The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1421  
Old 07-13-2014, 10:27 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
It's not (or should not be to anyone) a surprise that some of the older folks (and younger ones too truth be known) do not accept Camilla due to the circumstances. Then there is the fact that she has a living husband (Andrew Parker-Bowles)..and no matter how 'flexible' some of the clergy have become and think it's all well and good for them to be remarried and bless the marriage.....it probably sticks in the craw of some of the more serious/devout members of the CoE/Anglicans or whatever they have splintered off into these days.

I personally don't know how the Queen and the CoE get around the marriage situation with Charles considering what he will be to the Church when King...unless it just really doesn't matter anymore and the CoE has more or less become a meeting club people drop by now and then.

LaRae
No, it's a living breathing entity and the church is it's people not it's buildings.

As a devout christian and member of the Anglican Church I can only say that my experience of this marriage was that the people of the Church were confronted by many issues;

Tradition: As has been pointed out, the CofE (Anglican) was founded on divorce and politics and yet the tradition of the church was against the marriage of divorcees.

Personal preferences: Many Clergy had moved past those ancient strictures and, as mandated, could now perform marriages of divorcees.

Judgement: Ouch! That is a stickler and one that found us all looking at exactly what we were doing.

Quote:
Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Forgiveness: Strangely took us back to Judgement.
Quote:
Luke 6:37King James Version (KJV)
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

How very uncomfortable. We can all go "Shame", "Shame", "Shame", in righteous indignation and be totally out of communion with our God, never mind our church!

Church/God? God/Church? I think any Christian in communion with God can both see and understand the hypocrisy with which the church was faced and the need to expound on the need for genuine repentance of that judgemental action, just as Charles, Camilla and all there present, confessed and were forgiven in the marriage blessing.

If God forgives, who am I to argue about it.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1422  
Old 07-14-2014, 12:17 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 185
I think some people are giving too much authority to the CoE as to who get to become king. If he is still alive, I believe Charles will be crowned king upon the death of his mother. I don't expect a peep out of the CoE over this. I further expect the Archbishop to shown up at the coronation to carry out his role. If the the Archbishop had a problem with Charles marrying Camilla, it would have been discussed with the Queen before the marriage ever happened. It certainly would not have simmered waiting until the Queen's death to boil over.

Those who expect or want Charles to step aside for William are going to be disappointed.
For there to be any palace coup, there must be support for the coup by the person who would replace Charles. No way William would be a part of this attack on his father.

All these predictions or expectations or what ever all ignore that fact that for the crown to skip Charles, William has to be in favor of it. Not going to happen. Does William and Katherine even attend church?

By the William and Katherine are crowned, many will be clamoring for the crown to go to George and his wife because William and Katherine are old and no longer glamorous.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1423  
Old 07-14-2014, 06:18 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,195
The CoE is very much a living, breathing entity.

In the 1560s there was no way that a woman could ever even hold the title 'Head of the Church of England' and so had to be 'Supreme Governor' but as recently as within the last 24 hours the Church of England Synod in the UK has voted to allow women to become bishops - and thus even, in time, no doubt Archbishop of Canterbury.

The church is changing its teachings and practices to reflect the modern world all the time and there would no reason for any Archbishop of Canterbury to refuse to crown Charles other then his own personal prejudice against divorced persons which would be huge backward step for the church and the nation as divorced persons are every in society.
.
Reply With Quote
  #1424  
Old 07-16-2014, 08:09 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,416
I would imagine a lot of things were discussed before Charles married Camilla. I'm sure that the Queen wouldn't want any issue coming up later or coming up after her death and I sure everything was looked over with a fine tooth comb to make sure that this didn't happen.

I think William and Katherine will always be popular even in old age.
Reply With Quote
  #1425  
Old 07-17-2014, 08:11 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
...Church/God? God/Church? I think any Christian in communion with God can both see and understand the hypocrisy with which the church was faced and the need to expound on the need for genuine repentance of that judgemental action, just as Charles, Camilla and all there present, confessed and were forgiven in the marriage blessing.

If God forgives, who am I to argue about it.
I am a Christian myself. Anglican and attend church.

I agree with you Marg but understand that there is certainly an issue with many Christians that if you are the "defender" of the faith, at the level he will be, it is expected that he would hold a higher standard - to be an example to others (as a priest, minister or pastor must) and would marry in a Christian church. Why wouldn't he if they were repentant and forgiven?

They are repentant and forgiven, he is to be the "defender" of the faith and does not marry in church. What message does that send to the average person? You see it does not sit well with many I am sure, even if he and Camilla have been forgiven. And as previously posted: Why did the queen not attend?

I think he has been quoted as saying he wants to be the defender of ALL faiths. Is that right? That may explain him being OK with no marriage in church. If that is the case, perhaps he should drop the "defender of the Christian faith" altogether.

Would people then move on?
Reply With Quote
  #1426  
Old 07-17-2014, 08:20 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,195
The actual words he used were 'Defender of Faith' not defender of all faiths.

As a committed Anglican I have no issue at all with the future Supreme Governor of the CoE being married in a civil ceremony with a blessing to follow - which fits in with what happens for many divorced persons within the church - they are divorced but remarry civilly and then have the church's blessing.

My own minister at the time (now deceased sadly) said to me that he would have had no problems marrying Charles and Camilla in church but others may have had.
Reply With Quote
  #1427  
Old 07-17-2014, 08:28 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,652
Maybe its just me but I'm leaning towards the opinion that with Charles and Camilla choosing a civil ceremony and then a blessing of the marriage in church, they felt that they had found a happy medium that would satisfy the most people on this issue. With having a civil ceremony, they marry legally and completely with just a few close family members as witnesses. No pomp, no pageantry or flowers and carriages. It became a simple, meaningful way for two people to join together in matrimony as private citizens. Having the blessing in the CoE afterwards, to me, it was a nod to stance the CoE has on divorcees remarrying in the church. As it was up to the personal discretion of the cleric to perform the marriage or not, with having a blessing after the fact as a future Defender of The Faith, Charles recognized this and chose an option that would be agreeable to all clerics of the faith.

I think they covered the legalities and the religious aspects nicely.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1428  
Old 07-17-2014, 10:39 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
...I agree with you Marg but understand that there is certainly an issue with many Christians that if you are the "defender" of the faith, at the level he will be, it is expected that he would hold a higher standard - to be an example to others (as a priest, minister or pastor must) and would marry in a Christian church. Why wouldn't he if they were repentant and forgiven?
I think you are raising an interesting question. This may seem off topic but I believe this issue is directly related to the public’s view of Camilla. I am sympathetic to the view that the royal family should reflect higher standards and I also disapprove of adultery.

When people say that Charles cannot be head of the Church of England, are they simply focusing on Charles and Camilla’s civil wedding ceremony ?
Would their opinion be different if Charles and Camilla had been married in the Church of England?

I understand the argument that Charles and Camilla are continuing to live in a state of adultery. Would the same people hesitate if Charles and Camilla divorced before his coronation? Would some people feel the same if Charles and Diana were still married but both continued to have extramarital affairs?

How would people feel if they found out that the Queen had an affair during her marriage? Would it matter if it were before or after the coronation?

Also, what kind of precedent would it set if Charles didn’t become King? William and Catherine essentially lived in sin for 10+ years. I guess you can argue that there is a difference because they have stopped living in sin, but what if they never repented? What if they divorce and William were to remarry? Would it matter if the general public came to believe that the divorced was Catherine’s fault?

Personally, although I disapprove of both Charles and Diana’s adultery during their marriage, I don’t think that adultery is the worst sin and shouldn’t preclude someone from performing essentially ceremonial duties (by the way, that is the purpose of the monarchy—to remove the politics from essentially traditional and ceremonial events). Obviously none of us are without sin. For those who think Camilla’s adultery should make her ineligible to be Queen, which sins can a queen commit and still remain on the throne? Who decides?
Reply With Quote
  #1429  
Old 07-17-2014, 11:23 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 449
Living together before marriage is "living in sin"??? And there is a need to "repent"? I know there are Christians in the States who feel that way but are there really people left in England who feel that way?
Reply With Quote
  #1430  
Old 07-17-2014, 11:38 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
are there really people left in England who feel that way?
A [very] few thousand, at MOST... and they are silent [for fear, no doubt of ridicule...] In a population of 63 million they represent a miniscule proportion of the public, in a largely post-Christian society.
The US has a fundmentalist religous streak, which is wholly lacking in the UK..
Reply With Quote
  #1431  
Old 07-17-2014, 11:55 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 449
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
A [very] few thousand, at MOST... and they are silent [for fear, no doubt of ridicule...] In a population of 63 million they represent a miniscule proportion of the public, in a largely post-Christian society.
The US has a fundmentalist religous streak, which is wholly lacking in the UK..
That's what I thought. The UK is more like the rest of Northern Europe. I was afraid I'd missed a few things.
Reply With Quote
  #1432  
Old 07-17-2014, 11:57 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
Living together before marriage is "living in sin"??? And there is a need to "repent"? I know there are Christians in the States who feel that way but are there really people left in England who feel that way?
There are millions people all over the world who think that way--including non-Christians. I don't know presume to know how many actually live in England but I'm sure there are many. Christian (including the Church of England) and Muslim religions teach that living together outside of marriage is a sin--whether some posters agree or not. It's pointless to discuss the merits with intolerant people (and religious people are not the only intolerant people on this board).

