The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1381  
Old 07-09-2014, 05:39 PM
Nico's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Her detractors are uninterested in history... they want only to punish and defame her for her [perceived] transgession of THEIR moral values...
Ouh that's a good one ! And so true ....
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1382  
Old 07-09-2014, 06:30 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,431
While Henry was certainly a hypocrite, the CoE was founded as a non-Popish, but 'Catholic' (in Henry's words) religion. In more recent Windsor family history, Uncle David had to abdicate to marry Wallis as she had '2 living husbands'. One cannot swear to uphold and defend the established faith if one is not in good standing with that faith.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1383  
Old 07-09-2014, 06:40 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,509
Church of England has moved on since 1936 but, not surprisingly, only as far as sitting on the fence. This is from their website under "Divorce"


"The Church of England agreed in 2002 that divorced people could remarry in church under certain circumstances. However, because the Church views marriage to be lifelong, there is no automatic right to do so and it is left to the discretion of the Priest."

Not helpful
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1384  
Old 07-09-2014, 07:14 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,532
Not only has the CoE moved on since 1936 so has society. No longer does one partner to the divorce have to be proven to be 'at fault', no longer are divorcees seen as pariahs in society, etc.

The other factor to consider is why Edward VIII abdicated. Was it because of Wallis' divorces or was that just the convenient excuse given to the public rather than the government having to admit that he wasn't up to the job?

Considering that there were murmurings within the government about his lack of understanding of his role, the comments he was making which were clearly political, his failure to do the necessary paperwork, the fact that the government of the day was even keeping back information from him due to his indiscretions e.g. having confidential papers returned to the minister's with coffee stains and having some of that information discussed over dinner when only Edward should have seen them before Wallis' second divorce and some ministers already discussing how to get rid of him there was clearly more going on than just Wallis being divorced.

She was a god-send to the government but not the real reason he was forced to go but a reason the public would swallow.

I do believe that as the percentage of people who are now divorced in the general public, that divorced persons are so accepted in all levels of society, that to hold that fact against Camilla now shows double standards as the people who are objecting to Camilla are probably friends with someone who is divorced so it is all right for their friends and family but not for Charles and Camilla.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1385  
Old 07-09-2014, 08:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,515
Oh, I didn't think this discussion, really, was about Camilla, so this venue is incorrect, but the queen would have been less amenable to Charles marrying had Diana been alive. It would have been harder for her to swallow. I could care less. Charles loves Camilla and that is that. It was just the other facts. And, since they did not occur, it is all conjecture. And, since Wallis, may have been a God send, I don't think she was viewed as that, at that time. It was a calamity to his mother and the government. His brother, did not want to be king. Today, we judge that it was good. And Cepe is right, there are ambiguous rules deciding remarriage, today.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1386  
Old 07-09-2014, 08:41 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,431
Yes, it is ambiguous. However I think it is fair to ask why exactly would C and C have chosen an unheard of, ground breaking for a royal, civil marriage ceremony, which at the time had the legality of it much discussed, if the CofE had been willing to perform it. Which is in answer to DMAN's earlier question of why the Queen might have not sanctioned the 'move on' had the first wife not died.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1387  
Old 07-09-2014, 08:57 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,515
Correct. They were not married in the church. I do not know the COE rules, but I assume marriage performed out of the church are ,certainly, legal for the state, but not by the church. There is a great deal of ambiguity.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1388  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:07 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,431
No! The royal marriages act of 1772 specifically forbids civil marriages within the royal family. It was hotly debated at the time whether the civil marriage was/is legal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1389  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,532
The RMA of 1772 did not forbid civil marriages as they weren't legal for anyone in the UK at the time so there was no need. In fact the law mandating that any marriage, to be legal in England was passed in 1753, had to be a religious ceremony conducted in a chapel or church of the CoE, with the exception of Jews and Quakers. This meant RCs and other non-conformists who married in their own churches weren't legally married in England after that date until the Marriage Act of 1836 that legalised their marriages and established the legality of Civil Marriages - so the RMA wouldn't have needed to make any mention of Civil Marriage as the law of the land at the time of the passing of the RMA was that only marriages in a CoE church was a legal marriage. The law of 1753 only applied in England and not Scotland which is why young couples eloped to Gretna Green as they could legally marry in Scotland outside the CoE.

