This discussion is closed.
pink_lucie
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
i dont really give a **** if they get married or not
0
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22
Fair play to Charles. He knows it may not be a universally popular move, but he's doing it anyway because he wants to. He was forced into the marriage with Diana anyway; whatever their individual qualities, they weren't really right for each other.
I support the man and I don't really see why Camilla shouldn't be called Queen either. It's the way it has always worked - the wife of a King is a Queen, at least in Britain. It's purely a cosmetic title as she's not going to have any actual power, so why should it matter?
0
DenverDiva
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by frost105)
I assume for the same reason that Phillip isnt king phillip but the duke of edinburgh
Except in very unusual cases (William and Mary) the UK has only one soverign - the King or Queen Regnant. A King Regnant's wife would usually be known as Her Majesty Queen X but she would be a Queen Consort rather than Regnant -if he dies she does not rule alone. There is no title of King Consort hence the Duke of Edinburgh does not bear the title King.

Calling Camilla "Princess Consort" seems a bit unnecessary but it might satisfy those people who seem to place all the blame for his first marriage's break up on the beatified Diana (James Hewitt anyone?)
0
djk_99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
I think good for them. If they are in love (and they must be to have carried on depsite having husbands/wives, and for 30 odd years) and they are living together anyway, why not? However I think Charles is outdated, and the throne should skip a generation to William. His father could guide him, but William would last longer than Charles, who is already knocking on 60 right? And hey, William would give us girls something nice to look at!!
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
(Original post by magiccarpet)

its immoral and wrong all divorce should be illegal......
Well thankfully we don't live in Iran so if you think your wife is a ***** or your husband a drunken ******* you can go ahead and get divorced in the UK.
0
RieLouise
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by Howard)
Well thankfully we don't live in Iran so if you think your wife is a ***** or your husband a drunken ******* you can go ahead and get divorced in the UK.
Or even if your wife is a drunken ******* and your husband is a *****...
*shrug* it happens.
0
sleepyeba
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
Did anyone else feel that the news coverage on ITV (or channel 3, maybe its something else in different parts?) was more unfavourable to the marriage compared to the BBC's?
Indirectly - kept using the old "some people think" Camilla was the reason for Charles and Di's split (not those words) - but I still felt that they were trying to get some point across..
0
jpowell
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
Remember that the church of england was formed for one reason and one reason only. So that King Henry VIII could get divorced and remarry. So why is the current church opposed to having divorcees marry in church, and why are some people complaining that it wouldn't be proper to have a divorcee as head of the church?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by AntiMagicMan)
Remember that the church of england was formed for one reason and one reason only. So that King Henry VIII could get divorced and remarry. So why is the current church opposed to having divorcees marry in church, and why are some people complaining that it wouldn't be proper to have a divorcee as head of the church?
Because some people are very anal.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#30
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by AntiMagicMan)
Remember that the church of england was formed for one reason and one reason only. So that King Henry VIII could get divorced and remarry. So why is the current church opposed to having divorcees marry in church, and why are some people complaining that it wouldn't be proper to have a divorcee as head of the church?

Now let's see - if I remember correctly, Henry VIII had several wives killed so as he could remarry - oops, didn't the same outcome apply to Charles's first wife?
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
(Original post by yawn)
Now let's see - if I remember correctly, Henry VIII had several wives killed so as he could remarry - oops, didn't the same outcome apply to Charles's first wife?
Unfortunatly not
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#32
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#32
(Original post by frost105)
Unfortunatly not
What :confused:

Was Diana not killed? Is she still alive? :eek:
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by yawn)
What :confused:

Was Diana not killed? Is she still alive? :eek:
No unfortunatly Diana died in a car accident though it would have been much more fulfilling if Charles had done her over
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#34
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#34
What three words are preventing Camilla Parker Bowles being crowned queen? The answer is Brigadier Andrew Parker Bowles, her first husband.

The Church of England does not allow two divorcees to remarry each other in church if they were responsible for the break-up of their former marriage.

The same talk goes on to say that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England – which Charles, as King, will be – cannot have his wife crowned Queen if they have not been married in church. Hence the Princess Consort idea.

But what gets left out is that the remarriage prohibition applies only if the first spouse is still living. Diana is dead. Andrew Parker Bowles, however, is alive. So long as he lives, the rule remains in force.

A possible solution, oddly, is contained in the Bible. One evening, when walking on the roof of his house in Jerusalem, King David spotted a woman washing herself "who was very beautiful to look upon". He found out that she was Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, who was a brave soldier away fighting the children of Ammon.

So he sent for her, slept with her and made her pregnant. Wanting to marry her, David wrote a letter to Joab, his general, asking him to put brave Uriah in "the forefront of the hottest battle". This was done, and Uriah was duly killed. As a punishment, Bathsheba's baby died, but David's repentance was sufficient for God to allow the next baby to live. He was the future King Solomon, proverbial in his wisdom.

Would this provide a solution to Charles's dilemma over the continuing existence of Andrew Parker Bowles? His previous dilemma over wanting to be married to Camilla was solved (as Diana said it would be) with the death of Diana in a car crash (as Diana said it would be). Will we see Brigadier Andrew Parker Bowles come to a sticky end in the next few years? Watch this space.
0
DenverDiva
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
(Original post by AntiMagicMan)
Remember that the church of england was formed for one reason and one reason only. So that King Henry VIII could get divorced and remarry. So why is the current church opposed to having divorcees marry in church, and why are some people complaining that it wouldn't be proper to have a divorcee as head of the church?
This is an oft sited but not wholly accurate comparison.

A divorce breaks the legal contract between two people but recognises that they have been married. Henry VIII wanted an annulment, i.e. for the Pope to declare that the marriage had never been real in the first place. An annulment (an instrument still used in the Church) would mean that Princess Mary would be illigitimate and any son of H8 and Anne B would be the true heir. Although the term "divorce" does appear in contemporary manuscripts the legal device used was an annulment on the grounds of consanguinity (if I remember correctly) authorised by Cranmer rather than the Pope.

Henry may have used judicial (and judicious) murder to free himself from inconvenient spousal arrangements but he wasn't a divorcee!

Having said, I see no reason why Charles and Camilla shouldn't wed and why he shouldn't inherit the throne. Best of luck to them!
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#36
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#36
(Original post by DenverDiva)
This is an oft sited but not wholly accurate comparison.

A divorce breaks the legal contract between two people but recognises that they have been married. Henry VIII wanted an annulment, i.e. for the Pope to declare that the marriage had never been real in the first place. An annulment (an instrument still used in the Church) would mean that Princess Mary would be illigitimate and any son of H8 and Anne B would be the true heir. Although the term "divorce" does appear in contemporary manuscripts the legal device used was an annulment on the grounds of consanguinity (if I remember correctly) authorised by Cranmer rather than the Pope.

Henry may have used judicial (and judicious) murder to free himself from inconvenient spousal arrangements but he wasn't a divorcee!

Having said, I see no reason why Charles and Camilla shouldn't wed and why he shouldn't inherit the throne. Best of luck to them!
Did Henry VIII obtain an annulment from his fourth marriage or was that a divorce?
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#37
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#37
Some legal minds are now saying that Charles can't marry Camilla in a civil ceremony as Royalty are prevented by law from marrying anywhere other than in a church.

He can't marry in a church because Camilla's first husband is still alive.

An interesting legal dilemma! :confused:
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#38
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#38
The wedding venue has been changed to the Guildhall Registry Office in Windsor.

According to palace 'sources' the queen if 'livid' and says that this venue is 'common'!!! :eek:

Good enough for everybody else apparently but not for her.

Oxford definition of 'common' in this context - "low-class, vulgar, inferior"

What sort of insult is that to her 'people'?
0
Tyler Durden
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
(Original post by yawn)
The wedding venue has been changed to the Guildhall Registry Office in Windsor.

According to palace 'sources' the queen if 'livid' and says that this venue is 'common'!!! :eek:

Good enough for everybody else apparently but not for her.

Oxford definition of 'common' in this context - "low-class, vulgar, inferior"

What sort of insult is that to her 'people'?
Well I for one don't count myself as one of "her people" and I also couldn't care less (no not even if I tried really really really hard) about what the ol' bat thinks.
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 14 years ago
#40
(Original post by yawn)
The wedding venue has been changed to the Guildhall Registry Office in Windsor.

According to palace 'sources' the queen if 'livid' and says that this venue is 'common'!!! :eek:

Good enough for everybody else apparently but not for her.

Oxford definition of 'common' in this context - "low-class, vulgar, inferior"

What sort of insult is that to her 'people'?
If anything this report suggests that the queen is in touch with what people want in context with the big bash that charles wanted to throw
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...300245,00.html
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (138)
17.72%
It's just nice to be back! (210)
26.96%
Not great so far... (280)
35.94%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.38%

Watched Threads

View All