Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Elspeth]

For the moment, with the CofE being the Established Church, I don't think there's a mechanism to have a coronation ceremony that isn't religious. There would be no authority figure with precedence over the monarch, so the king would have to crown himself or there'd have to be a nonreligious enthronement of some sort.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Dont they refuse to ordain gays, dont recognise divorce etc.?

They ordain gay, bisexual and transgender clergy and recognise divorce. All with the Queen's blessing.

 

[scooter]

I personally am not a religious person, so I dont really understand why so many people feel so strongly what Archbishop whosiwhatsit thinks. It's also hard, as an American, where (theoretically) we have separation of Church and State to understand why this issue would be important to them, but there you go. I guess this is as good a reason as any that the founders of our constitution were clear on the subject. Haha. In the many times I have been to England, I never got the feeling that it was religiously 'diverse' (please dont shout!). Perhaps I was not paying attention, as I said it's not that impotant to me.

 

[scooter]

They ordain gay, bisexual and transgender clergy and recognise divorce. All with the Queen's blessing.

Really! That's great! In this country, the Anglican and Episcopalian Church (roughly the same yes?) are deeply divided on this subject, with the conservatives sounding slightly out of the stone age. All religions have thier own craziness. My family is catholic and I have had many 'spirited discusssions' about the church not ordaining gays, women, married men etc I can tell you!

 

[HRH Kerry]

They ordain gay, bisexual and transgender clergy and recognise divorce. All with the Queen's blessing.

What a forward way for Her Majesty to be! Has Charles expressed an opinion on this front? Maybe some relief that the Queen did bless the issue so that he wouldn't have to when his time comes as king.

 

[Elspeth]

The Church of England itself is somewhat divided also; however, I think the deepest divisions are between the more liberal western branches of the Episcopal church and the more conservative African ones.

However, the position of the Church of England on divorce, which is the issue where Prince Charles is concerned, has softened somewhat from the earlier position where remarriage of divorcees was prohibited altogether; now some divorcees can remarry in church, but it's somewhat left up to the conscience of the individual clergy. However, it's still deeply frowned on for a second marriage to take place with the person who was considered a factor in the breakup of the first marriage, so Charles and Camilla weren't eligible for a church wedding even under the more relaxed regime. Whether things will lighten up some more by the time Charles becomes King is anybody's guess.

 

[sirhon11234]

But wasn't the Princess of Wales entitled to a church wedding why not Charles ?

 

[scooter]

It's the part about the concience of the individual clergy that I'm referring. It's a long way to go in your prom dress if your date is going to stand you up! Seriously, His mother, more than likely will be here for many years. Who knows what may come to pass?

 

[scooter]

But wasn't the Princess of Wales entitled to a church wedding why not Charles ?

I dont think the Princess of Wales would have had/been interested in another C of E big wedding; especially if marrying someone not a christian . Interestingly, I think her wedding to whomever (but especially a muslim) would have been very similar to Charles and Camilla's civil service.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Really! That's great! In this country, the Anglican and Episcopalian Church (roughly the same yes?) are deeply divided on this subject, with the conservatives sounding slightly out of the stone age.

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.

What a forward way for Her Majesty to be! Has Charles expressed an opinion on this front?

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

But wasn't the Princess of Wales entitled to a church wedding why not Charles ?

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.

 

[scooter]

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.

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[BeatrixFan]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[HRH Kerry]

...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?

 

[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.

 

[love_cc]

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.

 

[HRH 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.

 

[Polly]

I disagree. Constitutional authorities argued about the legality of Charles' and Camilla's civil marriage, and some still do.

 

[Elspeth]

Cripes, Kerry; remind me never to ask you a question, what with that signature of yours and all.

 

[Vanesa]

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.

 

[Principessa Cano]

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.

 

[HRH Kerry]

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.

 

[HRH Kerry]

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!

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[scooter]

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.

 

[ysbel]

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.