The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1361  
Old 06-03-2007, 10:40 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
We have at least 2 gay Bishops and several transgenger vicars, one of whom has just been put forward to the Queen on the recommendation that she be made a Bishop (the vicar not the Queen). The Church of England doesn't offer marriage services for divorcees or same-sex couples but they do offer wedding blessings. The Church now offers weddings for transsexuals on the individual agreement of the local clergy member who would host the wedding, however, the candidate for marriage has to be marrying someone of the opposite sex and not be a divorcee.
B


No. Nor has the Queen, it's all been done in Her name by Her Bishops.



She was entitled to a church wedding however had she wanted to marry again she would have had to have a civil wedding with a blessing just as Charles had second time round because she, like him, was a divorcee.

So do they ordain women who were not once men? (Haha). This is one of the reasons I fell away from religion! Bossy Boots one and all. Seriously though, I have always wondered why Charles (and Camilla) did not choose to be married in the church in Scotland as did Princess Anne and Tim Lawrence. I'm sure there was much parsing and consultations and negotiation involved with many men in grey and assorted other colours.
__________________

  #1362  
Old 06-03-2007, 10:42 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
While Edward VII became King automatically, he was never crowned because of the aforementioned 'issue'.
Only indirectly. He abdicated because of the issue, which is why he was never crowned. The coronation of Edward VIII was scheduled for May 1937. When George VI became King, he decided to keep the same date for himself.
__________________

  #1363  
Old 06-03-2007, 10:42 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
They ordain women who were born physically male yes but each denomination is different in who they will or won't ordain. In a way, the Church of England had to accept that because of the law change in 2004/5 and the Queen's Church and the Queen's Government can't really be seen as putting out two different messages.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1364  
Old 06-03-2007, 10:43 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Well, we'll just have to see how it turns out when Charles's time comes to be King. I still think the church has more to lose than he does by making an issue about the coronation, though.
  #1365  
Old 06-03-2007, 10:49 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson
Only indirectly. He abdicated because of the issue, which is why he was never crowned. The coronation of Edward VIII was scheduled for May 1937. When George VI became King, he decided to keep the same date for himself.
Well, it was sort of because of it. I mean, he wanted the question settled before his coronation, partly because he wanted Wallis crowned with him and partly because, apparently, he felt it would be unethical to go through this deeply religious ceremony, which involves taking vows which are supposed to last for life, with the possibility of abdication still hanging over his head.
  #1366  
Old 06-03-2007, 11:20 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
My point was, that this was an immovable sticking point with the Church of England re: the coronation of the last PoW leading to Edward VII becoming Duke of Windsor ie,the marriage to a divorcee. The fact that the Sovereign is also the Head of the Church, etc. Although I bevieve that (correct me if i'm wrong) if the DoC's previous husband is deceased, she would be in the same position as the PoW is presently...considered a widow by the church. Start the conspiracy engines now!
Edward VIII abdicated because the Government would not accept Wallis as his wife, even a morganatic wife with no official status. Even today, a twice-divorced woman with a reputation for being greedy and promiscious would hardly be accepted as Queen Consort.

Camilla is divorced and Charles is considered to be a widower in the eyes of The Church. If Diana had lived, he never would have been able to remarry period.
  #1367  
Old 06-03-2007, 11:25 PM
HRH Kerry's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Up the street,hang a left,3rd house from the corner, United States
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
...Camilla is divorced and Charles is considered to be a widower in the eyes of The Church. If Diana had lived, he never would have been able to remarry period.
Really? Never remarry and become king or just never remarry at all?
__________________
Princely Family of Liechtenstein Forum
Join in on the discussions.
  #1368  
Old 06-03-2007, 11:41 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
He wouldn't have been able to marry Camilla in the church, but he wasn't able to anyway. There's no legal reason why he and Camilla couldn't have married; it's possible that public opinion would have been so negative that it wouldn't have been considered wise.
  #1369  
Old 06-03-2007, 11:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg

Camilla is divorced and Charles is considered to be a widower in the eyes of The Church. If Diana had lived, he never would have been able to remarry period.
I thought the Church has changed the rules to allow the divoursee to remarry even the other spouse is still alive after 2001 (or some later years). Perhaps I am wrong because I am not familar about these religious matters.
  #1370  
Old 06-03-2007, 11:50 PM
HRH Kerry's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Up the street,hang a left,3rd house from the corner, United States
Posts: 1,624
The way things were going between Charles and Diana after the divorce was would've work to his favor. They were more than just civil. If she was still living and they remained "friends", had Charles waited let's say 10 years after the divorce to marry Camilla I would say there wouldn't have been much uproar. As long as Camilla's coming out was paced just right which in reality it was.
__________________
Princely Family of Liechtenstein Forum
Join in on the discussions.
  #1371  
Old 06-04-2007, 12:20 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 664
I disagree. Constitutional authorities argued about the legality of Charles' and Camilla's civil marriage, and some still do.
  #1372  
Old 06-04-2007, 12:50 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Cripes, Kerry; remind me never to ask you a question, what with that signature of yours and all.
  #1373  
Old 06-04-2007, 01:09 AM
Royal Highness
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 1,733
I hope Prince Charles would reign! Why not? He seems to be a nice guy to me. A man who wait soo many years to marry his true love when he was forced to marry a person who he doesn't love and who wasn't so different than him...He is intelligent, he is sensitive, loves country side rather than cities, he likes to read , he appreciates art and loves his homeland...Maybe Duchess of Cornwall must not to be Queen, but I don't see any problem to him to become a king.

