The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:04 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Charles broke the same vows, though. I don't think it's fair to say that Charles can be King but Camilla needs to be punished with a lower position, especially when it's the monarch, not the consort, who's taking on the position of Supreme Governor of the Church.
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
__________________

__________________
  #62  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:16 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation.
Why would he do that when he signed off on their marriage so publicly? If he was really that opposed to them, he wouldn't have done the blessing of the marriage.
__________________

__________________
  #63  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.
Which is certainly understandable. Diana died with the style of Princess of Wales and was the mother of the future King.

But once her husband becomes King, there is no reason why Camilla shouldn't be Queen.
__________________
  #64  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:30 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
If the Archbishop refuses to crown Charles, that'll be the end of the CofE as the Established Church, so he'd better be very sure it's worth it. People aren't going to stand for the Church interfering in the succession and trying to force the issue of who becomes Head of State (because that's what a refusal to crown Charles would amount to).

As far as adultery by kings is concerned, I'll just refer you to the July 2008 newsletter. A lot of those illegitimate children were fathered by married men. The only kings not to have been crowned (Edward V and Edward VIII, unless I'm forgetting any) didn't commit adultery.
__________________
  #65  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
He cannot "decline" to do the coronation. The Sovereign is Supreme Governor of the Church from the moment the previous Sovereign dies.

The Archbishop of Canterbury approved the marriage and blessed the couple after they asked for forgiveness. That should be sufficient and it's time to move on.
__________________
  #66  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:46 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I think there are some CofE bishops (or at least clerics) who have said that if they were Archbishop of Canterbury at Charles's accession, they'd refuse to officiate at the coronation. Easy to say, of course - I hope they aren't too far out of touch to realise that such an act would do a lot more damage to the church than to the king; it would be far more likely to result in disestablishment of the church than abdication of the king.

Since the Archbishop's allegiance is to God rather than to the monarch, I assume he could refuse to conduct the coronation ceremony if he felt strongly that the king wasn't worthy. I think there was speculation about whether Archbishop Lang would have refused to crown Edward VIII if he hadn't abdicated. Obviously this won't be a problem for Dr Williams, but he may not be Archbishop at the time of the next coronation. My guess is that if that's the case, his successor will be someone who hold views similar to his.
__________________
  #67  
Old 11-15-2008, 11:52 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Which is certainly understandable. Diana died with the style of Princess of Wales and was the mother of the future King.

But once her husband becomes King, there is no reason why Camilla shouldn't be Queen.
If public opinion is so opposed that it's considered by the government and senior civil service that it poses a danger to the survival of the monarchy, that would be a reason. I don't see it turning out that way, but I think they'd probably see Camilla's HM as a lesser sacrifice than risking the monarchy itself.
__________________
  #68  
Old 11-16-2008, 12:40 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
Is adultery illegal in Britain?

If not then why refuse to crown him?

Charles has numerous ancestors who were serial adulterers who were crowned, and yes the Archbishops knew.

Diana and Camilla are the descendents of just such a serial adulterer in Charles II.

Charles made a promise to remain faithful to his wife, who also promised ot do the same. Neither did so. Edward VII made the same vow, as did George IV. They didn't do so and they were crowned and Edward was one of the best kings.

Breaking one vow doesn't mean that they aren't worthy to have another go - Jesus would be appalled I suspect that people won't forgive as he was always teaching forgiveness.

Forgiveness includes letting go and allowing a person to get on with their lives and not punish them unreasonably, which suggesting that Charles isn't fit to be king or Camilla fit to be queen because they made the mistake of not marrying each other in the first place, to my mind is doing.
__________________
  #69  
Old 11-16-2008, 05:19 AM
QUEENECE29's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 1,743
If Charles becomes King, to suppose Camilla becomes Queen... Why not?
__________________
  #70  
Old 11-16-2008, 05:27 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
IMHO the really interesting question is, to follow Elspeth's line of thought: how many monarchists or non-interested Britons ar egoing to become republicans 8and active at that9 if Charles and Camilla are crowned like tradition demands? And how many monarchists are going to oppose the government if tradition is changed? As long as these two groups are on par or the first one is considered small, nothing will change and Camilla will be crowned ueen. It is a difference between opinion polls and direct political movement when there is no direct votation possibility is involved and the politicians are well aware of that.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #71  
Old 11-16-2008, 05:58 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,890
For those who truly believe in having a Monarchy I cannot see how they can turn round and become republicans just because the person on the throne does not suit them. For those who truly believe in republicanism, I cannot see what difference it would make to them who is on the throne as they will disagree anyway. In a Monarchy, you can't change the line of succession to suit the majority of people or change the heir to whoever AT THE TIME is more popular. This would make it too political and we would end up with rather expensive presidential elections!
__________________
  #72  
Old 11-16-2008, 07:14 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
If public opinion is so opposed that it's considered by the government and senior civil service that it poses a danger to the survival of the monarchy, that would be a reason. I don't see it turning out that way, but I think they'd probably see Camilla's HM as a lesser sacrifice than risking the monarchy itself.
Elspeth, I really don't think enough people in Britain care. There would surely be more of an uproar if money & parliamentary time was spent passing the relevant legislation to make 'Milla "Princess Consort" when there is so much more that needs legislative attention.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #73  
Old 11-16-2008, 08:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
There would surely be more of an uproar if money & parliamentary time
In all seriousness, I hardly think that would be of concern to the public.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #74  
Old 11-16-2008, 10:57 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda View Post
Elspeth, I really don't think enough people in Britain care. There would surely be more of an uproar if money & parliamentary time was spent passing the relevant legislation to make 'Milla "Princess Consort" when there is so much more that needs legislative attention.
I have to say I agree with you.
__________________
  #75  
Old 11-16-2008, 04:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
If public opinion is so opposed that it's considered by the government and senior civil service that it poses a danger to the survival of the monarchy, that would be a reason. I don't see it turning out that way, but I think they'd probably see Camilla's HM as a lesser sacrifice than risking the monarchy itself.
I agree. If the public remains adamantly opposed, then the PM will introduce legislation in the Commons to take care of it.

If there is enough advance warning of The Queen's death, it is also possible to issue letters patent before she dies making Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right, with Parliament passing legislation consenting to the future wife of The King not holding the rank and title of Queen.

We'll just have to wait and see.
__________________
  #76  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:44 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,220
I'd prefer that Jesus not be brought into this conversation. But since you brought it up, He taught that people could be forgiven if they were sincerely sorry for what they'd done and had their lives changed (the technical term is "repentance"). He didn't teach that evil be ignored and not dealt with; and He taught very strict rules about adultery, divorce and remarriage.

In any case, I suspect that Camilla will be Queen one day.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Breaking one vow doesn't mean that they aren't worthy to have another go - Jesus would be appalled I suspect that people won't forgive as he was always teaching forgiveness.
__________________
  #77  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:50 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,220
Yes, I agree. Given all the rupture that's happening in the Church of England right now over various issues, perhaps the Church will become disestablished. That might not necessarily be a bad thing for the Monarchy and/or the Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
__________________
  #78  
Old 11-18-2008, 12:48 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda View Post
Elspeth, I really don't think enough people in Britain care. There would surely be more of an uproar if money & parliamentary time was spent passing the relevant legislation to make 'Milla "Princess Consort" when there is so much more that needs legislative attention.
Yeah, that's the same reason, it seems, that the Settlement Act never gets looked at in Parliament, because they have so much more important things to work on, and so this archaic, pointless law just gets overlooked and left on the back burner. Sometimes something happens, like a royal marries a Catholic, and people are reminded, but then, oh yeah, we have things like wars and poverty to attend to, so we'll look at it later.... and later becomes years, and years turn to decades.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
  #79  
Old 11-18-2008, 01:26 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I'd prefer that Jesus not be brought into this conversation. But since you brought it up, He taught that people could be forgiven if they were sincerely sorry for what they'd done and had their lives changed (the technical term is "repentance"). He didn't teach that evil be ignored and not dealt with; and He taught very strict rules about adultery, divorce and remarriage.
I was curious what these strict rules were so checked the bible's position about adultery, divorce and remarriage. According to several scientifically serious sources, the bible in both parts (quotes by Moses and St.Paul/St. Matthew) accepts that adultery (or better: sexual misbehaviour in all forms) of one or both partners is the only reason where divorce is accceptable. About remarriage St. Paul says (in Corinthians) that remarriage should only occur when the divorcees have completely solved their inner connection to their former partner and then they should marry the person the adultery was committed with because it's better to be married to the person one has desired so much that one committed adultery (and thus broke the unity given by the Lord to the wedded couple) than stay alone. It's not something that is recommended or encouraged but it's possible.

I wasn't aware of that! But it's interesting, isn't it? So when Charles and Camilla in their service of dedication stated their repentance and their will to be a married couple as a unity from that moment onwards they obviously did all that the Christian teaching asked of them.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #80  
Old 11-18-2008, 01:45 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kirkland, United States
Posts: 682
Camilla will be known as the Queen. Period.
Charles as King would not allow his wife, Camilla, to curtsey to any other King or Queen which she would have to do as a mere Duchess or Princess.
She will be Queen.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, princess consort, queen consort, styles and titles


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
Title for Camilla - Part 3 Elspeth The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 511 07-27-2008 09:45 PM
Title for Camilla - Part 2 wymanda The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 505 01-30-2008 01:07 PM
Title For Camilla TODOI The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 153 06-02-2004 03:12 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 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]