Congratulations. Ugly and Uglier.

'This week, further controversy over the cost of her (camilla) lifestyle and how it was funded by the Prince, was raised.'

Lets get married auld gel - that'll show 'em.

At least the prospect of offspring (imagine his ears and her... well, pretty much everything) is remote.

I’d be very surprised now if Charles ever becomes King.

Good luck to the pair of them, may they find happiness - though I doubt the english gutter press will leave them alone long enough.

As for Royalty, I don't think Charlie particularly liked the idea, it is a pity that so many of his "subjects" haven't cottoned on.

As for the blatant sectarianism of the royal anglican alliance ... they have a cheek to lecture anybody.

Come on folks. This has huge implications. Their looks - and I think Camilla is an attractive woman- are the least of it.So what if she's not Jennifer Aniston and he's not Brad Pitt - are we that shallow ? If the Monarchy is entering the 20th century ( I Know , it's the 21st now)- that's progress. Ultimately I would like to see us move on to a European republic, but in the mean-time this is a step in the right direction. IMO ;)

'and I think Camilla is an attractive woman'

Davros,

The intellectual substance of your argument was lost on me after that statement. In fact, if I wasn't already, I'd have to sit down! ;-)

I can barely contain my indifference.

"I would like to see us move on to a European republic, but in the meantime this is a step in the right direction."

Well that is a most practical and pragmatic proposition, given the starting point and the complications what is your time frame ?

3016 ?

How about the present generations on earth?

I'll keep an eye out for the next step.

'Congratulations. Ugly and Uglier.'

Or as one wag put it...

"Shrek to marry Donkey"

Yes, Davros, we are that shallow!!

Aw come on, smcgiff. Be Fair. That's an insult to Shreks and donkeys...

Shay- I think by the 22nd century both the Papacy and the various Royal families of Europe will be unrecognisable. They are anachronisms.

George Carey comes over as a hypocrite. On the one hand he has encouraged the marriage of Charles and Camilla from the very beginning, even though they were having an affair while still married to others. But on the other he is highly critical of gay men and women, although many of these have been in long, loving, committed relationships which far exceed those of many married couples.

I'm sorry but Camilla does not fulfil the conditions by which the church agrees to remarry divorced people since she was instrumental in the break-up of her former marriage. If Charles and Camilla are going to be allowed to marry in the Anglican Church, then it's only fair that the Church of Ireland should extend remarriage facilities to ALL its divorced members.

Davros

Congratulations on the subtle attempt at whataboutery.

No whataboutery.You asked a broad ranging question-
How about the present generations on earth?
I have written that I wish to see a European Socialist republic. That will involve addressing the issue of anachronisms such as Constitutional Monarchy and Papacy. Seperation of church and state.

I wish to see a European Socialist republic

...Albania?

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252795.stm?display=1

Civil service - Followed by blessing. So the head of the COE will not be churched by his own, er, church.

"Civil service - Followed by blessing. So the head of the COE will not be churched by his own, er, church."

Thats the way it should be, it would be unconscionable for big ears to be given special dispensation just because he may become the supreme governor of the CofE in the future (a title which must amuse god from time to time)

Charles has demonstrated a selfish and reckless attitude towards his royal duty, by declaring his intention to marry Camilla Parker Bowles. He is of course free to marry whom ever he chooses, but he cannot now be king.

I look forward to the accession of King Billy the Fifth!

As for the Archbishop of Canterbury - he has all the moral fortitude and religous conviction that one would expect from a Blair appointee!

Christopher,

Nobody in the media as far as I can see have questioned his right of succession.

But if it came to it (I doubt it) would he more likely to renounce the throne or his role as the head of the COE?

Christopher- why can he not be king ? Plenty of people remarry, plenty of people divorce. It's time the link with the C of E was dropped. It's time that
we thought seriously about the RC prohibition.

I'm confused. What's wrong with the head of the church of england divorcing and marrying whosoever he likes? I thought that that was the foundation of the entire church.

It's about time the Royal family was abolished

Fraggle - seems to be her status that's at issue. His divorce is irrelevent as in the eyes of those who don't recognise divorce he is merely a widower.

It's about time the Royal family was abolished

I hope you mean their Royal status LOL

Fraggle she is divorced and implicated as the cause.

When Jolly Henry started the tradition he didn't think of that one.

"I hope you mean their Royal status LOL"

Take what ever meaning you wish ;)

Stalford :

"Charles has demonstrated a selfish and reckless attitude towards his royal duty, by declaring his intention to marry Camilla Parker Bowles. He is of course free to marry whom ever he chooses, but he cannot now be king.

I look forward to the accession of King Billy the Fifth!"

Do you think they'll be digging up the white horse for the occasion.

He cannot be king because the law states so. He knows the rules, and now he wants the rules changed to suit himself. It is a selfish derogation of duty. His great uncle learnt that lesson - he must now do likewise.

Speaking as a strong supporter of a constitutional monarchy, I think this decision will have an adverse affect upon the good standing of the Royal Family in the country.

The Queen, and the late Queen Mother did much good work to restore the standing of the family after the death of Princess Diana (the closest the UK ever came to a Republic in the last 250 years) - it's a shame that Charles should no pursue a course of action which will polarise opinion and undermine the affection in which the Royal Family is held.

Marry again if he wants, but he cannot be king.

Fraggle

"I'm confused. What's wrong with the head of the church of england divorcing and marrying whosoever he likes? I thought that that was the foundation of the entire church."

I think Thomas Cranmer would have seen it as just a little bit more than that!

"What's wrong with the head of the church of england divorcing and marrying whosoever he likes?"

Nothing wrong with marrying in a civil ceremony, but as far as I'm aware canon law permits them from doing so in an Anglican church. Its that simple. If the CofE were to revise its rules to accomodate divorcees then it should apply it universally.

"If the CofE were to revise its rules to accomodate divorcees then it should apply it universally."

Sure why not? They've ripped up every other supposedly inviolable church doctrine. What does the Church of England actually stand for today?

Fraggle you are right the C Of E was partly constituted so a King Henry 8th could marry again but briefly rejoined Rome under "bloody Mary" before Elizabeth seperated it again under conscience of her faith but as a compromise between Rome and the Puritans.

However the the CofE like most other churches will not marry divorcee`s (Paisley`s daughter was refused marriage by the Free P`s because her hubby to be was a divorcee)

Technically Charles would not be entitled to the throne should he marry Camilla. Hence the talk of it skipping to "King Billy the Fifth" as Christopher Stalford put it.

I was no great fan of Princess Diana - "Queen of people's hearts" (please) - but I think it is inappropriate that Mrs. Parker Bowles should be given the title Her Royal Highness, when the same title was taken away from Diana - a disgrace, in fact.

It's little wonder they are to have a private ceremony - she would be booed in the streets!

I'm glad to see the "ball not the man" rule has been relaxed for this subject!

Of course it's good news for the couple as people.

It's also good news for those who are of a democratic/republican temperament because it will bring up questions - disestablishment of the Church etc - that will need to be addressed. The UK may even continue on its slow limp to further democratisation.

mogg- with the exception of the Link to the C of E and the religious exclusions, do you think there are any major democratic issues associated with a constitutional monarchy ?
The reason I ask is because I was reading the other night that about the formal recognition of Clan Chieftaincy reinstated in the 26 in 1944 to 15 men by right of birth - a travesty of Gaelic succession practices, and really not that different to British Royal succession.

BBC Poll:
Should Charles marry Camilla?
Yes 64%
No 36%
69674 Votes Cast

There should be a "who gives a toss" option.

Davros....

But Clan Chieftancy doesn’t exactly impact on the constitution of the ROI…

My view is that it is possible to have a monarchy with a democracy but it’s not the best start. Look, the UK is obviously a democracy. But in comparison to the rest of western Europe it’s not very democratic. The reasons are many, but the UK has an extremely weak legislature and poor control of the Executive. Those other European States with monarchies have stronger legal controls on the Executive and better distribution of power throughout the political structure

I think there is a tendency to view democracy as black or white issue but I am not of that opinion. I think there are degrees.

Alan2 said
> Technically Charles would not be entitled
> to the throne should he marry Camilla.

Why not? Am I missing something?

Also, how is the ban on Roman Catholics relevant to this debate? Is she RC?

Cheers Mogg. Personally speaking once the religion thing is sorted out, I think the Royal family and heredity -in the role which they occupy - are relatively unimportant.

'Marry again if he wants, but he cannot be king.'

Christopher, would he be married in the eyes of the COE? If not, then there's no problem. In the eyes of the church there's no difference between people simply, 'living together' and 'married' by civil ceremony.

Constitutional crisis averted!!

how is the ban on Roman Catholics relevant to this debate? Is she RC?

If there is movement on the issue of marrying a divorcee, then there can be movement on links to the C of E which in turn allows movement on ban on Roman Catholics.

'Is she RC?'

Apparently.

"Sure why not? They've ripped up every other supposedly inviolable church doctrine."

I agree, provided there is some consistency in their naked revisionism. Either divorcees can marry in any anglican church across the globe or they can't.

"What does the Church of England actually stand for today?"

Well Anglican unity does not exist, any more than the communion does. There is only a loose federation of churches, which cannot even agree on liturgy or doctrine. As you know its all very a la carte.

