quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
They'll be marrying civilly, according to the article.

---

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
That's trouble, but reinforces my thinking that the "throne" will skip a generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Apparently she'll be known as "the princess-consort". Heh.
.

---

I just heard that she will be known as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall after the wedding.

There is history of the prince consort. The most recent Prince Phillip and of course Queen Victoria's beloved Albert.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:

Oh goodie, straight to the Hitler Youth!

---

Heph do you not have Prince Harry and Prince William mixed up?

Of course, not that Diana is blameless either - I'm sure her desire to join the royal family probably clouded her judgment when it came to trying to get to know the person she was marrying, and figuring out whether he loved her or not.

Obviously the QUeen Mother never forgave Edward for marrying Wallace Simpson.

I think that it is sad that when love and duty collide there are those in the world that believe that duty is more important.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Bobolink ]

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

I believe Charles' income is from the Duchy of Cornwall -- rents, businesses, etc. He just isn't subject to the same taxes, although he has voluntarily paid income taxes for a long time.
I'm glad they're able to marry now, and think they should have been allowed to marry when they were young. I don't think it was Charles alone we can blame for the marriage to Diana -- there was definitely pressure from the monarch and whoever else is involved in setting up royal marriages. FWIW, people, even if they're inbred aristocrats, should be able to choose their own mates

---

The Anglican Church,so far as I know, and I think there remain epistcolate differences) will marry gay couples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
It is incredibly hypocritical of people to be against same sex marriage or want to demean those unions down to "civil unions" while applauding the decision of someone who committed adultery to remarry.

---

Well, actually, if you want to get technical about it, Charles was ACTUALLY committing adultery with Diana, since he was having sex with Bowles before he'd even met Diana.

But let's assume that the marriage to Diana was valid (an unrepentant fornicator! His marriage to Diana surely couldn't have been valid!). If he now repents of committing adultery during his marriage, then since Diana is dead, he's in the clear. He's forgiven for the adultery (and once we're forgiven, Jesus makes us pure as snow!) and he's a widower, perfectly free to marry. And probably the BEST person for him to marry is Bowles, since she was his original lover (at least, she predates Diana, although I have no idea if Bowles was his first EVER).

In fact, if Bowles and Charles were involved BEFORE Bowles was married, then technically you could look at it as Bowles committing herself to Charles first, spending all the years of her supposed "marriage" (which actually wasn't a valid one if she had slept with Charles before her husband, if you want to be a literalist about it) committing adultery on Charles, and then, after divorcing her husband, repenting of the marriage and "adultery" and becoming Charles's again.

Show me where, in the Bible, it says that it is the wedding CEREMONY that joins the man and the woman together in matrimony. It is the sexual act that joins the couple. Thus, the whole idea of "annulment" of marriages that have not been consummated. If it's the sexual act that constitutes the joining of a couple together, then the first person you have sex with is the one you are joined with, and everyone after is adultery until your "first" dies.

You know, if you believe all that stuff. I don't, of course.

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FabFabian:
For all the bitching that goes on about the royals I find it highly hypocritical. The Windsors are just a reflection of society as a whole and it is tough looking at the reflection in the mirror.

---

But my mother doesn't double as a cousin and an aunt to my brothers and grandma.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal_Bull:

But my mother doesn't double as a cousin and an aunt to my brothers and grandma.

---

I have a sofa that doubles as a bed.

Actually, I've been puzzled by some of the press coverage because I think that even the C of E would agree with one of your points there: Charles's remarriage should not be a problem for the church since his first wife is now, not to put too fine a point on it, dead. They don't need to recognize his divorce, but we do have the corpus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
I'll defer to all of that. I just want to know why christian people can accept the head of the Anglican church marrying a woman he committed adultery with but same sex marriage is evil. I just want to know.

---

The head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The British Monarch is the "Defender of the Faith." Charles is not the monarch yet, and may never be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
It's Camilla who is the complication, bless her nervy little soul.

---

That's true. And makes Charles a problem too, since, according to literalist interpretation of scripture, not only is she an adulterer, but by having sex with a married woman, Charles is ALSO an adulterer.

Seriously though - is it fornication if two virgins have sex? Heck no - it's a wedding, without the ceremony. Everyone AFTER that is adultery!

I mean, biblically speaking, there didn't have to be a wedding ceremony (or, at least, it was a side thing) in order for a man to take a woman as wife.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
But, if Charles and Camilla were having sex before Camilla started having sex with her husband, then I would think they were in the clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Wasn't there a James Hewitt in the Charles/Diana/Camilla mix?

---

The Reformation, Stockholm? If you think that Henry VIII's marital/extramarital adventures were the ONLY cause for the rise of the C of E, much less the later and stronger Protestant churches in Britain, then you just don't want to take your history very seriously, do you, Stockholm?

Interstingly, the kings and queens of England and, later, the United Kingdom hardly have been paragons of virtue. You have to go back to the Anglo-Saxon king, Edward the Confessor (1042-1066 A.D.) to find a Saint.

[ 13 February 2005: Message edited by: Bobolink ]

quote:

---

The Reformation, Stockholm? If you think that Henry VIII's marital/extramarital adventures were the ONLY cause for the rise of the C of E, much less the later and stronger Protestant churches in Britain, then you just don't want to take your history very seriously, do you, Stockholm?

---

Personally, I think the royals are largely irrelevant, all right . . . and so should be left alone. Going after the royals to me comes under the classic definition of "fighting the previous war". And their existence as a symbol does to me fill a useful role, allowing for the "loyal opposition" etc. But I won't go into that and derail a lovely juicy thread.

I will just note that I've been kinda rooting for Camilla ever since all that apoplectic horror over the cell phone conversation, which basically struck me as a bunch of people frothing with rage over that jug-eared fuddy duddy Charles having a better sex life than theirs. Someone also suggested to me recently that if Camilla was a bit better looking, she'd have probably had a way easier ride. No Hollywood glamour, no sympathy.

Oh, one more thing--theoretically, the anti-SSM crowd are supposed to be dead against Grey Marriage. I mean, what if Camilla's past menopause? She might (shudder) be . . . infertile! And lots in the anti-SSM crowd have been swearing up and down that their only objection to SSM is that gays can't have kids together. So presumably infertile hetero marriage should be illegal too, right?
In fact, I'm sure next on the agenda is a special law that says old guys have to divorce their old wives after menopause and go find a fertile trophy wife. Sounds like a so-con dream.

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

Can you imagine the future Brit's King (William/Harry) with half-siblings over in the the Middle East?? Man, that would have been sweet!

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

... and in fact, even though the very thought of what they do in bed makes me feel nauseous…

...and even though procreation is clearly not the object of their relationship…

... I still support their right to marry.

Congratulations, Charles and Camilla.

---

Don't think about it. You'll go blind. Seriously. Block it out.

[ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]