I rather like Prince Charles as a King, than that he abdicates in favor of Prince William.

Vanesa.
  #1374  
Old 06-04-2007, 01:38 AM
Principessa Cano's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 85
I think that, when Charles reigns, his reign will be quite short, for a modern monarch, so Charles abdicating, after being crowned, in favour of William is not a realistic possibility. I also think that he is caring enough of a father that he would want to delay William becoming king, and all the pressures that follow it, for as long as possible.

Her majesty is 81, and I think, considering how long her mother lived and her good health now, she will live for at least another 15-20 years. I don't think she will ever abdicate, she is deeply religious and took a vow in front of God which she honours highly, so I think Charles won't become King until he is in his 70s. He'll also probably reign until his late 90s, and William will become King in his 60s.
  #1375  
Old 06-04-2007, 06:34 AM
HRH Kerry's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Up the street,hang a left,3rd house from the corner, United States
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly
I disagree. Constitutional authorities argued about the legality of Charles' and Camilla's civil marriage, and some still do.
But they are in fact married. Futhermore, its all speculation since Diana is gone. Another story all together. Constitutional authories must accept that times are changing.
__________________
Princely Family of Liechtenstein Forum
Join in on the discussions.
  #1376  
Old 06-04-2007, 06:38 AM
HRH Kerry's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Up the street,hang a left,3rd house from the corner, United States
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Cripes, Kerry; remind me never to ask you a question, what with that signature of yours and all.
Elspeth,
Just wanted something catchy! Glad you like it!
__________________
Princely Family of Liechtenstein Forum
Join in on the discussions.
  #1377  
Old 06-04-2007, 07:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
He wouldn't have been able to marry Camilla in the church, but he wasn't able to anyway. There's no legal reason why he and Camilla couldn't have married; it's possible that public opinion would have been so negative that it wouldn't have been considered wise.
Well, he was able to have an official blessing for the marriage from the Archbishiop of Canterbury, which is no small thing, considering the circumstances of who he was marrying.

Legally, of course, you are correct. But given that Charles had declared at the time of the divorce that he would not remarry, I think it would have been very difficult for the Government and The Queen to consent if Diana was still with us.
  #1378  
Old 06-04-2007, 07:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry
The way things were going between Charles and Diana after the divorce was would've work to his favor. They were more than just civil. If she was still living and they remained "friends", had Charles waited let's say 10 years after the divorce to marry Camilla I would say there wouldn't have been much uproar. As long as Camilla's coming out was paced just right which in reality it was.
This is true, especially if Diana herself had remarried and had additional children, which was very likely.
  #1379  
Old 06-04-2007, 08:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Given Charles and Camilla's respective ages, this may all be a moot point. While Charles' family has 100+ life expectancy, I'm not sure what Camilla's family has. If, for example, her mother only lived to be 65, she might not be around 20 years from now at coronation time. I'm sure one of you could tell us how old her parents were when they died,assuming that they have? If she does predecease the coonation, then Charles is a widower in the eyes of the church full stop.
  #1380  
Old 06-04-2007, 09:01 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Well as long as we're predicting something we can't possibly know for sure, if the movement to separate the Church of England from the government is successful, it doesn't really matter if the Church sanctions the marriage of Charles and Camilla or not.

I believe the Church did sanction the marriage, however, although they did it in a strange way.

Also scooter brought up a good point about life expectancy. Just because your family has long life expectancy doesn't mean you are necessarily going to live a long life yourself.

The Queen Mother lived to be 100 but she was in semi-retirement for half her life which was far less stressful than the duties of a monarch or a consort. That's no guarantee that the Queen who has been sovereign since the tender age of 25 will enjoy the same long lifespan.

The worst case scenario would be if Charles outlived both his mother and his son. This could happen if William faced an untimely death at a young age like his father's cousin, Prince William of Gloucester, who died in a plane crash at the age of 30 or so. I remember reading that the death of the young Prince William of Gloucester devastated his father and hastened his death.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Closed Thread

Tags
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
Reign of Felipe VI: How Will Things Be Different? muriel King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 90 01-03-2017 06:30 PM
“The Lady Queen: the Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sic An Ard Ri Royal Library 0 07-06-2014 07:27 PM
Is Victoria Ready to Reign? NotAPretender Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 20 06-19-2011 07:05 AM
Elizabeth II: Oldest British Monarch (Dec 20 2007); 2nd Longest Reign (May 12 2011) WindsorIII Queen Elizabeth II 33 05-30-2011 07:40 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names birth britain britannia british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida taiwan thai royal family tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:58 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×