It suits irreligious Britons though who view the CofE almost as a consumer good. Something to be consumed only by those who happen to have a taste for it.

Davros
I agree with you to a certain extent. The difficulty is that the UK's attachment to monarchy obscures the vast powers of the prime Minister / cabinet as so much is done in HM's name.
In a very ironic way the Free State/ROI just took the UK model and improved it. The structure is the same but the powers of the Executive and the figurehead are "legal" rather than conventional and subject to much greater restraint.
Also they are disposable. The Queen is dead - long live the Queen. But what gives her life is the people.

There are a lot of issues to discuss in this thread - maybe I should just stick to one of them!

I still can't see any reason why Charles couldn't become King regardless of who he marries and what sort of wedding he has. Is this more about the public finding it unnacceptable, instead of there being constitutional problems?

By the way, I'm not concerned about the fact that the monarch is the notional head of the Church Of England. The real problem is the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the Prime Minister. If the CofE could choose it's head internally then I would be happy that the link between state and religion has been broken for all practical purposes.

'Is she RC?'

First I have heard of it. The problem is she is a divorcee. Churchs of all types have problems marrying divorcees plus Charles is head of the Church of England. To marry a divorcee therefore undermines what is left of Anglican / CofE doctrine.

"If there is movement on the issue of marrying a divorcee, then there can be movement on links to the C of E which in turn allows movement on ban on Roman Catholics."

Not so. The issue of divorcee is to do with the Church of England. The ban of RC`s is to do with various constitutional laws regarding the Monarchy which would involve revoking ALOT of laws to change. It would actually be FAR easier to establish a Republic than to revoke the ban.

No, but Mr Parker-Bowles was iirc.

Eilis

Eilis,

Camilla actually converted to Roman Catholicism after marrying her former husband. What I don't know is whether she kept to the Roman faith after their divorce.

Ball not man and woman please Mario A.U.

Understood.

Did I just get my first yellow card?

No, Mick is the man who hands those out and the comments were not forwarded. Gentle reprimand. A.U.

"Speaking as a strong supporter of a constitutional monarchy, I think this decision will have an adverse affect upon the good standing of the Royal Family in the country."

Can you explain how this will adversely affect the Royal Family? After all the British people have moved on from Edward VIII; divorce and remarriage are common things without any stigma attached. Even the "won't someone please think of the children" argument has been blown out of the water by Prince William and Prince Harry.

Chances are the current laws on the Monarchy will change to allow Prince Charles to become King. And he may even get to change his role to that of 'Defender of Faiths'

"Christopher, would he be married in the eyes of the COE? If not, then there's no problem. In the eyes of the church there's no difference between people simply, 'living together' and 'married' by civil ceremony.

Constitutional crisis averted!!"

Not quite as the Royal Family are specifically excluded from the law allowing civil marriages :o)

But don't worry, chances are that the law will be changed or the Royal Family has found some cunning way around it.

Thanks Fobo,

I've actually changed my mind - A lot of thought has gone into this, especially with the proposed new title PrinceSS Consort, and I now think Charles WILL one day become King.

Best of luck to them!

I think you might be right about the religion changes he might make. The UK is far too multi-cultural to have a monarch that is defender of one faith.

Christopher, keep up your anti Charles rant, the old ladies in South Belfast will be impressed come the election

What I don't know is whether she kept to the Roman faith after their divorce.

Could she have kept to that faith having been divorced rather than having obtained an annullment ?
( request for info, not trying to cause trouble )

Once a Catholic always a Catholic. It's not that simple, apparently.

Davros,
divorce is a civil matter not a religious one so I assume that unless Camilla specifically asked to be excommunicated then she is still RC.

I think the rule on divorce for Catholics is that if they have a church wedding and then get divorced they can't have another one. They can trot off to the registry office if they want once they have got a civil divorce.

They need an annulment to marry again in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Apparently Davros, only two sins can be committed lay people in secular surroundings which lead to automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church.

You excommunicate yourself if you willfully procure an abortion (that is, you recognize the act as sinful but do it anyway), or if you try to assassinate the pope.

But it gets better.

Strictly speaking, excommunication does not render you a non-Catholic. It merely means you're a Catholic who's been damned to hell.

What's more, it isn't intended to permanently separate you from the church; rather, it's a "medicinal" procedure, meant to make you see the error of your ways. If in fact you do become reconciled later, you won't be rebaptised, just forgiven.

"or if you try to assassinate the pope."

So if I was sucessful and did him in I could still be a good RC?

No wonder he's got the Swiss Guards.

My favourite cartoonist, Steve Bell:

The royal wedding

Blair's apology to Guildford Four

07.12.04: Ian Paisley and the Northern Ireland peace process