Camilla and The Public


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:previous: Now that totally sums it up nice and proper. The CoE does recognize and blesses the union of Charles and Camilla as husband and wife. What more needs done?


They may have received a blessing, which is what the CoE does in the case of divorced couples, but they were not remarried in the Church. I won't go back to this discussion because what happened in that ceremony is actually pretty straightforward.
 
Last edited:
I think most reasonable people can admit Diana was no blameless paragon of virtues and Camilla is no scheming evil stepmother or witch in a fairytale. That kind of black and white thinking is a result of to much Harlequin reading and Disney movie watching IMO..

Camilla will be at his side whether she is called Queen or Princess or jumped up mistress. But calling her something other than queen consort won't bring DIana back or get revenge for the 'wrongs' done her according to some people.
:previous:Thank you for being the voice of reason.
 
We are all flawed human beings. No doubt about that Amaryluss.
 
Okay but they were blessed in a service celebrated by the highest clergyman ("the Pope") of the Anglican Church, attended by the Queen, the supreme governor of the Church of England and the Defender of the Faith... so we may assume that the couple is properly married indeed.

:)
 
Okay but they were blessed in a service celebrated by the highest clergyman ("the Pope") of the Anglican Church, attended by the Queen, the supreme governor of the Church of England and the Defender of the Faith... so we may assume that the couple is properly married indeed.

:)
. Did H.M. The Head of The Church of England attend the civil wedding? Was it televised? Does The House of Lords include senior members of The Church of England? I am just asking?
 
. Did H.M. The Head of The Church of England attend the civil wedding? Was it televised?


No and no. :)
Her Majesty attended the blessing led by The Archbishop of Canterbury afterwards.
 
A church itself is just a building. A licensed clergymen gave the rights of Marriage so they were legally and throughly married under church law . The Anglican Church allowed it to be done. What was the debate again?
 
And why was that? There was alot of debate regarding this at the time in England, as I remember.
 
No, HMQ did not attend the civil wedding. altho' she did attend the blessing in St George's Chapel. No it wasn't televised. Yes the House of Lords contains both Lords Spiritual and Temporal. [I believe there are about 13 CoE Bishops who regularly sit in the Lords].

Having been legally married the Prince and Princess of Wales, are indeed 'Husband & Wife', and there is no good reason why the wife should not [in due course[ take her legal title as Queen..
 
Charles and Camilla's marriage was based on a compromise IMO. They were able to marry but not in the Church of England, and Camilla became a Royal Highness but doesn't use the title Princess of Wales. I think that, if Camilla had used the Princess of Wales title, much more activity would have been required of her right away. She was an older lady being eased into royal engagements; and to me, it made sense for her to take a lesser title at the time. In the eyes of the Church of England, as far as I can see, Camilla has a husband still living by her first marriage. On the other hand, Prince Charles was a widower at the time of their marriage. Had Camilla not been 'outed' as the Prince of Wales' mistress, perhaps she and Andrew Parker-Bowles would still be married. I'm thinking that if Andrew Parker-Bowles passes away before Prince Charles becomes king, then Camilla would face no obstruction in becoming Queen Consort.
 
I honestly believe Wyevale, that none of us know what will happen. We can happily speculate but we don't know. Could anyone have foreseen the consequences of the fire in Windsor Castle and the reaction of the public to the Government Minister who as I recall it said that the public would pay for repairs? Could anyone have foreseen Brittiania's fate? Could anyone have foreseen The Daily Mail's attempt to raise funds for a Royal Yacht for H.M's jubilee failing? Why has it taken so long for the repairs in Buckingham Palace to be completed? Is the Royal Train the next thing to go? I don't know. But I am making no.assumptions
 
I honestly believe Wyevale, that none of us know what will happen. We can happily speculate but we don't know. Could anyone have foreseen the consequences of the fire in Windsor Castle and the reaction of the public to the Government Minister who as I recall it said that the public would pay for repairs? Could anyone have foreseen Brittiania's fate? Could anyone have foreseen The Daily Mail's attempt to raise funds for a Royal Yacht for H.M's jubilee failing? Why has it taken so long for the repairs in Buckingham Palace to be completed? Is the Royal Train the next thing to go? I don't know. But I am making no.assumptions

And why does the Queen have only one pair of shoes?
 
" They were able to marry but not in the Church of England"

Let me get this straight.. They were married under Church of England rites by the leader of the Church of England but yet not married in the Church of England?

Yeah, no. They are legally positively technically throughly undeniably and most of all religiously married :)
 
Last edited:
Charles and Camilla were married in a civil ceremony by registrar Clair Williams in the Guildhall, as far as I remember, and then had a religious blessing conducted by senior Church of England clergy afterwards at Windsor.
 
I really don't understand the CofE's strong adversity to divorce. After all, it was founded to perpetuate one. I have no pro or con to this issue, but I just don't understand that one. It was only recently that a catholic was no longer person non grata in the RF, and that has been on the books since CofE was founded, but the divorce issue went out the door once H8 got his.
 
It's been a lot longer than 'recently' a divorced Catholic person was persona no grata. The issue with divorce and Catholicism is not the divorce per se...it's the attempt are remarrying sans decree of nullity, assuming it's possible.

Divorced and not re-married Catholics have full access to the Sacraments.


LaRae

Henry VIII's marriage to Anne B. was not after a divorce...it was because he made himself head of the Church and had his bishops declare his marriage to Katherine of Aragon null/invalid. So it was not a divorce in the sense we have of today.


LaRae
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles and Camilla are legally married under the law of the United Kingdom - that's all that matters. Whether the marriage took place in a church or in a civil ceremony is irrelevant - the marriage is legal and was blessed by the Church of England.

I don't understand why this is an issue for people - the Church clearly doesn't have a problem with it.
 
Because it has to do with Camilla and a certain segment of people will grasp at anything no matter how inane or unjustified to make her the basis of controversy and make her look more like some usurper. They can't just let it her be. I don't mean people here but I think you get the picture.
 
Charles and Camilla are legally married under the law of the United Kingdom - that's all that matters. Whether the marriage took place in a church or in a civil ceremony is irrelevant - the marriage is legal and was blessed by the Church of England.

I don't understand why this is an issue for people - the Church clearly doesn't have a problem with it.

Oh, I think the Church of England still has a problem with it, especially in the case of the woman who might be crowned Queen consort.

The Coronation ceremony includes a lot of mystical stuff and bits about the monarch having been approved, if not chosen, by God. A king's consort is anointed. That anointment business is heavy stuff to the C of E and I think a few of the bigwigs in that hierarchy would be quite bothered by the prospect of anointing Camilla, since many people seem to believe that Camilla & Charles' relationship was a direct cause of the breakdown of Charles' first marriage rather than merely a consequence.

Which is why I am more and more inclined to the view that some deal was done, or "understanding" reached, with the Church which is at least part of the reason for the statement of intention about Camilla being Princess Consort rather than Queen Consort.
 
Last edited:
The Public vs the Church.

The Church's views in 2005 is different than the Church's view in 2015.

The Church's views in 2025 will be different than the Church's views in 2005.

The Public's perception of Camilla before joining the BRF was crafted by the media to sell papers.

The media deliberately trashed Camilla to increase circulation.

The Public's perception of Camilla changed, not because of anything she did, but because people became aware of the real Camilla.

Now the Public has a realistic view of Camilla and not the distorted view of Camilla the media successfully created.
 
My Grandmother used to say, Man plans and God laughs. All of this is supposition. Camilla may be dead when Charles becomes king. He may be dead before his mother. There may be something quite well worked out in the government and the RF as to how this will fly. No one know what tomorrow will being, least who knows when. And when Charles becomes king, he will not be young, so some things may be changed more easily.
 
My Grandmother used to say, Man plans and God laughs. All of this is supposition. Camilla may be dead when Charles becomes king. He may be dead before his mother. There may be something quite well worked out in the government and the RF as to how this will fly. No one know what tomorrow will being, least who knows when. And when Charles becomes king, he will not be young, so some things may be changed more easily.

True. But it's also possible HM could have a massive heart attack or stroke today and be gone before the day's end.
 
According to the Church and the Law they are married. That is an end to it. To those of you who think Camilla and or Charles are not "repentant enough", I can only believe you are practicing Christians. My advice: look to the lack of forgiveness in your own hearts.

We don't get to decide who is and who isn't deserving of God's forgiveness, that is God's department and I am guessing he's looking really hard at those who would carry on a campaign of anger and hatred in His name.

Man proposes, God disposes.

ps: So Henry VIII was fine and in communion with God and Charles is not! There lies the essence of hard hearts and hard heads.
 
No, others don't get to decide who should and shouldn't be forgiven. That is God's responsibility. However, adultery isn't a light thing to be dismissed as unimportant either. And, regardless of what Diana and Andrew PB did or didn't do, the actions of Charles and of Camilla helped to destroy their two marriages.

The divorces impacted on their children's lives, four individuals who didn't have any say in what went on. That will always be there as part of their personal history and will be written about in future biographies, however long Charles and Camilla live.
 
I think the solution to all of this would be King Charles, on Day 1, being advised by the PM of the day that his wife should keep and use the title of Queen. This can then be announced, and the matter ends there.

This would be similar, IMO, to QE2 being advised by Churchill that she could not continue to live at Clarence House, as hoped by HM and the DoE, and would have to live at BP.

I think we have it all sorted. :flowers:

I agree. Giving her a lesser title will keep the Royal family in an ugly past and forever remind people of it... This starts a new chapter and should start clean. I also agree other than a very small vocal minority and the usual trash tabloid nonsense what with mourning for The queen and the excitement and press hoopla over the Coronation no one is going to fixate on it.

Agree 100% :flowers:

Oh, I think the Church of England still has a problem
with it, especially in the case of the woman who might be crowned Queen consort.[...] I think a few of the bigwigs in that hierarchy would be quite bothered by the prospect of anointing Camilla, since many people seem to believe that Camilla & Charles' relationship was a direct cause of the breakdown of Charles' first marriage rather than merely a consequence.

As always, i remain bemused regarding those 'many people'. :huh:
 
No, others don't get to decide who should and shouldn't be forgiven. That is God's responsibility. However, adultery isn't a light thing to be dismissed as unimportant either. And, regardless of what Diana and Andrew PB did or didn't do, the actions of Charles and of Camilla helped to destroy their two marriages.

Does it really matter? Is it really desirable that a marriage be preserved at all costs, after it has irretrievably broken down? I don't think so and I cannot get worked up about adultery when the relationship between the two parties to the marriage is hopeless. It's cruel to them to put them under pressure to do so, and in my opinion forcing people who can't stand to be in the same room to stay together for appearances' sake is far worse for the children than to allow them to separate and divorce. And I also believe it's cruel to deny people who get together during the demise of their previous marriage/s the right to a wedding in their Church simply on the basis that their relationship provided the impetus to formally end the fatally flawed one.
 
Last edited:
"The divorces impacted on their children's lives, four individuals who didn't have any say in what went on."

Divorce always impacts children's life's but as far as we know these particular divorces were not particularly traumatic or had any lasting repercussions. Charles was always good father and I assume Camilla was a decent mother whatever else they had going on. Kids adjust accordingly.
 
Yes, kids do adjust, but we really don't know how much of an impact it had on the lives of these four people, especially the aftermath for two boys who one day had their divorced mother (who saw them regularly in the school holidays) and then wasn't there any more. They've never spoken of that period of their lives but I doubt it was as undisturbed and pacific as many like to think.
 
I will add Staying married 'for the kids' is an idea that sounds lovely and appropriate in writing but rarely works out in practise. As long as the children know they are loved and did nothing wrong a separation of Parents is so much healthier than being in the middle of two parents who have to pretend to like each other and certainly don't want to do things as a family anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom