The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 02-17-2005, 10:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
(AFP) - Britain's Queen Elizabeth II is "livid" at plans to conduct the April 8 civil wedding of Prince Charles and longtime partner Camilla Parker Bowles at a town hall.

The couple were to have wed at Windsor Castle, the royal family's weekend retreat west of London, but then switched venue to the Guildhall in Windsor -- used for local council meetings and other public gatherings.

"The queen believes that by having the service in the local town hall, the last vestige of the mystery of monarchy will be smashed forever," an unidentified source was quoted as saying in Friday's edition of the Sun newspaper.

The Sun added that Queen Elizabeth was also "miffed" at Prime Minister Tony Blair for agreeing to the April 8 wedding date, which will be just under a month before an expected May 5 general election.

It said the date suits Blair because it would create "a 'white-out' of political news" to the detriment of the main opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Clarence House, the official London residence of the Prince of Wales, said Thursday that the wedding venue was being switched because licensing the royal palace for a civil wedding would cause too much disruption.
__________________

  #482  
Old 02-17-2005, 10:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
AP

The Church of England owes its creation to a royal spat over divorce and remarriage: Henry VIII's break with the Vatican after the pope refused to grant the monarch dispensation to wed his lover. Now, nearly five centuries later, questions over another wedding are pulling at Anglican unity — the planned marriage of Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles, the first in line to inherit the throne and become the next titular head of the church.

Conservative groups complain the scheduled April 8 civil ceremony and post-vows service by the Archbishop of Canterbury — although fully legal — run counter to Church of England traditions against remarriage and will deepen rifts at a delicate time for the world's 77 million-strong Anglican Communion, which includes Episcopalians in the United States. Anglicans are struggling with serious quandaries over doctrine and structure. Chief among them: whether to sanction the ordination of gay clergy, give blessings to same-sex unions and allow women priests to become bishops. Fresh debates are expected at a global gathering of Anglican leaders beginning Monday in Northern Ireland, where the Episcopal Church also could be sanctioned for consecrating a gay bishop. The wedding plans add another point of friction, conservative leaders say.

"We know there's a head of steam to liberalize the church already," said George Curry, chairman of the Church Society, comprising tradition-minded Anglican clergy and lay members in Britain. "There are theological questions at stake. Charles is now one of them." Actually, it's the bride-to-be who appears to be deeper in the religious quagmire. Her ex-husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, is alive. For conservatives, this is an affront to Anglican tenets, whereas Charles is free to remarry as a widower.

"It has grave consequences for the future of the church," delegate Allan Jones told the Church of England's governing General Synod, which met this week in London. A statement from another conservative group, the Evangelical Alliance, applauded plans to give the relationship "a more moral footing." But it noted broad reservations persist.

"The couple's previous divorces, their documented adultery and the nature of their extramarital relationship up to this point do present difficulties for many of our Anglican members and others with respect to Charles' suitability to govern the Church of England," said a statement from the London-based alliance, which claims 1 million members from various denominations. The Church of England disapproves of the remarriage of divorced people in church except under special circumstances. There are no annulments — as possible with Roman Catholics — that open the way for a new, church-sanctioned wedding. But there are sidesteps available for Anglicans. The royal wedding is taking the most popular one: having a civil service and a later blessing by a priest. On Thursday, Charles' office announced the civil ceremony is even taking place at the local town hall — another common touch.

"What the Archbishop of Canterbury is doing is perfectly legal, so you could say it's not pushing the envelope," said the Rev. Gerald Bray, an Anglican theologian at the Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Ala. "But there's something more subjective: It may be legal, but is it wise?" Bray predicted it "won't be encouraging for people who want to encourage traditional moral standards."

Some already feel on the defensive. In 2002, the General Synod loosened rules on remarriage in the church. Parish priests were given discretion to deem whether the couple met the new guidelines. Among the caveats: The new relationship shouldn't be the cause of breaking up the previous marriage — which is precisely what the supporters of the late Princess Diana claim.

But the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, insisted there was no reason for Buckingham Palace to seek loopholes for Charles.

"These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage," said a statement from the archbishop. It's a clear reflection of a broad attitude shift in the church since one of the most stunning moments in Britain's royal history: the decision by King Edward VIII in 1936 to abdicate in order to marry a twice-divorced American, Wallis Simpson. Geoffrey Wainwright, a professor specializing in Protestant affairs at Duke Divinity School, said the upcoming wedding also may revive questions about the Church of England's constitutional ties to the monarchy, which can't change doctrine but can in theory influence "temporal" matters. The government's duties — acting in the name of the monarch — include appointing the Church of England's two archbishops and other senior clergy.

"Some theologians would welcome disestablishment for the sake of the church's freedom," Wainwright said. "Others would see it has yet one more sign of the `de-Christianization' of the country." In the early 16th century, King Henry VIII sought a papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could wed his mistress, Anne Boleyn. The pope, however, had already given special dispensation for Henry's marriage to Catherine, who was the widow of his brother. The Vatican was unwilling to admit papal misjudgment and rejected Henry's request. Also, the papacy was under the influence of Henry's nemesis — and Catherine's nephew — Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Henry's advisers came up with a radical proposal: Break with Rome and set your own rules. During the 1530s, English clergy and parliament members gradually cut ties with the Vatican and declared Henry the head of the new Church of England. Henry wasn't through. He was back to the altar after Anne was beheaded for alleged infidelity. He had a total of six wives, including another who lost her head.
__________________

  #483  
Old 02-17-2005, 11:16 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
This sounds as though all the arrangements for the wedding were made without the Queen even knowing about them. That strikes me as unlikely.
  #484  
Old 02-18-2005, 04:39 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
This sounds as though all the arrangements for the wedding were made without the Queen even knowing about them. That strikes me as unlikely.
Very unlikely, since it is her castle and her chapel.

I wouldn't imagine much happens at Windsor without the Queen knowing about it. My understanding is that she is quite a formidable woman, even more so on her home turf.
.
  #485  
Old 02-18-2005, 05:15 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 185
AOL news

http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/ar...17131109990001

Queen's 'Fury' Over Wedding Switch

The Queen is reported to have been 'livid' on hearing that the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles are to get hitched at a town hall.

The Sun newspaper reports that the monarch is appalled at the prospect of a ceremony she regards as 'common' and unfit for the heir to the throne.

Charles and Camilla have changed the venue of their civil ceremony to the Guildhall in Windsor.

The couple will no longer wed in Windsor Castle after it was decided that licensing the royal palace would cause too much disruption.

Clarence House said the new venue, which is Windsor's town hall, would allow the public to see the couple arrive and leave.

The blessing afterwards will still take place in Windsor Castle's St George's Chapel.

Mrs Parker Bowles has chosen Robinson Valentine to design her outfit and Philip Treacy to design her hat.

The licensing problems stemmed from the fact that members of the public may have subsequently been permitted to wed in the castle.

A Clarence House spokesman said: "There were a number of issues around the licence.

"It would have meant that the rooms which are normally open to the public would have to be closed numerous times.

"Thousands of people visit the castle each year. A licence is not just for one event."

He added: "People will be able to see the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles arrive and leave, rather than them being behind the Ccstle walls."

The Guildhall, completed by Sir Christopher Wren, is close to the castle.

Clarence House said about 700 guests will watch the couple take their vows in the civil ceremony.

After the blessing, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Queen will give a reception in the State Apartments at Windsor Castle.
  #486  
Old 02-18-2005, 05:15 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Well, that's what I meant. It doesn't make sense that she's now throwing a hissy fit about the change of venue as though it had all been done without consulting her first. I wonder where these newspapers get stories like this?

Plus, she was miffed with Blair for agreeing to the date? I don't suppose Blair was told about it until after the Queen had approved it.
  #487  
Old 02-18-2005, 06:16 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
elspeth,

"Blair was told about it until after the queen had approved it"
after she had approved did she not need his approval too?

& her having some sort of fit, can't imagine it,
it is the sun, isn't that a sensational newspaper, with big headlines?

the people who are organising the wedding, licence and stuff might have thought that an exception could be made for charles and camilla or
they thought so initially and later thought it might have implications or
everyone thought it was ok except the government who would not play ball
  #488  
Old 02-18-2005, 07:26 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
it is the sun, isn't that a sensational newspaper, with big headlines?
Yep. It doesn't pay to believe everything you read in the tabloids.
  #489  
Old 02-18-2005, 09:13 AM
Splodger's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , United Kingdom
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Yep. It doesn't pay to believe everything you read in the tabloids.

Tabloids are so utterly irresponsible and they really really REALLY annoy me! On one hand it is vital there is freedom of the press, but on the other hand it leads to extensive exaggerated rumors to be spread around about all kinds of things that are hearsay gossip and have no basis in fact at all.

I know the things the Queen and her family do are reported in the Court Circular (think both are still available in the Times & Telegraph (UK), however I wish that the Queen and Buckingham Palace Press Officers would be more open about the family's activities and provide 'responsible' news media organizations with more statements to counter the wild sensational headlines of the tabloids.


I was involved in a previous discussion about an International Royals News Agency that royal families could trust to report their activities accurately if they could provide them with more statements and reports to administer. It would do the Monarchy so much good to have reliable news reports as opposed to leaving all the media to speculate and the tabloids to print utter rubbish which only leaves one to ask what side of the naked page three girl's cleavage was the story printed on :p
  #490  
Old 02-18-2005, 05:32 PM
Humera's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 7,810
This is where Charles and Camilla will marry
From Abaca Press
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	317351.jpg
Views:	54
Size:	131.8 KB
ID:	95727   Click image for larger version

Name:	317352.jpg
Views:	149
Size:	156.2 KB
ID:	95728   Click image for larger version

Name:	317353.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	144.1 KB
ID:	95729   Click image for larger version

Name:	317354.jpg
Views:	169
Size:	135.9 KB
ID:	95730  

  #491  
Old 02-18-2005, 05:55 PM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 617
Oh come on, it's nice after all. And there are portraits of the Queen and previous monarchs, which give a royal atmosphere.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
  #492  
Old 02-18-2005, 11:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,194
The Queen should probably be more open about things, but she is old. Her generation, and even Charles' generation had it drilled into their brains that what is private should be kept private.
  #493  
Old 02-19-2005, 01:03 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
tiaraprin,
there is a verse in the bible that says "Let he who is without sin caste the first stone"
I dont think that any of us are perfect or candidates for sainthood so how about we lay off the name calling. I don't notice anyone calling Diana an adulteress and yet she did her share of enticing and sleeping with other womens husbands.
Wymanda,

When Diana walked down the aisle on July 29, 1981, she was a virgin, who to the best of her naive knowledge, loved the man she was marrying and fufilling the all too popular fantasy of actually becoming a princess. Prince Charles invited his mistress to his wedding and lied before God and the world when he took his wedding vows! Yes Diana did have lovers--God knows Charles treatment of her drove her to it in the isolated position she was in. In regard to her affair with the married Oliver Hoare, that was wrong. However, I did read recently that Hoare had planned to leave his wife for Diana and had been separated from his wife before he and Diana had their affair. Whether that be true or not, I do not know.

Camilla and Charles were the sinners long before Diana was, although I don't excuse her errors. At least Diana went in with good faith and wasn't like Camilla who was vetting her out to see what her position would be once Charles married Diana. At least Diana was no hypocrite being kind and smiling as Camilla was desperately trying to "protect her property."

Camilla does not deserve an HRH and does not deserve to be Queen. She was a vital element to the breakdown of the marriage of Charles and Diana who already had enough problems. If she had not been a factor in the disintegration of the marriage and not the mistress of Charles, I would be in favor of it. I just wish Charles could have found a nice, respectable lady who would be an asset and a tribute to England.
  #494  
Old 02-19-2005, 01:15 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Angry Diana Leave Her Son?? NEVER!

