The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 10-12-2007, 05:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Yes, you are right, although you didn't need me to tell you that. When in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland, not the Free Church of Scotland!
OK and now I am REALLY confused.

HM is HEAD of the Church of England, members of the Royal Family, at least in line of secession cannot marry Roman Catholics BUT HM can attend and I assume take Communion at another separate Church?????
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 10-12-2007, 09:12 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Have a look at what the royal family website has to say. Since the Church of England is the Established Church in England and the Church of Scotland is the Established Church in Scotland, and since the Queen is Queen of both countries, she pretty much has to be a member of both churches. She isn't Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but she's a member. It's sort of like the Prince of Wales's senior title in Scotland being Duke of Rothesay regardless of what he's known as in England.

The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Church
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 10-12-2007, 09:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Have a look at what the royal family website has to say. Since the Church of England is the Established Church in England and the Church of Scotland is the Established Church in Scotland, and since the Queen is Queen of both countries, she pretty much has to be a member of both churches. She isn't Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but she's a member. It's sort of like the Prince of Wales's senior title in Scotland being Duke of Rothesay regardless of what he's known as in England.

The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Church
THANK YOU! That was very interesting reading and I learned alot.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 10-13-2007, 06:01 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,040
It didn't matter that the Earl of St Andrews was losing his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic. The issue was the legality of his marraige ie he was told the marraige would not be legal if it took place in a registry office in England thus he had to go to Scotland.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 10-15-2007, 04:45 AM
CourtSprite's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Central, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
It didn't matter that the Earl of St Andrews was losing his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic. The issue was the legality of his marraige ie he was told the marraige would not be legal if it took place in a registry office in England thus he had to go to Scotland.
Which made me think for a moment, uh-oh! is the Charles/Camilla marriage legal?

Frankly, I was surprised the marriage happened. But I suppose it was the best solution to giving the couple some privacy and chance at normalcy. Something that was always a problem, even after Charles and Diana divorced, followed by her untimely death. Personally, I think Camilla gives Charles the "mother factor" he couldn't get enough of with HRM.

Certainly, with the benefit of hindsight, Charles could have handled his personal life better. But you need to remember, attitudes and protocol with the Royal Court have only just started to allow more freedom to its members. I wouldn't trade places with any of them!
__________________
To be useful in all that I do - Katherine Parr, 1512 - 1548
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 10-15-2007, 01:53 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
It didn't matter that the Earl of St Andrews was losing his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic. The issue was the legality of his marraige ie he was told the marraige would not be legal if it took place in a registry office in England thus he had to go to Scotland.
The Earl of St Andrews isn't an HRH. If he can't marry in a register office in England, that starts eliminating an awful lot of people (probably at least in the thousands) who happen to be distant descendants of monarchs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 10-19-2007, 11:08 AM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
To use your capital letters.

The Church of England DID NOT decline to marry Charles and Camilla. Permission to marry in the church was never asked and therefore NEVER declined! Charles ( and his advisors) mindfull of the fact that he would become Head of the Church one day decided to go with the Church's prefered way of dealing with remarriage in the Anglican church. ( It's on the Church's website, feel free to inform yourself)

The Church's preferred way to deal with remarriage in the church is for the couple to have a civil wedding and followed by a church blessing.
This therefore was what Charles ( and his advisors) opted for.
I am quoting here from page 51 of 'Life with the Queen' by Brian Hoey, written shortly after the Charles and Camilla wedding:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, was known to have severe reservations about the union, even though he agreed, after private consultations with The Queen, to conduct the service of blessing (or dedication) in St. George's Chapel following the civil ceremony outside the castle walls. If the Archbishop's expression was anything to go by during the service, it appeared that he had retained is doubts and was merely performing a duty demanded by the Queen of the senior cleric of the Church of England.

But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr. Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a church wedding could bearranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and that the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment. But Prince Charles did have a private audience with the Archbishop in the weeks leading to the ceremony and persuaded His Grace to allow a Windsor blessing in spite of his obvious misgivings. The Archbishop was adamant that the service in St. George's Chapel should be one of repentance on the part of the bride and bridegroom, not a glorification of the marriage, which is why on the day itself, he refused to wear his full State robes and appeared instead in the simplest vestments he possessed, with the full agreement of the Queen'

I have bolded the portions which lead me to believe that all is not so rosey with the highest cleric of the CofE regarding the remarriage of the heir to the throne to his divorced ladylove. If it's up to the individual cleric, and this is how he regards the marriage and is the fellow who performs the Coronation, I dont think Charles is out of the woods yet. Perhaps if Charles does indeed ascend the throne without the Duchess, but I dont see Dr. Williams being willing to annoint Camilla as Queen, given his views. There is however no presedent for the wife of the King to not be crowned alongside. Quite a conundrum.

*closes laptop and goes to sit under desk to avoid bullets*
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 10-19-2007, 11:36 AM
Empress's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,123
No bullets here! I fully agree with your assesment.

Now, isn't the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland pretty much the same thing in everything but name?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 10-19-2007, 11:55 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Trumbull, United States
Posts: 96
No bullets Scooter (nice summation, btw), but didn't George IV keep his wife from being crowned?
__________________
Monaco Forums
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 10-19-2007, 03:02 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress View Post
No bullets here! I fully agree with your assesment.
Now, isn't the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland pretty much the same thing in everything but name?
Absolutely not! HM is not head of it, only a member.

With a little luck, if the CoE is still going in 20 or so years, Rowan Williams might have learned a little of the christian forgiveness he preaches.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 10-19-2007, 05:49 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I have bolded the portions which lead me to believe that all is not so rosey with the highest cleric of the CofE regarding the remarriage of the heir to the throne to his divorced ladylove. If it's up to the individual cleric, and this is how he regards the marriage and is the fellow who performs the Coronation, I dont think Charles is out of the woods yet. Perhaps if Charles does indeed ascend the throne without the Duchess, but I dont see Dr. Williams being willing to annoint Camilla as Queen, given his views. There is however no presedent for the wife of the King to not be crowned alongside. Quite a conundrum.

*closes laptop and goes to sit under desk to avoid bullets*
What is the authority of the author in such matters? It's very easy to write something in a book.

Even if the Archbishop refused, there is still another Archbishop, several Bishops, and probably hundreds of clergy in the country, many of whom would never dream of passing up the opportunity.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 10-19-2007, 06:38 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
What is the authority of the author in such matters? It's very easy to write something in a book.

Even if the Archbishop refused, there is still another Archbishop, several Bishops, and probably hundreds of clergy in the country, many of whom would never dream of passing up the opportunity.
To quote from the Author's biography on the back flap, he is:
Brian Hoey has been a writer, journalist and broadcaster for more than 40 years. Known as a respected and authoritative chronicler of royal events, he has interviewed several members of the royal family for radio and television and has had many articles on royalty published in newspapers and magazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These include The Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and her Family, Prince William and Snowdon. Married, with 3 grown up children and 5 grandchildren, Brian Hoey lives with his wife in South Wales.

Over all it is a very complementary book, with many quotes from his interviews with his royal subjects.*

As to whether it must be the Archbishop of Canterbury who performs the coronation/s, I dont believe that they can 'choose' a more sympathetic officiant. Elspeth, doesnt it have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the highest prelate of the Church of England?

*Little Royalty Pun
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 10-19-2007, 06:59 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
As to whether it must be the Archbishop of Canterbury who performs the coronation/s, I dont believe that they can 'choose' a more sympathetic officiant. Elspeth, doesnt it have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the highest prelate of the Church of England?
The Archbishop is the highest prelate by the grace of the Sovereign. I would imagine that that grace would fall by the wayside pretty quickly if he made the (stupid) decision to refuse to do a coronation. All of a sudden the Bishop of London becomes the Archbishop of London, and woohoo, there's a new highest prelate. The Sovereign could outunorthodox the clergy at every turn if need be.

Since the Archbishop can be fired (on the advice of the government; see section B of The Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992 ), the main test for a coronation would be the elected government's wishes. If it wants one, it happens.

EDIT: Never mind about the second part. I misunderstood what a convocation is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 10-19-2007, 08:51 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress View Post
No bullets here! I fully agree with your assesment.

Now, isn't the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland pretty much the same thing in everything but name?
Empress, are you Ridgefield Ct or Ridgefield NJ? If Ct, we are very close geographically.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 10-19-2007, 09:20 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laura Elizabeth View Post
No bullets Scooter (nice summation, btw), but didn't George IV keep his wife from being crowned?
Indeed he did. She was left at the doors begging for entry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 10-19-2007, 09:52 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,350
Somehow I dont see that happening this time!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 10-19-2007, 10:06 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I am quoting here from page 51 of 'Life with the Queen' by Brian Hoey, written shortly after the Charles and Camilla wedding:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, was known to have severe reservations about the union, even though he agreed, after private consultations with The Queen, to conduct the service of blessing (or dedication) in St. George's Chapel following the civil ceremony outside the castle walls. If the Archbishop's expression was anything to go by during the service, it appeared that he had retained is doubts and was merely performing a duty demanded by the Queen of the senior cleric of the Church of England.

But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr. Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a church wedding could bearranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and that the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment. But Prince Charles did have a private audience with the Archbishop in the weeks leading to the ceremony and persuaded His Grace to allow a Windsor blessing in spite of his obvious misgivings. The Archbishop was adamant that the service in St. George's Chapel should be one of repentance on the part of the bride and bridegroom, not a glorification of the marriage, which is why on the day itself, he refused to wear his full State robes and appeared instead in the simplest vestments he possessed, with the full agreement of the Queen'

I have bolded the portions which lead me to believe that all is not so rosey with the highest cleric of the CofE regarding the remarriage of the heir to the throne to his divorced ladylove. If it's up to the individual cleric, and this is how he regards the marriage and is the fellow who performs the Coronation, I dont think Charles is out of the woods yet. Perhaps if Charles does indeed ascend the throne without the Duchess, but I dont see Dr. Williams being willing to annoint Camilla as Queen, given his views. There is however no presedent for the wife of the King to not be crowned alongside. Quite a conundrum.

*closes laptop and goes to sit under desk to avoid bullets*
No bullets but just a statement that the Archbishop of Canterbury distanced himself from Hoey's assessment shortly after it was published.

Who knows? Maybe the Archbishop didn't want to be forced by Charles and Camilla into approving both Charles and Camilla to ascend the throne and then crowning them in a coronation but very important prelates are pragmatic people by nature and the Archbishop may have disliked even more being used as a tool by people who are determined to deny Charles and Camilla the throne. I think the Archbishop is a master politician and as a master politician (and these prelates have to be master politicians to survive) he wants to keep his options open. For him to publically commit one way or another when the Queen has many years left on the throne would be political suicide if the public opinion turned against his stance (whichever that stance may be)

When you get to the level of Kings and Princes, Bishops and Archbishops and Prime Ministers, politics plays a major role.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 10-20-2007, 12:54 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Indeed he did. She was left at the doors begging for entry.
But then, she must have known that would happen. As Princess of Wales, Caroline of Brunswick had been living abroard for years, thanks to a very generous allowance she received if she stayed away from England. On learning that her estranged husband had ascended the throne, she returned even though she was promised an even higher allowance if she stayed where she was. But she came to London to force her husband and the new king reacted as he did.
__________________
'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.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 10-20-2007, 01:09 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
To quote from the Author's biography on the back flap, he is:
Brian Hoey has been a writer, journalist and broadcaster for more than 40 years. Known as a respected and authoritative chronicler of royal events, he has interviewed several members of the royal family for radio and television and has had many articles on royalty published in newspapers and magazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These include The Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and her Family, Prince William and Snowdon. Married, with 3 grown up children and 5 grandchildren, Brian Hoey lives with his wife in South Wales.

Over all it is a very complementary book, with many quotes from his interviews with his royal subjects.*

As to whether it must be the Archbishop of Canterbury who performs the coronation/s, I dont believe that they can 'choose' a more sympathetic officiant. Elspeth, doesnt it have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the highest prelate of the Church of England?

*Little Royalty Pun
Far as I know, the coronation has to be officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, if for whatever reason he refuses and if the Archbishop of York doesn't have the same reservations he does, I'm not sure if he could step in and officiate or not. The scenario where the highest members of the CofE hierarchy were that much at odds would be very unlikely.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 10-20-2007, 10:43 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laura Elizabeth View Post
No bullets Scooter (nice summation, btw), but didn't George IV keep his wife from being crowned?
She was refused entry into Westminster Abbey by order of The King, but he lost his battle with Parliament to strip her precedence and title as Queen Consort.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:44 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]