Camilla - Charles - Page 6

WillowTheWhisp · 19-02-2005, 23:46

Why does the suggestion of the Queen giving up the throne come into it? Charles should only inherit the throne when his mother dies. That is the normal way. There has been talk on and off for years of her abdicating in favour of her son or grandson but why?

It would be normal procedure for Charles to become king on his mother's death.

Why should the monarch be the head of the Church of England? As we've already said this C of E stance on divorce is rather hypocritical considering the reason the church was created was in order to grant Henry VIII a divorce and the freedom to remarry.

I just think it's rather amusing now that they can't marry at Windsor but have to go to the local Register Office.

Margaret Pilkington · 20-02-2005, 14:15

And now it looks like that may not be legal either.

I don't know why the Monarch is head of the Church of England Willow, that is just the way it is......and even though Diana is deceased Charles is still a divorcee and so is his intended......apparently the High Church of England requires the Monarch at the crowning to take Holy Communion and divorcees are banned from taking Holy Communion........again, don't ask me why, that's the way it is.

Personally I don't care what they do, as long as they don't expect me to chip in for the celebrations.

WillowTheWhisp · 20-02-2005, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

the High Church of England requires the Monarch at the crowning to take Holy Communion and divorcees are banned from taking Holy Communion.

This will be an interesting point when it comes to Charles' accession to the throne. He and Diana were divorced but in the eyes of the Church that would not be recognised so that technically would they be regarded as still married? If that were the case then the fact that Diana is no longer alive could technically make Charles a widower, so would that then mean he'd be able to take Holy Communion following his coronation?

One for the boffins to ponder over.

It's so ludicrous because in the past the rules have been changed to suit the monarch of the time but now it seems that the monarchy has to change to suit the rules. What a crazy country we live in.

Maybe they'll end up getting married in Scotland after all and then if Scotland gets independance from England they could get crowned King & Queen of Scotland, then when Queen Elizabeth II dies Charles can inherit her throne and Bob's your Uncle.

Margaret Pilkington · 20-02-2005, 14:44

Apparently is doesn't work like that......again, I do not know the reason why..... it is buried in Royal protocol........but Scotland is the only place that they could have a civil ceremony....and if you remember that is where the Princess Royal married her husband......that was again because it was not legal for them to have a civil ceremony in England.

Personally, I don't want Charles to become King......if he was too weak kneed to stand up to his mother 30 odd years ago, he is too weak to become King.

WillowTheWhisp · 20-02-2005, 14:46

But why does a king need to be strong? It's not like he has to actually rule or anything. All he would have to do is rubber stamp parliamentary bumph and be a tourist attraction.

Margaret Pilkington · 20-02-2005, 20:34

Of course you are right, which in effect says that the Monarchy is out dated and is only there to draw the tourists........ but again personally, I would prefer it if he looked strong.

West Ender · 20-02-2005, 22:01

And the latest news is that they are both in therapy because of the stress of the wedding preparations. Aw - bless!

I find it hilarious that the Sunday Express quotes a palace source regarding Princess Michael's "tacky" book-signing deal at Windsor Guildhall. If this farcical wedding isn't "tacky", then what is?

So we have the head of the C of E , successor (though very indirectly) to Henry VIII who set the institution up so that he could grant himself the divorce he required, unable to marry within the C of E because it has changed its policy since Tudor times. He can't marry in Windsor Castle because, if he does, so can everyone else for at least the next 3 years. He wishes, if and when he succedes his mother, to be not Defender of the Faith but Defender of Faiths because he doesn't want to offend anyone (and he knows on which side his bread is buttered) and he's marrying the woman he has "kept" for the last 30 years because he couldn't be bothered to marry her when it was all legal and, lucky for him, he was able to have his cake and eat it too, where Mrs P-B was concerned, when it was necessary for him to produce the "heir and a spare".

Talk about the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson? A prim and proper affair compared to this sordid little lot.

Margaret Pilkington · 20-02-2005, 22:08

A weak kneed, lily livered custard. I may now be headed for the tower.......or I may now be beheaded in the tower. It is turning into a real dogs breakfast.
According to the Daily Mail.....if you believe all you read...... the Queen does not wish to see CP-B until the wedding......and the party has to be over by 6pm.

West Ender · 20-02-2005, 22:26

If the late, lamented Princess Margaret (20 fags and a bottle of gin for breakfast) were still with us, the party would last until 6 p.m. - the next day. Of course, the guests would have to curtsey and call her "Ma'am darling" before they slid under the table.

(Margaret, is there room in the Tower for both of us?)

Margaret Pilkington · 20-02-2005, 22:27

I suppose we could share a cell.

Margaret Pilkington · 20-02-2005, 22:29

I find all this wedding stuff really tedious......if Charlie had done the right thing some 30 odd years ago we could all be spared the indelicacy of the whole charade.

pendy · 21-02-2005, 13:44

Keep a space for me in the Tower, as well! The whole thing is an absolute farce.

Is it true that Earl Spencer is marketing a "Royal Wedding Souvenir Dartboard" with Charles and Camilla tastefully represented?

Margaret Pilkington · 21-02-2005, 14:14

It maybe that the Spencer family turn up and object to the whole thing.......now wouldn't that be an embarrassment for C&C.
At this rate I think we are probably going to have a better party in the tower than they will have out of it..........and if you look on the upside we won't have to put up with any televisual images (yes,I know it isn't going to be televised, but it is being held in a public place so what is to stop Joe Public from going along with his video camera??????)

Margaret Pilkington · 21-02-2005, 14:16

Do you think the Special Branch will be sent out to buy up all the bad eggs and the soft tomatoes on the morning of the wedding.......I wouldn't throw soft ones...... mine would be in tins! I know......I know I am a self confessed cynical old baggage!

THOTH · 21-02-2005, 15:19

[QUOTE=Margaret Pilkington]I find all this wedding stuff really tedious......

My word Margaret, for someone who finds the subject tedious you are doing a fair amount of posting.