Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Pranter]

I was unaware it was ever not part of the thread...you only have to go up a few posts to see someone talking about Camilla's affairs. I was responding to the post right above mine that was talking about affairs as well.
I

It is part of Charles and Camilla's relationship, part of who they are and what they represent. It is part of Charles's legacy by his own action.


LaRae

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Pranter

It is part of Charles and Camilla's relationship, part of who they are and what they represent. It is part of Charles's legacy by his own action.
LaRae

But it is not part of Charles and Camilla's marriage since 2005. It is only part of the mindset of people who choose to judge Charles and Camilla and hold against them forevermore things that occurred during the term of their previous marriages.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

But it is not part of Charles and Camilla's marriage since 2005. It is only part of the mindset of people who choose to judge Charles and Camilla and hold against them forevermore things that occurred during the term of their previous marriages.

It's always going to be a part of their marriage. Just like in the Diana threads certain things always come up. It's connected to them. It simply is part of the events surrounding their relationship.

Has nothing to do with judging (only God can judge one's salvation). No one should be surprised however if those who are religious have an issue with their behavior and what Charles will be to the CoE. I am sure other kings have been felt the same way about due to (known) behavior.


LaRae

[Queen Camilla]

Originally Posted by MARG

Can anyone tell me why Charles faith and lack of fitness to be King is once again hijacking this thread?

Warren moved them from Camilla and Public thread to this thread.

Maybe they should belong in the Monarchy under Charles thread.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Pranter

It's always going to be a part of their marriage. Just like in the Diana threads certain things always come up. It's connected to them. It simply is part of the events surrounding their relationship.

Has nothing to do with judging (only God can judge one's salvation). No one should be surprised however if those who are religious have an issue with their behavior and what Charles will be to the CoE. I am sure other kings have been felt the same way about due to (known) behavior.


LaRae

This thread is specifically SINCE 2005 so anything that happened before they married in April 2005 is actually irrelevant to this thread.

I seem to remember that the title of this thread was changed to include the 'since 2005' section after it kept getting derailed by people wanting to go over and over the pre-2005 stuff.

[Pranter]

If the moderator is moving stuff (as stated by Queen Camilla) to this thread then they must have expanded the scope of topic.


LaRae

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Well if you are going to use past examples of kingly behavior to justify what a current king (and head of the COE) may or may not do then striking off your wife's head for treason should be acceptable as well....

Because someone has had bad behavior does not excuse another person's behavior.

LaRae

First, this discussion was moved here because it relates to Charles and Camilla's decision to have a civil wedding.

Regarding Pranter's point, I understand what you are saying but I don't agree that it is a good point. St. Paul, one the patron of St. Paul's Cathedral, actually tortured and murdered Christians before his conversion on the road to Damascus. Some of the early Christians mistrusted him, but he became a great leader in the early Christian church.

I'm not a member of the church of England, but Wikipedia lists many of their saints. Several, if not most, lived immoral lives before dedicating themselves to God. The church not only forgave them their sins but hold them up as examples of hope for salvation.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

First, this discussion was moved here because it relates to Charles and Camilla's decision to have a civil wedding.

Regarding Pranter's point, I understand what you are saying but I don't agree that it is a good point. St. Paul, one the patron of St. Paul's Cathedral, actually tortured and murdered Christians before his conversion on the road to Damascus. Some of the early Christians mistrusted him, but he became a great leader in the early Christian church.

I'm not a member of the church of England, but Wikipedia lists many of their saints. Several, if not most, lived immoral lives before dedicating themselves to God. The church not only forgave them their sins but hold them up as examples of hope for salvation.

I never said they couldn't be forgiven etc...my response was to something another person said, not a stand alone statement.

The point you bring up about Paul...those things he did PRIOR to conversion to the Faith (and there are tons of examples like his to be had)... ..Charles (and other kings previously mentioned) were already Christian when they fell off the wagon...the example doesn't really mirror well.

It's not so surprising when a non-Christian does something immoral (ie Paul, Augustus etc etc)...the head of a Church (ie Charles) is a different story.


LaRae

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Pranter

It's not so surprising when a non-Christian does something immoral (ie Paul, Augustus etc etc)...the head of a Church (ie Charles) is a different story.


LaRae

I don't think Christian and non-Christian really have anything to do with immorality. All are prone to goof up just the same as we're all humans. Actually, when you think about it, Charles is NOT the head of the church yet nor will be be after he is crowned. He will be the Supreme Governor of the Church yes but as has been stated, its mostly a ceremonial role and Charles wouldn't be preaching from a pulpit or calling bingo. The spiritual leader of the CoE I believe is the Archbishop of Canterbury. (correct me if I'm wrong here please)

There is only one source that Charles has to answer to for anything in his lifetime and I do believe that's a very personal matter that's really none of our concern.

[maryr0249]

Thank you!

[Iluvbertie]

Any person who claims that Christians can't be sinners are wrong. In fact the big thing is for ALL Christians to not only ask for forgiveness from God when they do sin but also to forgive others who sin against them - it is actually part of the Lord's Prayer - the one prayer we were given by Christ Himself.

If it is good enough for Christ to tell me to 'forgive those who have sinned against me' who am I to refuse to following that instruction - as that would be very much against the teachings of Christ.

