The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1441  
Old 08-11-2007, 04:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
The Church of England does recognise divorce and remarriage. So there's no an issue Church wise.
Really? Then why did Chales and Camilla choose to have a civil ceremony instead of a church wedding? I would have thought that a religious wedding service would be the family preference?
__________________

  #1442  
Old 08-11-2007, 04:29 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
It was to do with venue wasn't it? I mean, I may be wrong but surely the Church can't afford not to recognise divorce in it's current position? Again, wrong topic.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1443  
Old 08-11-2007, 05:51 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
And we care about expats because?
Because some of us are worth caring about.

For anyone wanting to check the position of the Church of England about remarriage of divorcees, nothing beats going to the source:

Marriage in Church after Divorce (updated February 2003) | Church of England
  #1444  
Old 08-11-2007, 07:38 PM
Royal Highness
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 1,733
I only cares about the continuity of Monarchy in Britain. And as long as I know, people DOES love their Monarchy in the old Ilsnads. So, I think that Monarchy will be an active institution there for years from now. And I hope the new King could do his job without major troubles.

Vanesa.
  #1445  
Old 08-12-2007, 06:53 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
I agree on the first part, of course he won't have the opportunity to prove himself until he's the monarch.
Prince Charles has proved himself on many levels, though. He has already proved to us that he is an intelligent, thinking, well-read, progressive person.

I think he will be 75-80 when he is king, and given that he is probably one of the healthiest people on the planet, he could well live past 90. I hope for 100, though, at least! Prince William could be about 50-55 by the time he is king, a good age, as he will doubtless have a family and be exceedingly mature and intelligent like his dear old dads. If he could pick up his father's healthy habits and quit the smoking and drinking, it will be nice too.
  #1446  
Old 08-12-2007, 07:35 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
I posted on another thread that it is quite possible for both the Queen and Prince Charles to live to 100. To live a century is not the unachievable age it once was, even for men. Prince Philip's health makes it look like he'll go to 100 and with Charles' passion for health food and keeping up with exercise there's no reason he should not have the longevity of his father. William could be in his 60s by the time he ascends the throne. But nowadays 60 is considered the new 40 so even that will not seem old.

With almost another 20 years of the Queen's reign followed by a decent length reign of 20 years for Charles, I imagine the challenges facing the monarchy will be quite different than they are today.
__________________
"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
  #1447  
Old 08-13-2007, 03:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
It was to do with venue wasn't it? I mean, I may be wrong but surely the Church can't afford not to recognise divorce in it's current position? Again, wrong topic.
I dont think it was for venue as the church was already booked for the service of dedication the same day. I cant see why they wouldnt of had a religious wedding rather than a civil plus dedication ceremony, IF they had been allowed one.
  #1448  
Old 08-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I dont think it was for venue as the church was already booked for the service of dedication the same day. I cant see why they wouldnt of had a religious wedding rather than a civil plus dedication ceremony, IF they had been allowed one.
It is at the discretion of individual vicars/priests/clergy as to whether or not they perform a marriage ceremony in 'their' church. Rowan Williams was still trying to make his mark in a relatively new post and it was his decision not to conduct a religous ceremony at that time. Had Charles and Camilla decided to attend another church (Wiltshire or Gloucester perhaps) for the cermony or even gone to Scotland, there would have been no problem.
  #1449  
Old 08-13-2007, 07:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Given The Queen's extraordinary constitution and the fact her mother lived to see 100, anything could happen in the future, including Charles dying before his mother or Camilla passing away before he ascended the throne.

His reign will be rather short either way, assuming fate doesn't intervene.
  #1450  
Old 08-13-2007, 07:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
It is at the discretion of individual vicars/priests/clergy as to whether or not they perform a marriage ceremony in 'their' church. Rowan Williams was still trying to make his mark in a relatively new post and it was his decision not to conduct a religous ceremony at that time. Had Charles and Camilla decided to attend another church (Wiltshire or Gloucester perhaps) for the cermony or even gone to Scotland, there would have been no problem.
Sorry , I'm not familiar with the name... is Rowan Williams the 'new' Archbishop of Canterbury? Who is the church person incharge of the coronation? I was actually quite surprised at the time that they did not marry in the church in Scotland as did Princess Anne. Thanks for the info!
Now that you mention it...why did they not seek out a more receptive clergy-person if that would have made a difference? Was it vital that this one person perform the ceremony?
  #1451  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:03 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Given The Queen's extraordinary constitution and the fact her mother lived to see 100, anything could happen in the future, including Charles dying before his mother or Camilla passing away before he ascended the throne.

His reign will be rather short either way, assuming fate doesn't intervene.
Well that doesn't exclude the fact that Charles could also live to see 100 which means he'd have roughly a 20 year reign. Not small chicken feed.
__________________
"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
  #1452  
Old 08-13-2007, 11:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Sorry , I'm not familiar with the name... is Rowan Williams the 'new' Archbishop of Canterbury?
The Rt Revd Rowan Williams is the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #1453  
Old 08-14-2007, 05:52 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 13,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
Prince Charles has proved himself on many levels, though. He has already proved to us that he is an intelligent, thinking, well-read, progressive person.

I think he will be 75-80 when he is king, and given that he is probably one of the healthiest people on the planet, he could well live past 90. I hope for 100, though, at least! Prince William could be about 50-55 by the time he is king, a good age, as he will doubtless have a family and be exceedingly mature and intelligent like his dear old dads. If he could pick up his father's healthy habits and quit the smoking and drinking, it will be nice too.
Yes he has done many useful things in his position as Prince of Wales, no question. Still it is a huge difference between being PoW or the monarch, being in the driver's seat. I have already commented about this topic in the spanish threads as it was mentioned in the docu Koenigskinder in relation to Felipe, the spanish crown prince, who is even 20 years younger. It was mentioned that Felipe's future will be difficult for him because waiting and waiting until the King dies can become a heavy burden. The time will come when Felipe has already granted 10 Million Spaniards an audience and there is nothing left for him to do.