On topic, the issue is that many people say that Camilla should not be Queen because she and Charles were married in a civil ceremony and Charles will also be the head of the Church of England. They claim their objections are for religious reasons. I don't see the difference between William and Catherine living together outside of marriage and Charles and Camilla living together now. Do these same people object to William taking the throne?
Reply With Quote
  #1433  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:10 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
US ROYAL WATCHER -
I don't doubt there are those [Muslim, evangelical Christians etc.] in this country that have that opinion... but they are wholly WITHOUT INFLUENCE, or voice.. There is no newspaper or news channel/programme that echoes their views, nor political party [in Parliament, or elsewhere] for them to use as a platform.

So if they disapprove of the lifestyle of the Prince of Wales, and his wife, or of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge their views can have no impact on the succession, or on public opinion regarding it.
Reply With Quote
  #1434  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:19 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
I don't understand how they can't influence public opinion--they ARE members of the public. They are included in public opinion polls and some have expressed their views on this board. Obviously, many choose to stay anonymous because they are exposed to ridicule by intolerant people who hate religious people but I believe that religious people have a right to their point of view.

The topic is the public and Camilla. Polls indicate that there are a substantial number of people who don't believe that she should become Queen. Several posters have indicated that is because she has a living ex-husband and Charles will become the head of the Church of England. My posts are directed to that issue.
Reply With Quote
  #1435  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
...many choose to stay anonymous because they are exposed to ridicule by intolerant people who hate religious people but I believe that religious people have a right to their point of view...
That is an interesting point of view. Do you think people hate religious people, or they feel religious people feel their agenda the only agenda. This is a question. I thought that there was great favor in Camilla becoming queen.
Reply With Quote
  #1436  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:29 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
That is an interesting point of view. Do you think people hate religious people, or they feel religious people feel their agenda the only agenda. This is a question. I thought that there was great favor in Camilla becoming queen.
Yes, I think there are those who hate religious people. They are as intolerant as they claim religious people are.

I don't know the answer to your question about how it impacts Camilla. I don't think there is great favor in Camilla becoming queen, although the public is warming to her. I don't think that most of the opposition to her becoming Queen is because she is divorced, even though many people use that excuse.

That is why I brought up William and Catherine living together. Many people who oppose Camilla becoming queen want the crown to skip to William and felt that way before William and Catherine were married, even though they were living in sin. To me that indicates that the real issue is that they don't like Camilla because of their feelings about Diana.
Reply With Quote
  #1437  
Old 07-17-2014, 07:01 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Let’s try getting back on topic. This thread is supposed to be about Camilla’s standing with the public. I think we should all agree that unless the law is changed, she will become Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne. Regardless, public opinion polls are all over the place. Most show that the public has slowly warmed to Camilla but she isn’t exactly popular.

One of the arguments put forth by people who do not want Camilla to become Queen (or Charles to become King) is that they are not in good standing with the Church of England. I understand that the CoE tenets on divorce have evolved over the past 10 years or so, but some argue that Charles should be held to a higher standard. He’ll be more than the sovereign of the UK, he will have an official role in both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. His titles will include ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.’ According to the official website of the British Monarchy:
Quote:
Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission. They take an oath of allegiance to The Queen on appointment and may not resign without Royal authority.


My understanding is that the monarch’s role in the church is established by law rather than just tradition. In this respect, the British monarchy is different from many other monarchies around the world. King Philip VI has no official role in the Catholic Church; the Spanish monarch is no longer known as the ‘Catholic Majesty.’ Similarly, monarchs in Arab countries do not have official roles in the Muslim religion.

Therefore, whether other posters agree or not, those who object to Charles ascending the throne because Camilla has a living husband have a point. Personally, I think it is a rationalization because these same people bought into Diana’s version of the breakdown of her marriage, but I am trying to understand the opposing point of view.
Reply With Quote
  #1438  
Old 07-18-2014, 10:28 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
...My understanding is that the monarch’s role in the church is established by law rather than just tradition. In this respect, the British monarchy is different from many other monarchies around the world. King Philip VI has no official role in the Catholic Church; the Spanish monarch is no longer known as the ‘Catholic Majesty.’ Similarly, monarchs in Arab countries do not have official roles in the Muslim religion...
Comparing the relationship between the CoE and monarchy on the one hand and Catholic and Muslim realms within their own religions is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Within Catholicism there is a designated leader - the Pope - and therefore on a purely religious level, any monarchs are beneath him. If I am correct, there are likewise heads of Islamic Faith, taking that power away from Muslim monarchs (although I could be very wrong here, I don't know a lot about Islam or Muslim monarchies). If you go back 100+ years, when there was still a state connection between the Roman Catholic Church and Spain, the king still would not have been the head of the church, while in Britain the same would not be so.

