Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Duchess of Durham]

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.

I love your take on things!

 

[US Royal Watcher]

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.

Of course, now that they have repented and married, they are no longer estranged from God. It's similar to William and Catherine marrying after years of living together. Once a person repents and receives forgiveness, there is no need for him to give up him lover to "prove" his repentance. The church only requires them to get married and avoid the sin in the future.

The reason I initiated this conversation is because I wanted to know whether the objection to Charles becoming the head of the Church of England was grounded on his decision to have a civil ceremony (and a blessing is different than being married in the church--which is why they chose to do it that way) or his affair with Camilla during his marriage to Diana.

It seems obvious to me that the posters who have responded just haven't forgiven him for his infidelity to Diana and probably never will. My sense is that the same people would not have an objection if in an alternate universe, Charles and Diana (both guilty of adultery) were still married when Charles ascends to the throne.

 

[wyevale]

The nauseatingly self-righteous views expressed by SOME of the self proclaimed 'Christians' here, make me glad religion no longer has a stranglehold on the morals of people in this country..

Believe in your 'invisible friend' if you MUST, but the days when it can be imposed on the rest of us are fortunately LONG GONE..

 

[Osipi]

Ok there is no reason to insult Christians and mock them because you are mad at one or two in this thread.
I also think the topic of religion needs to be changed or the mods will come in here, they are on a trip this week with closing and changing thread convos by deleting things.

I do agree with you. Its the annual summertime royals going on vacation season and without a lot of goings on to talk about and dissect, we sometimes derail threads in ways that we normally wouldn't.

Religion and spirituality is a very private matter and it is best to leave them out of a public forum. There is no right and there is no wrong as we all perceive these matters in our own personal ways.

With this in mind, what we do know is that Charles and Camilla are legally married, the marriage has been blessed by the CoE and there is no reason why Charles shouldn't become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England upon his coronation.

Next?

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I'll finish off by saying that I don't see it as my place to forgive (or not forgive) Charles or Camilla. What they do does not concern me, it is for God and the English to forgive or not and their churches to decide if they want to keep any monarch as the head of their church or not...

 

[Zonk]

Several off topic posts (rehashing Charles/Camilla pre 2005) have been deleted.

 

[Rocketmom]

I looked at some thread titles and this seemed to be the best one to post my observation of Charles since his marriage to Camilla. He seems happy. He seems more relaxed than he did with Diana. He is more willing to indulge in -shall I say- silliness? Looking at pictures of him from his trip to Mexico, there are several where he is dancing, waving a handkerchief, speaking jokingly of himself as an "old ruin". When married to Diana, he would have never let himself go crazy like we've seen in recent months. He was always so staid and controlled. I don't know how the British people feel about this, but after 30 years, it does seem he's entitled to be happy.

 

[Dman]

I looked at some thread titles and this seemed to be the best one to post my observation of Charles since his marriage to Camilla. He seems happy. He seems more relaxed than he did with Diana. He is more willing to indulge in -shall I say- silliness? Looking at pictures of him from his trip to Mexico, there are several where he is dancing, waving a handkerchief, speaking jokingly of himself as an "old ruin". When married to Diana, he would have never let himself go crazy like we've seen in recent months. He was always so staid and controlled. I don't know how the British people feel about this, but after 30 years, it does seem he's entitled to be happy.

Yes, Charles is happy once again. There were some happy moments in his first marriage as well. No marriage is perfect, and I'm sure he and Camilla have their ups and downs like all other marriages. He's older and more wiser and it's time for him to relax and enjoy life.

 

[Dman]

Charles and Camilla spend much of their time apart and live separately
But the couple are still 'fantastic' together after almost 10 years of marriage-
Separate lives and a rather saucy secret: An intimate portrait of their marriage reveals how Camilla has kept Charles happy | Daily Mail Online

 

[Meadow]

Is that normal in Royal circles? The Queen and Prince Phillip seem happy. I don't think it's good that they can't live together.