It was the law of 1836 that specifically excluded the Royal Family from Civil Marriages not the RMA. That act was repealed in 1949 and the wording of the rights of the royal family to contract a Civil marriages was worded differently to the 1836 Act. Any final doubts about the legality of the civil marriage for the royal family was the 1998 Human Rights Act that says that everyone has the right to marry without discrimination and that was interpreted to mean that Charles could legally marry in a civil ceremony as to deny him that right was to deny him one of the defined human rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1390  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:43 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,274
But Bertie, this history contradicts the anti-Charles and Camilla conspiracy that Scooter believes, and everyone knows that the true story is the conspiracy that only a few realize.

I wonder what a basic human rights look at the attitude towards Catholics being in the succession would say... I find it odd that only a movement in Quebec has spoken out against that in the courts.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1391  
Old 07-09-2014, 10:56 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,515
I'm lost. Which conspiracy? I just thought Scooter said that the RMA forbade Civil Marriages. Is it or is it not the fact? And the Bertie said the Human Rights Act allowed everyone to marry in a civil ceremony and that was in 1998. What is truly confusing me, is that acceptable to the COE, not to the state.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1392  
Old 07-10-2014, 01:53 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,274
If you read through here and in other threads you'll see that scooter is of the opinion that Charles is not fit to be king on the grounds of his behaviour during his first marriage and the woman he chose to make his second wife.

She choses to represent facts in a manner that isn't always true and when it is true often isn't the full story. I refer to this as a conspiracy theory - the theory that Charles has somehow actually made himself unable to become king because of his affair, divorce and/or second marriage.

Consider the parallel that scooter has made between Charles and Edward VIII, the man who is commonly depicted as being the king who gave up his throne in order to marry a divorced woman. This isn't nearly as clear cut as scooter (and others) want to make it. Wallis Simpson was at the time of the abdication an American woman who had already been divorced once and was currently married to another man going through a divorce that wasn't a guarantee and threatened to bring the king into it. Divorce was not easy to get at the time, especially if both parties had cheated as had happened in the Simpson marriage. Further, Wallis had a history of not exactly being loyal to men - at the time, it was seen that Wallis was using Edward for her own personal gain and would one day take the money she could and run. She wasn't a person who was well liked or had the right connections within British society. In short, her person was not acceptable as a possible Queen consort. The fact that Edward himself wasn't exactly suited to rule was just icing on the cake - and they surely had figured that one out by them. Likewise, the fact that he wasn't involved in the church didn't help either.

In the 70 years since then, times have changed. While the CoE may not be fully embracing divorce yet, overall British society has accepted it as a part of life. Charles is not the first British Royal to divorce, nor the first to remarry. Perhaps if he was a pioneer there attitudes may have been different, but the failures of his siblings and aunt's marriages and the remarriage of Anne all helped things. Camilla, while having a past, does not have one that is remotely comparable to that of Wallis, especially when you factor in the changing of times. Furthermore, her relationship with Charles was already long lived well before marriage talks, making it clear she wasn't just going to love him and leave with the family jewels. And unlike Wallis, Camilla was accepted by Charles' family. The church may not have been the location of the ceremony, but the CoE did bless the marriage, the Queen consented to it, and the governments of Charles' future realms decided it was a non-issue.

Furthermore, as Bertie pointed out the stipulation that royals can't enter into civil marriages isn't actually still valid. It was not a part of the RMA like scooter professes, but rather a part of a later law that has subsequently been repealed. The issue was solved well before Charles entered into his marriage, and had it actually still been in effect Charles would have followed his sister's example and married in Scotland.

There is this idea that Charles has misstepped in marrying Camilla and made it so that he can't inherit the throne. The idea is that either the royals are aware of this and are just keeping it a secret - either so Charles can steal the throne or so that we get a great shock when the Queen dies and William is proclaimed King - or else all their lawyers aren't smart enough to realize something that those of us creeping on the Internet have figured out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1393  
Old 07-10-2014, 06:34 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Not in good standing with the faith? Ok let's list some of these defenders of the faith.
Henry VIII divorced twice murdered (yes I say murder) two wives almost murdered a third.
James I had affairs with men and women
Charles II had how many illegitimate children?
A few of the George's had mistresses
How many illegitimate children did William #4 have?
And then there was the immorality of the Catholic monarchs and even the pope's.
History is full of religious people doing un-religious things when it comes marriage and fidelity.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1394  
Old 07-10-2014, 07:02 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,217
Charles behavior is mild compared to previous Kings . It was only Camilla. Compare that to Edward VII, who had numerous affair right from the beginning. Most Kings did and even someone like George VI who may not have cheated still slept with married women during his single days. Sexual Morality isn't a requirement for the Crown.

Mark Philips is still alive and the Queen approved Anne's 2nd marriage to Tim. There is no evidence that the Queen wouldn't approve Charles remarrying if Diana was still alive. Kate may have had a more difficult time as I would think that Diana would have a difficult time sharing William with a different woman but that isn't the topic of this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1395  
Old 07-10-2014, 07:39 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 830
I don't want to go off topic here but Scooter has a point. Charles will not just be King, he will be head of the Church of England. I'm not a member of the CoE but my religion requires me to extend forgiveness and to avoid judging others.

My sense is that with each year, people are moving on. They have forgiven Camilla. Many people in the UK do not belong to the CoE or, if they do, don't agree with the teachings on divorce--just look at the statistics. Many others have had affairs themselves.

It's been 17 years since Diana's death. There will always be a vocal group of people who will continue to rehash Camilla's mistakes. But the vast majority of people have accepted her and will continue to get on with their lives.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1396  
Old 07-10-2014, 08:21 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
If you read through here and in other threads you'll see that scooter is of the opinion that Charles is not fit to be king on the grounds of his behaviour during his first marriage and the woman he chose to make his second wife.

She choses to represent facts in a manner that isn't always true and when it is true often isn't the full story. I refer to this as a conspiracy theory - the theory that Charles has somehow actually made himself unable to become king because of his affair, divorce and/or second marriage...
I love your post - it's beautifully clear worded and to the point
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1397  
Old 07-10-2014, 08:30 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 504
I hesitate to say this, [lest i should be seen as xenophobic] but i've observed, both here and on other sites [notably Facebook], that the majority of people who have a problem accepting Camilla, as a second wife, as a Royal, and as future Queen Consort are not from Britain, or the Commonwealth Realms at all.

Most are From the Americas {both the USA, and South America}, where Religion is taken rather more seriously than 'post-Christian' Europe. It seems that Diana is still worshipped in those places, and the damage Camilla is thought to have caused this 'secular saint' is unforgivable, consequently making Camilla unacceptable as future Queen.

Fortunately the British public take a more tolerant line, and as they have become accustomed to Camilla's warmth, tact, and support of her husband, and the Throne are prepared to let bygones be bygones and MOVE ON !

I'm so glad i was born into such a forgiving, pragmatic society .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1398  
Old 07-10-2014, 09:01 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,082
Well said. The fact of the matter is that, IMO, in current-day Britain, divorce and remarriage is not really considered an issue. This is not a new social phenomenon, and family breakdowns probably peaked in the 1980s and 1990. I just don't think that for most Britons, Charles & Camilla's affair, divorces and subsequent marriage is not a major issue at all.

As regards the CoE, they really do need to think about what it is they need to do to be more relevant in our lives today. There are relatively few people I know that attend church with any regularity (weddings, christenings and funerals excepted). Without trying to be controversial, are they anything more than a fringe group today, notwithstanding the trappings of a large institution?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1399  
Old 07-10-2014, 09:56 AM
Nico's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,317
Can't agree more ! Some of our US friends tend to be far more bitter about the whole story than the Europeans. America litterally swoon over the late Princess of Wales as she was the epitome of some of America's best obsessions : wealth, youth, fashion, celebrity (and royalty was just the cherry on the cake). She gained the icon status, and of course an icon can't do wrong ... In a way i can't blame their attitude toward Camilla as the death of Diana was trully lived as a trauma (it was a trauma for everyone, but maybe a bit more across the pond) and of course the coming of Camilla, the old, wrinkly, frumpy ex mistress was just a deep culture shock.

The press of course played a big role by vehiculing some good olds stereotypes (good vs evil) and Camilla was of course perfect to play the role of the evil witch. ..."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1400  
Old 07-10-2014, 10:06 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,641
Off topic - but understandable point. I often check location before I read a post. On some topics, we Americans can get fairly shrill. Some of us think we know better than others can. Also and in general, English as a second language helps me understand the post as composed.
__________________

__________________
“For is there any practice less selfish, any labor less alienated, any time less wasted, than preparing something delicious and nourishing for people you love." Michael Pollan, Cooked
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
abdication birth carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 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]