A better comparison would be between Protestant monarchies, as they have the option of having the monarch be the head of their church. If I'm correct, in Norway and Denmark the monarch is also the head of the church.

As to the idea that there is a point that Charles and Camilla have sinned and thus Charles is not living up to the higher standards that a man who will be the head of a religion... Well, yes and no. Yes, there is a point, and yes we should be able to expect more from our religious leaders and yes, Charles will be (but is not at this time) such a leader in a manner of speaking, but... It's not that easy.

First of all, Charles is human. Like all humans he is prone to err. He is religious, but life has not lead him down a path of being drawn to religious orders - sure maybe he would have had he been born in a different position, but as it was, he wasn't. Charles has not devoted his life to religious orders in a comparable way to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope or any other number of more typical religious leaders, therefore to hold him to the same standard as other religious leaders.

Now, you could argue that based on those grounds Charles may not be suited to be the head of the CoE... And in a lot of ways I don't disagree. Charles is not a clergyman, so in a lot of ways it's ridiculous that he'll be the head of the church. His mother is not a clergywoman either though, and has been the head of the church for more than 60 years now. In fact, the CoE since its inception has not had a member of the clergy at its head. Instead it's had a slew of people of questionable morality in that role.

If the CoE believes that Charles is not suited for the role of Supreme Governor of the CoE then the CoE should end the connection between the church and the state in Britain. As it stands though, Charles' moral behaviour has no outcome on whether or not he's in the line of succession to the throne. There are only 3 conditions that he has to meet - be of legitimate descent from Sophia of Hanover, not be a Catholic, and not marry a person who is a Catholic. Charles hasn't broken any of these. Even supposing that Charles and Camilla's marriage isn't legal, it wouldn't prevent Charles from being king, because there is no rule that says a king can't have a mistress.

Back to the high moral standard we should be holding the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to though...

The church was basically founded under the reign of Henry VIII so he could annul his first marriage and marry again. He ended up marrying 6 times in total and kept a slew of mistresses, with two wives being his mistresses while he was married to their predecessors, and one of his sisters-in-law having been a mistress before he married her sister.

Later the head of the church was his Catholic daughter Mary, who defended the faith of Anglicans by burning them at the stake.

Charles II and James II were both known for their mistresses. James, despite being the head of the CoE was openly a Catholic, while Charles is often accused of having been a secret Catholic and had a deathbed conversion.

George I and George II were not members of the CoE until Queen Anne died, and George II is well known for his mistresses.

The sons of George III are also well known for their mistresses, including two kings, George IV and William IV. William even acknowledged 10 illegitimate children with one mistress.

In keeping with his predecessors, Edward VII had many mistresses in his lifetime, if no (acknowledged) children through them. His favourite, Alice Keppel, was even at his deathbed.

The only one of these previous monarchs who was deemed to be unfit to rule was James II, and only then after ruling for 3 years and doing a less than satisfactory job at it. Seriously, if a man who is of the wrong religion, had no fewer than 7 illegitimate children, and had at least 11 mistresses can be given a shot at being monarch and Supreme Governor of the CoE, I think Charles should be given a pass on his behaviour.
Reply With Quote
  #1439  
Old 07-18-2014, 10:36 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,481
[Later the head of the church was his Catholic daughter Mary, who defended the faith of Anglicans by burning them at the stake]//quote

FYI, Queen Mary did not and would not have ever considered it an obligation to defend the Anglican faith. Neither did the pope when he bestowed the Defensor Fidei title on Henry VIII and his successors. The Faith they were called upon to defend was the Roman Catholic faith.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1440  
Old 07-18-2014, 10:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,950

Oh, I am well aware that Mary didn't view it in such a way, but the fact remains that she was head of the Church of England, which was not a part of the RC faith.

Also the title "Defender of the Faith" is no longer because the Pope granted it, and hasn't been for a long time - certainly not in Mary's day.

In 1521 the Pope granted it to Henry VIII, ironically for defending the sacramental nature of marriage and the supremacy of the Pope. When Henry changed his mind on this the Pope revoked the title and excommunicated him (1530). Then in 1544, the English parliament conferred the title on him and his successors. As such, the title that Mary held was not a Catholic title granted to her by the Pope but an Anglican title granted to her by Parliament.
__________________

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





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events current events thread duchess of cambridge e-mail farah diba fashion and style fashion poll grand duke jean greece infanta elena 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 charlotte of cambridge 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 cocktail dresses queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 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 the duchess of cornwall eveningwear


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 05:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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