Title for Camilla


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
If Charles becomes King, to suppose Camilla becomes Queen... Why not?
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :flowers:
 
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.
 
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.



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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.:)

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.
 
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. :D
 
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.
 
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.
 
I can't see the Archbishop of Canterbury refusing to annoint the next monarch ... there have been some truly reprehensible characters who were crowned without any protest from the clerics. I have to agree, this might open a whole new can of worms about the relationship between the Crown, the church and the people, that Dr. Williams might not wish to pursue.
 
(snip) 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. (snip)

Ooooh! How very interesting.
 
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.

We don't know at this point whether Camilla will be Queen. It will depend greatly on public opinion when the time comes.

If the public remains opposed at the same level it is now, Parliament will pass legislation stating she will not hold the rank and title of Queen Consort. At that point, she will merely be a princess of the UK in her own right for her lifetime (albeit with precedence and place next to The King as first lady of the land).

That's the way it goes.
 
I can't see the Archbishop of Canterbury refusing to annoint the next monarch ... there have been some truly reprehensible characters who were crowned without any protest from the clerics. I have to agree, this might open a whole new can of worms about the relationship between the Crown, the church and the people, that Dr. Williams might not wish to pursue.
Yes but back then :
1. The King held true power in the land
2. The subjects held true ignorance in the land
 
Yes but back then the church held a lot more power too, so major decisions by the Archbishop of Canterbury would have carried a lot more weight. Nowadays if the Church tries to meddle in the succession, the Church will come off the loser.

Look, you might as well get used to it - if Charles is alive when the Queen dies, he'll become King, and if he's still alive when Coronation Day rolls around, he'll be crowned. Doesn't matter how hard you wish it was otherwise; it isn't going to happen otherwise. There's more at stake than people wanting to see Charles and Camilla humiliated on Diana's account.
 
Last edited:
Could you please give me the reference to the Corinthian epistle that you mention, Jo? Thanks.:flowers:

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.
 
Yes, I think that it depends very much on public opinion...whether that's "fair" or not.:ermm:

We don't know at this point whether Camilla will be Queen. It will depend greatly on public opinion when the time comes.

If the public remains opposed at the same level it is now, Parliament will pass legislation stating she will not hold the rank and title of Queen Consort. At that point, she will merely be a princess of the UK in her own right for her lifetime (albeit with precedence and place next to The King as first lady of the land).

That's the way it goes.
 
We don't know at this point whether Camilla will be Queen. It will depend greatly on public opinion when the time comes.

If the public remains opposed at the same level it is now, Parliament will pass legislation stating she will not hold the rank and title of Queen Consort. At that point, she will merely be a princess of the UK in her own right for her lifetime (albeit with precedence and place next to The King as first lady of the land).

That's the way it goes.


Parliament will actually have to pass legislation that strips her of her title of Queen, which is more serious as it introduces the idea of a morganatic marriage and the idea that certain women aren't worthy of taking their husband's title. Parliament will try to avoid any such problem.
 
Parliament will actually have to pass legislation that strips her of her title of Queen, which is more serious as it introduces the idea of a morganatic marriage and the idea that certain women aren't worthy of taking their husband's title. Parliament will try to avoid any such problem.

The morganatic precedent was established in 1937 when The Duke of Windsor married Wallis Simpson. She was denied via letters patent what was rightfully hers by common law as the wife of a son of the Sovereign.

It could happen again.
 
Whether people want it or not, and I am fairly sure they will want it, the person who matters is Charles when he is King. He will make Camilla Queen and quite rightly so.
 
Could you please give me the reference to the Corinthian epistle that you mention, Jo? Thanks.:flowers:

It is quite complicated and I have it only in German, but I found a book about a scientific colloquium which has a paper that deals with the quotes from the Corinthians and the different interpretations theologists have given to them, so one can form their own opinion about what is actually said, how the Greek original text is to be translated and interpretated according to the time and situation it was written in:

The Corinthian Correspondence: [papers of the Forty-third Session of the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense (August 8-10, 1994)]
Von E. Peters, Reimund Bieringer
Mitwirkende Personen Reimund Bieringer
Veröffentlicht von Peeters Publishers, 1996
ISBN 9068317741, 9789068317749
791 Seiten

In the book it's this paper:F. Neirynck (Leuven): The Sayings of Jesus in 1 Corinthians.

You can get a lot information if you google bible, divorce and remarriage but as this paper points out, most of what you find is interpretation, so one need to learn more about the background of St. Paul's letters and about the meaning of certain words of greek language of his time when it comes to social positions and thus the paper is surely very helpful.
 
Okay, thanks. I have a theological library at home here, but my job would be easier if I knew the actual texts that are quoted. I can use a concordance to find them, though. Thanks again.:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, but the King of the UK can't override the wishes of the majority of the people. If people are really opposed to a Queen Camilla in 10 years time--which I doubt--Charles might find some the Prime Minister knocking on his door with urgent business.;)

Whether people want it or not, and I am fairly sure they will want it, the person who matters is Charles when he is King. He will make Camilla Queen and quite rightly so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom