I would agree with you.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, relationships, royal duties


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall: Visit to Portugal - March 28-30, 2011 Princess Agnes The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 45 04-06-2011 08:24 PM
Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Current Events 12: February-March 2006 Elspeth Current Events Archive 203 03-08-2006 12:30 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 belgian queen mathilde best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit camillas eveningwear catherine middleton style child corbyn countess of wessex's style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria daytime fashion current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll 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 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 royal fashion september 2016 silva 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 11:54 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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