Charles publicly asked for forgiveness in the prayer said at the blessing service, he made himself right with the Church of England by getting married to Camilla so that they were no longer 'living in sin' (as William and Kate did when they finally married - the church disapproves of sleeping with anyone outside of marriage without publicly asking for forgiveness but privately is all that is needed anyway). End of matter for the CoE and it should also be the end of the matter for any true follower of Christ as He instructed us to forgive others.

[Osipi]

And on a lighter note. For those that wouldn't be surprised at acts of a non-Christian, for a fee, I will dance in a circle skyclad while chanting moo and bowing down and eating purple grass to Beulah the Beloved Bovine.

Tickets are going fast. Reserve your spot now.

(sorry mods.. the um "divil" made me do it)

[Pranter]

No one claimed Christians aren't sinners bertie, nor was it ever said they couldn't be forgiven. You are tilting at windmills.


Osipi yes I agree, everyone is prone to 'goof up' ....evidently for some people it (the Queen or King being the head of the CoE) did mean something more than a ceremonial position, otherwise there would of never been the hue and cry about it.


LaRae

[sndral]

Originally Posted by Osipi

And on a lighter note. For those that wouldn't be surprised at acts of a non-Christian, for a fee, I will dance in a circle skyclad while chanting moo and bowing down and eating purple grass to Beulah the Beloved Bovine.

Tickets are going fast. Reserve your spot now.

(sorry mods.. the um "divil" made me do it)

Will you have a broom of fallen peacock feathers as do the skyclad Monks of the Digambar sect of Jainism?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by sndral

Will you have a broom of fallen peacock feathers as do the skyclad Monks of the Digambar sect of Jainism?

Sadly no as it sounds gorgeous but I do have a hand carved besom that I can use.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Pranter

The point you bring up about Paul...those things he did PRIOR to conversion to the Faith (and there are tons of examples like his to be had)... ..Charles (and other kings previously mentioned) were already Christian when they fell off the wagon...the example doesn't really mirror well.

It's not so surprising when a non-Christian does something immoral (ie Paul, Augustus etc etc)...the head of a Church (ie Charles) is a different story.

LaRae

I don't agree with your objections to the analogy about Paul, who, like Christ, was Jewish. But if you don't like that example, what about St. Francis of Assisi who was raised a Christian but lived a dissolute life before he repented and became a recognized church leader? Another example is Thomas Becket. Becket was known as a selfish, greedy priest. After he was consecrated as Archbishop, he reformed and gave away all his possessions.

The point is that Great Britain's Monarch has traditionally had a role in the Church of England, regardless of the monarch's morals. I understand the objection that Charles and Camilla weren't married in the Church of England, but I don't understand the argument that Charles should be disqualified because of mistakes he made over 20 years ago. One of the major pillars of the Christian faith is redemption.

[Duchess of Durham]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I don't agree with your objections to the analogy about Paul, who, like Christ, was Jewish. But if you don't like that example, what about St. Francis of Assisi who was raised a Christian but lived a dissolute life before he repented and became a recognized church leader? Another example is Thomas Becket. Becket was known as a selfish, greedy priest. After he was consecrated as Archbishop, he reformed and gave away all his possessions.

The point is that Great Britain's Monarch has traditionally had a role in the Church of England, regardless of the monarch's morals. I understand the objection that Charles and Camilla weren't married in the Church of England, but I don't understand the argument that Charles should be disqualified because of mistakes he made over 20 years ago. One of the major pillars of the Christian faith is redemption.

I know that in the Catholic church if you are married in a civil ceremony, you can have your marriage blessed and in the eyes of the Church you are married even though you did not marry in the church. Is that the same for the CoE? Charles and Camilla aside.

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Originally Posted by Pranter

I never said they couldn't be forgiven etc...my response was to something another person said, not a stand alone statement.

The point you bring up about Paul...those things he did PRIOR to conversion to the Faith (and there are tons of examples like his to be had)... ..Charles (and other kings previously mentioned) were already Christian when they fell off the wagon...the example doesn't really mirror well.

It's not so surprising when a non-Christian does something immoral (ie Paul, Augustus etc etc)...the head of a Church (ie Charles) is a different story.


LaRae

This is a good point.

I think I would have been more convinced of Charles conviction (for being sorry) if he had given Camilla up just as other Christians have done when they have truly repented. Someone gave an example earlier...the greedy priest that gave up all his possessions when he repented.

To repent is not only to say sorry but to turn a new leaf. Give up the sinful way. It is very difficult indeed if one is doing it on one's own strength.

[cepe]

There are a number of posters on here who spout " christian " values but dont walk the walk. christian values are about the new testament, and too many talk old testament " eye for an eye".

charles and camilla both spoke themost extreme act of contrition at the blessing of their union.

Why do people on here presume to stand in judgement on others?

Careful because you too will be judged.

The Christian faith is about forgiveness, charity and love. More of you should remember that and act upon it.

[Eden]

Originally Posted by cepe

There are a number of posters on here who spout " christian " values but dont walk the walk. christian values are about the new testament, and too many talk old testament " eye for an eye".

charles and camilla both spoke themost extreme act of contrition at the blessing of their union.

Why do people on here presume to stand in judgement on others?

Careful because you too will be judged.

The Christian faith is about forgiveness, charity and love. More of you should remember that and act upon it.

Well said! Funny the people who should care the most, Wills & Harry, appear to genuinely like Camila. In my opinion these are the only two people who should have the most against her.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app