Even though the british monarchy is much stronger than the spanish one, Prince Charles was given as an example, who has been waiting for several decades now and has become "only a caricature of himself", digging deep into green issues, painting watercolours and becoming a little exzentric with time passing by (my own words from what I recall - it's a quote, not my personal opinion).

Nevertheless, I think there is some truth in that. It's only human that when preparing your whole life for a position and you won't get there for reasons you can't change, there must be a certain level of frustration and Charles himself has already confirmed in some interviews that there is frustration in his life and the constant fear of himself / his work not being taken seriously.

He is almost 60 now and still Mummy and Daddy tell him what to do to a certain degree, who would like that? Of course everybody wants HM to be healthy but for Charles it's a bit of a tragedy, not being able to reign and show what he would be capable of as a monarch at a suitable age.
  #1454  
Old 08-14-2007, 09:10 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
The Rt Revd Rowan Williams is the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury.
And is the Archbishop of Canterbury the person who performs the Coronation ceremony for the new Monarch? Or does the Monarch get to choose a different clergy if the A of C is not receptive? Because if it HAS to be the A of C and he's the one that wouldn't perform the marriage, I think there may be a problem.
  #1455  
Old 08-14-2007, 09:14 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
So it is Charles's unknown destiny and I think he has known that for years. He chooses never to discuss about this issue publicly and reveals his real feelings about it.He admires what Queen had done for the country and the commonewalth.I think on the one hand he was quite frustrated about the predicement,on the other hand he knows once he becomes king, he would not have such freedom to do things he like. I think one of the reasons he seems to have a bit self-induglence because he had to find a way to release himself from the situation but it was a negative way. Now Camilla is his legal wife and he has find his contentment finally. At last the Queen was not against him marrying Camilla and let him grasp his own happines.
  #1456  
Old 08-14-2007, 10:37 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Distrito federal, Mexico
Posts: 239
If English people want, Charles will be King.
  #1457  
Old 08-14-2007, 10:56 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
And is the Archbishop of Canterbury the person who performs the Coronation ceremony for the new Monarch? Or does the Monarch get to choose a different clergy if the A of C is not receptive? Because if it HAS to be the A of C and he's the one that wouldn't perform the marriage, I think there may be a problem.
As the most senior bishop of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury officiates at the coronation.

The Archbishop made the following statement after the engagement of Charles and Camilla was announced:

"I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step. I hope and pray that it will prove a source of comfort and strength to them and to those who are closest to them."

Charles and Camilla - Archbishop's statement | Church of England

Because Camilla was perceived to have been a cause of the breakup of Charles and Diana's marriage, and because she and Charles were having an affair during the marriage, it would have been difficult for Dr Williams to have allowed the remarriage in church although I think it would have been theoretically possible. It would have looked like "one rule for the rich and powerful and one rule for the rest of us." To have Charles and Camilla marry in church would also have been perceived as an insult to Diana in much the same way as it would have been perceived as an insult to her if Camilla had used the style Princess of Wales rather than Duchess of Cornwall.

However, even though those factors make a church wedding basically impossible, the Archbishop did support the wedding itself and was willing to officiate at the service of prayer and dedication afterwards. That being the case, I don't think he'll have a problem with officiating at Charles's coronation.

It might be interesting to see what would happen if, for Charles's coronation, the archbishop of the time did refuse to officiate. It just seems that it won't happen if the present guy is the archbishop in question.
  #1458  
Old 08-14-2007, 11:16 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
And if that happened, I think there'd be a wider discussion on the role of the Church in state matters possibly leading to dis-establishment. I mean, Ekklesia (UK Church think tank) called for it when the engagement was announced.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1459  
Old 08-14-2007, 12:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Perhaps there will be a discussion about dis-establishment of C of E. Charles has certainly alluded to it by saying he wants to be defender of faith, not the faith (which from everything I've read, QEII is not happy about). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that at present, the Monarch must swear to uphold and defend the established Church of England and it's tenets. I dont know who whould be the clergy person to annoint the Monarch, or would you have a whole assortment? I think it might be dicey to try and dis establish the church right at coronation time. I would be far smoother if dis establishment took place before he became monarch (ie in QEII's reign) but I think the likelihood of that happening will be when corgis fly!
I just wanted to add, that one of the reasons the American colonies went iinto revolt was against the established Church (of course you may thing we americans are revolting in any case).This first amendment to our Constitution is regarding the separation of Church and State.
  #1460  
Old 08-14-2007, 01:06 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Perhaps there will be a discussion about dis-establishment of C of E. Charles has certainly alluded to it by saying he wants to be defender of faith, not the faith (which from everything I've read, QEII is not happy about).
I'm not really surprised. If Charles doesn't want to be Defender of the established church, that brings a large part of the role of the monarch into question. While it makes a certain amount of sense for the monarch to defend the established church on historical and legal grounds, Charles's freelance comment about wanting to be defender of faith means that he's decided, on the basis of his personal preference, that some of his citizens (the theists) are more worth defending than the rest of us, and I share the Queen's distate for that particular sentiment.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that at present, the Monarch must swear to uphold and defend the established Church of England and it's tenets.
The wording of the Coronation Oath is as follows:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II

Quote:
I dont know who whould be the clergy person to annoint the Monarch, or would you have a whole assortment? I think it might be dicey to try and dis establish the church right at coronation time.
If there wasn't an established church, there'd be no reason for the coronation to be a religious ceremony, so I assume it'd turn into something more like the enthronements which occur in the European countries now.
__________________

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 04:35 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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