 

[Dman]

Is that normal in Royal circles? The Queen and Prince Phillip seem happy. I don't think it's good that they can't live together.

Charles and Camilla do live together, but she also have her private time with her family at Raymill House.

 

[Osipi]

Typical Richard Kay spiel. There isn't much in the article that we haven't heard before.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Charles and Camilla spend much of their time apart and live separately
But the couple are still 'fantastic' together after almost 10 years of marriage-
Separate lives and a rather saucy secret: An intimate portrait of their marriage reveals how Camilla has kept Charles happy | Daily Mail Online

What an unpleasant article. The DailyMail has the construction of these kind of articles down to a science: a 'science' of copy-and-paste. Talk about cobbling together every innuendo that could be found. Sheesh.

 

[Jacknch]

Charles and Camilla spend much of their time apart and live separately
But the couple are still 'fantastic' together after almost 10 years of marriage-
Separate lives and a rather saucy secret: An intimate portrait of their marriage reveals how Camilla has kept Charles happy | Daily Mail Online

It must be stultifyingly boring to be a DM journalist. Days of utter monotony must pass in their offices when not even the tumbleweed bothers to drift by as they try to think up new ways to present exactly the same story.

Are there any other royals in their mid-sixties who are written about in such a way?

 

[Lady Nimue]

It must be stultifyingly boring to be a DM journalist. Days of utter monotony must pass in their offices when not even the tumbleweed bothers to drift by as they try to think up new ways to present exactly the same story.

Guess so.

Are there any other royals in their mid-sixties who are written about in such a way?

No. Why all this is being written about an older man, is a question imo. It's very unappealing. Who do they think cares? It's like they are trying to keep alive an old festering infection with (perhaps) younger readers? All this fevered fantasy is grim, bordering on the voyeuristic (not saying any of it is true). Sorry, I just don't get it about Charles.

 

[Jacknch]

Guess so.



No. Why all this is being written about an older man, is a question imo. It's very unappealing. Who do they think cares? It's like they are trying to keep alive an old festering infection with (perhaps) younger readers? All this fevered fantasy is grim, bordering on the voyeuristic (not saying any of it is true). Sorry, I just don't get it about Charles.

I do think the media are trying to keep alive old news and events for younger readers. The problem with that though is the younger readers are probably less emotional about Charles and Camilla on account of not having lived through it all when it happened, and the older readers (like me!) are bored to tears hearing about it. So the DM is doing a disservice to readers young and old.

Charles and Camilla's marriage works because they are older and wiser than they were before and at a certain age one tends to grow into a comfortable situation that works well for both people.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I do think the media are trying to keep alive old news and events for younger readers. The problem with that though is the younger readers are probably less emotional about Charles and Camilla on account of not having lived through it all when it happened, and the older readers (like me!) are bored to tears hearing about it. So the DM is doing a disservice to readers young and old.

Thank you for saying this. It is strange, especially when you consider how old these people are. Plus the supposed sexual offenses seem pretty banal to me. It's hard to understand.

Of course, I have read about it all, and had conversations with my mother about some of it, but she was a very level-headed person. She gave me some insights but overall I still find the whole Diana fascination and Charles bashing odd.

Charles and Camilla's marriage works because they are older and wiser than they were before and at a certain age one tends to grow into a comfortable situation that works well for both people.

They seem fine to me. Anything more is not my business. Not anything I'm interested in. Not sure why anyone would be interested in that kind of thing, but that's just me. To each his own.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Richard Kay and Geoffrey Levy strike again.

The headline is states how Camilla keeps Charles happy but there are 28 mentions of Charles' ex-wife with of course her picture.

All the so called sources are unnamed.

 

[Dman]

On reflection on the article; there were a lot of Charles and Camilla praising, but it was very dismissive of Diana, IMO.

 

[royal rob]

Let's face it if the DM or papers like them didn't write the very news you all hate there would be hardly anything to post about.
I find it funny you promote the very thing you hate


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community