Quote:
I'm sure the doctors would have preferred that Diana got lost too and left them to do their jobs, without the deference they would have had to show while she were present, and let William rest.
Diana had every right to be with her son. What kind of mother would she be if she left?? Contrary to what Diana's detractors believe, she was a good mother and had a heart. Here in the United States, many mothers stay with their children overnight in the hospitals to comfort their children. What Diana did was NOT ABNORMAL, at least by American standards!!
  #495  
Old 02-19-2005, 01:21 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Thumbs up You Got That Right!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII
Anyway not!She can not become Queen.Never!Never become Princess of Wales or Queen of England!She's the one who has destroyed the marriage of Charles and Diana.
You have hit the nail right on the head!!!! Bravo to you!!!!
  #496  
Old 02-19-2005, 01:42 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
When Diana walked down the aisle on July 29, 1981, she was a virgin, who to the best of her naive knowledge, loved the man she was marrying and fufilling the all too popular fantasy of actually becoming a princess. Prince Charles invited his mistress to his wedding and lied before God and the world when he took his wedding vows!
He said he'd ended the relationship with Mrs Parker Bowles before the wedding. You have no more idea than any of the rest of us whether he meant it and whether he was or was not lying when he took his wedding vows. It's been stated by several people who knew the Prince and Princess that she was consumed with jealousy about his relationship with Camilla from the start of their marriage and wouldn't let the matter drop - and eventually she became so impossible to live with that he went back to Camilla because he wanted to be with someone who wasn't forever screaming at him. Diana was just as responsible for the problems in the marriage as Charles was, if she couldn't be rational about Camilla and if she couldn't see her way to making Charles's life pleasant rather than unpleasant. If I'd had nothing but inquisitions and accusations and rants and raves about previous boyfriends from my husband from the first day of our honeymoon and nothing I said had made any difference, I don't think I'd have stayed married very long. Nor would most people.

Quote:
Camilla and Charles were the sinners long before Diana was, although I don't excuse her errors. At least Diana went in with good faith and wasn't like Camilla who was vetting her out to see what her position would be once Charles married Diana. At least Diana was no hypocrite being kind and smiling as Camilla was desperately trying to "protect her property."
Diana had to have known about the Charles-Camilla affair before she and Charles were engaged; too many people in the tight-knit upper-class society knew about it for her not to have also known. She went into that marriage knowing that he'd had a long-term relationship with Camilla but had assured her that he'd ended it; this wasn't some revelation that hit her out of the blue too late for her to do anything about it. Knowing about that relationship, she had the option of making herself an attractive alternative to Camilla. It might not have worked, but she could at least have tried. Instead of which, she went about things in a disastrously immature and possessive sort of way, and predictably it had the opposite effect. She also had to have known that the royal family weren't emotionally open and that they were a closed shop in terms of uniting against perceived threats. She took a potentially bad matter and made it a great deal worse with her response to it. Of course Charles's family was going to stand by him and look the other way. The thing I've always wondered is why her own parents and sisters did so little for her when things were difficult at the beginning and she needed wise advice.
  #497  
Old 02-19-2005, 01:48 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,487
But she was so young, innocent, and just immature. SHe was only 19. And she tried to get out of it, but it was too late as her sisters told her that her face was already on the tea cups or something like that. No one warned her cuz they thought she was stupid and wpudl only fo the things they expected her to do. Both her and Chalres were very emotionally needy ppl.
__________________
*Under Construction*
  #498  
Old 02-19-2005, 02:24 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Yes, she was young, innocent, and immature, and she needed help from her family. Her sisters didn't tell her the stuff about the tea towels until a day or two before the wedding; she needed serious guidance from her mother and sisters long before that, but it seems that they were too fixated on having her marry into the royal family.

And when she was married and was shouting and screaming at Charles about her suspicions about his relationship with Camilla, it sounds as though at that point she needed some serious help from people who were emotionally close to her, and it also sounds as though she didn't get it.
  #499  
Old 02-19-2005, 11:29 AM
Regina's Avatar
Serene Highness
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 1,646
Tiaprin, I really like your messages and I agree with you a 100%.
  #500  
Old 02-19-2005, 02:30 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regina
Tiaprin, I really like your messages and I agree with you a 100%.
Elspeth, I really like your messages and I agree with you a 100%.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, engagement, 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on) VuMom The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1583 04-09-2015 11:10 PM
Charles and Camilla: Visit to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE - February 2007 hornsen Royal and Ruling Families of the Gulf States 183 03-02-2007 06:49 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grahamm greece infanta elena fashion kate middleton king abdulah ii king abdullah ii king abdullah ii current events king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy movies new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles princess charlene fashion princess estelle princess marie princess mary princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen anne-marie queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima gowns queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania eveningwear queen rania fashion rohan royal september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark stockholm 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 tiara


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 01:17 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises