Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on) - Page 22

Russophile · #**421** 11-24-2008, 08:40 PM

I don't think it matters a whole lot, they can't have any children so there's no dynastic issues. Only when/if she is crowned Queen, which I'm sure could go either way, I am wondering how this will play out when Charles assumes the throne---not too soon, mind you, I'm very fond of HM!

scooter · #**422** 11-24-2008, 08:58 PM

Exactly. Why choose this unprescedented, controversial civil service if it's not the only choice? Why would they not have a Cof E wedding, if it was available to them? Would that not be a more suitable marriage ceremony foir the future Defender of the Faith?

Mermaid1962 · #**423** 11-25-2008, 12:56 AM

I think that there must have been some kind of deal made behind the scenes. Perhaps HM, as Defender of the Faith said something to the effect, "Okay, son, you can marry your mistress--but not in MY church."

Actually, I'm being facetious here. But, seriously, given that Camilla was unpopular at the time of the wedding, perhaps the Archbishop didn't want to see further leeching from the Church over the issue. For any number of people, already disenchanted with the C of E's stands on various issues, a wedding between these two controversial people with their murky past could have been the last straw. A religious blessing of a civil marriage was a good compromise between a full church wedding and not having them marry at all.

Personally, I'm glad that Charles and Camilla married. The situation had to be resolved one way or another. Charles did the right thing by Camilla.

StephS · #**424** 11-25-2008, 01:53 AM

Charles may have done the right thing by Camilla, but I won't be too terribly surprised or upset if something should happen to cause HM to pass him over in favor of his eldest son, William. IMO, Prince William would make the better king. He seems to have a way with people that his father is, sadly, lacking.

Iluvbertie · #**425** 11-25-2008, 02:38 AM

You seem to be under the impression that the Queen has any say in who follows her as monarch. She doesn't.

The rule of succession are very clear and she can't just change them at her own whim.

Thus the order of succession is laid down and the only ways that Charles won't become King when the Queen dies is if:

a) he is already deceased
b) he has converted to Roman Catholicism
c) Parliament decides to pass legislation to deprive Charles of the throne for some reason - probably to abolish the monarchy altogether.

At 26 his father had a great rapport with the public and then he married and he lost some of his confidence, in my opinion. I remember the way he worked the crowds in Australia in the 70s (when he was William's age) and he was tremendous.

Charles is a great person to meet in the crowd (based on my one personal meeting in a crowd). Everyone I was with that day also said he was wonderful and how pleased they were to make the effort to see him.

Warren · #**426** 11-25-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

IAt least then there wouldn't be this controversy over whether or not the civil ceremony was legal.

What controversy? On some internet forums by Diana partisans, sure, but in the real world?
Is anyone of note publicly proclaiming that Charles and Camilla aren't legally married?

CasiraghiTrio · #**427** 11-25-2008, 03:02 PM

They are certainly married in accordance with secular law and they must also be IAW Church law since the Church "blessed" their marriage. By blessing it, they recognize and therefore legalize it within the Church, right?

Mermaid1962 · #**428** 11-25-2008, 03:52 PM

Even if the arguing about the legality of the marriage is mostly done by "Diana partisans", it's still controversy in an informal sense.

Is there any particular reason why a person who wonders about the unusual circumstances of this marriage is assumed to be a "Diana partisan"? I'm not one of those who feels compelled to carry the standard for the late Diana Princess of Wales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

What controversy? On some internet forums by Diana partisans, sure, but in the real world?
Is anyone of note publicly proclaiming that Charles and Camilla aren't legally married?

Elspeth · #**429** 11-26-2008, 07:43 PM

I don't know what's got into people lately, but when a moderator asks for a derailed conversation to move on, she isn't talking about continuing the derail. I've deleted the last couple of posts which were happily continuing to talk about Prince William.

Now can we please get back on topic?

Elspeth
British Royals moderator

Warren · #**430** 11-27-2008, 05:47 AM

Despite repeated requests to remain on topic, some members are determined to take this thread into a discussion about Prince William.

Those posts have now been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator

Skydragon · #**431** 11-28-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I don't know what's got into people lately, but when a moderator asks for a derailed conversation to move on, she isn't talking about continuing the derail. I've deleted the last couple of posts which were happily continuing to talk about Prince William.

Now can we please get back on topic?

So nice to be NOT GUILTY for a change!

Warren · #**432** 11-28-2008, 07:16 AM

No boasting! But true nonetheless.

CasiraghiTrio · #**433** 12-03-2008, 05:41 PM

Would someone take a look at post #427? I'm not trying to be a nag. I just want to know if my post is inaccurate, for my own education. Thanks!

Mermaid1962 · #**434** 12-03-2008, 09:30 PM

As far as I know, the Church of England recognizes civil marriage. The blessing was a recognition that a legal marriage had taken place. At least, that's my read on the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

They are certainly married in accordance with secular law and they must also be IAW Church law since the Church "blessed" their marriage. By blessing it, they recognize and therefore legalize it within the Church, right?

scooter · #**435** 12-04-2008, 09:38 PM

Not to be rude, but I again ask...If a Church of England marriage ceremony was available to the Heir to the Throne and Future Defender of the Faith and his second bride, what possible reason would there be for Charles and Camilla to break prescedent and have a civil ceremony? I would also like the answer to not be 'Well the Diana nuts',,,, This is not about Diana. Why do certain posters and moderators keep bringing Diana up?

Elspeth · #**436** 12-04-2008, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

Not to be rude, but I again ask...If a Church of England marriage ceremony was available to the Heir to the Throne and Future Defender of the Faith and his second bride, what possible reason would there be for Charles and Camilla to break prescedent and have a civil ceremony?

Doesn't matter how many times you ask, the answer is the same. While it was theoretically possible for them to be married in the Church of England if they'd found a clergyman who was prepared to officiate (since the decision about remarrying divorced people is left to the discretion of the individual clergy), it's well known that in a case where the couple were having an affair during the first marriage of either or both of them, it wouldn't be easy to find a clergyman prepared to officiate. Doesn't mean it'd be impossible, but it wouldn't be easy.

For most people, the local clergy would probably refuse to officiate. Some people would be lucky and live in a parish where the clergyman was more broad-minded, but a lot wouldn't. If a more broad-minded senior clergyman had come forward and offered to marry Charles and Camilla, it would have looked like special treatment, and this is something the royal family have tended to try to avoid over the years.

With the marriage being resented by an element of Diana fans (and yes, that does factor into the equation however much you're trying to claim that it doesn't) as well as by more traditional people who simply don't accept remarriage after divorce, the level of tolerance for an egregious case of special treatment would have been pretty low, and it would have been unwise of the royals to try and force it.

Now, if you can go through the Church of England website and quote where it says that people in Charles and Camilla's situation are prohibited from having a Church wedding, go ahead. At this point, that's the only thing that would give your claim unequivocal support. Start here

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/pa...cad/index.html

and also follow some of the links.

wbenson · #**437** 12-04-2008, 11:30 PM

And even if they did find a member of the clergy willing to do it, having someone not the Archbishop of Canterbury performing the ceremony (although I wouldn't be surprised if they could have at least found a bishop who would ordinarily disapprove but would compromise it for the prestige) would have opened up another can of worms about his lack of approval and how it means that it's a 100% certain sure thing that he disapproves completely of the union and Charles the person and that he'll refuse to crown him, etc.

Skydragon · #**438** 12-05-2008, 09:08 AM

If you try to look at it logically, as Charles may one day be head of the CoE, he wouldn't want to be involved in any split that might have been caused if Williams had performed a ceremony. The CoE is struggling to move out of the dark ages with the appointment of female clergy, gay men and women and the general acceptance of 2nd marriages. but there are many enlightened clergymen about. I was at a church wedding back in 1989 where the two participents really were the cause of the breakdown of each others marriages and the ceremony was performed by a fairly high ranking (Arch Deacon) member of the clergy!

Jo of Palatine · #**439** 12-05-2008, 09:22 AM

I believe you have a point here. I wouldn't put it past Charles to have made two points here: first he doesn't want to put the CoE into difficulties, second he wanted to show that laws that divide the Royals and all other people living in Britain into two categories are void. What's good enough for all Britons is good enough for him as well: civil marriage as alternative to a church wedding. A kind of vice-versa Anti-apartheit-action.

scooter · #**440** 12-05-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Doesn't matter how many times you ask, the answer is the same. While it was theoretically possible for them to be married in the Church of England if they'd found a clergyman who was prepared to officiate (since the decision about remarrying divorced people is left to the discretion of the individual clergy), it's well known that in a case where the couple were having an affair during the first marriage of either or both of them, it wouldn't be easy to find a clergyman prepared to officiate. Doesn't mean it'd be impossible, but it wouldn't be easy.

For most people, the local clergy would probably refuse to officiate. Some people would be lucky and live in a parish where the clergyman was more broad-minded, but a lot wouldn't. If a more broad-minded senior clergyman had come forward and offered to marry Charles and Camilla, it would have looked like special treatment, and this is something the royal family have tended to try to avoid over the years.

With the marriage being resented by an element of Diana fans (and yes, that does factor into the equation however much you're trying to claim that it doesn't) as well as by more traditional people who simply don't accept remarriage after divorce, the level of tolerance for an egregious case of special treatment would have been pretty low, and it would have been unwise of the royals to try and force it.

Now, if you can go through the Church of England website and quote where it says that people in Charles and Camilla's situation are prohibited from having a Church wedding, go ahead. At this point, that's the only thing that would give your claim unequivocal support. Start here

Marriage in Church after Divorce (updated February 2003) | Church of England

and also follow some of the links.

Elspeth, you yourself just listed all the reasons why the Archbishop of Canterbury would not marry Charles and Camilla. And why 'it would not have been wise of the royals to try to force it'. This is my entire point. If they had been able to have the Cof E ceremony without it causing even more of a kerfuffle than the actual marriage of these two (ie that it would be 'an egregious case of special treatment'), they would have done so. When you say that 'it's well known that in a case where the couple were having an affair during the first marriage of either or both of them, it wouldn't be easy to find a clergy man prepared to officiate' and that 'for most people the local clergy would refuse to officiate'. My point is...lets stop pretending that it was a voluntary 'lifestyle choice' that Charles and Camilla had a civil cermony, as opposed to the fact that they would have had a very difficult road finding a priest willing to officiate. Dont you think if the A of C said, why I'd be happy to perform the ceremony, that they would have had a traditional CofE wedding officiated by the highest prelate in the land....or for that matter, any prelate in the land?