Dipped into the BBC News web site earlier and there was the forum on the Charlie Boy and Park Yer Balls wedding - the amount of people who are disgusted that the head of the Anglican Church is being allowed to re-marry.......confidently forgetting that the reason the Monarch is the head of the Anglican Church is because one of his ancestors(Henry VIII)broke with Rome simply to re-marry....nice to see so many people up to speed....
I'm just amazed that it can generate this much interest -
The forthcoming wedding does'nt bother me in the slightest. Its just a shame that those of a religious mind-set, who are doing the complaining, are intolerant, ignorant, bigotted and dangerous ignoramuses.
Goodluck to Charles and his lady-friend. If they're happy then let them get on with it.
Starkey said that 'Whatever people are saying,she will be Queen and P of Wales' ha,ha,ha....got to watch the bigots start performing when that happens.
I have no issue with the wedding itself, however Lady Parker Bowels, can not become Queen.
Reasons 1) she is catholic, and by the laws of William III all catholics are barred from the throne be it the monach or the consort. 2) and this is a funny one, henry VIII passed a law stating that no monarch can marry a divorse and keep the throne. HAHAHA I know of all the people to say that. 3) The QUeen would not be on the throne if her uncle Edward VII (i think was his name and number) had to abdicate, as he want to marry miss Wallace Simpson, a divorse, now it is only fair that the same rules apply.
but Prince Phillip isn't King so that same principal should apply as was Prince Albert - throughout history there have been convienent marriages where only one party is "enthroned" for political reasons.....Mary 1 being a prime example - she was married to Phillip of Spain but reliased that a Catholic Spaniard as King would not go down too well....
He should abdicate link his uncle did! What a role model for young people and for the anglican church - Have an affair with a married woman and then have the cheek to say we the public were too harsh on him.
Perhaps i should have said potential role model and what i mean by that is he is not setting a good example for a stable lasting relationship/marriage! especially as he is the future head of the anglican church
I don't think Edward VIII would necessarily have to have abdicated if his pro-fascist somewhat right-wing tendencies hadn't been seen as a potential security threat.
Originally posted by StevieB: but Prince Phillip isn't King so that same principal should apply as was Prince Albert - throughout history there have been convienent marriages where only one party is "enthroned" for political reasons.....Mary 1 being a prime example - she was married to Phillip of Spain but reliased that a Catholic Spaniard as King would not go down too well....
Well actually Phillip was styled as King whilst Mary was alive. It was considered wrong for men to be ruled by a woman in those less enlightened times.
However, in the hierarchy of titles King is higher than Queen, which in turn is higher than Prince, therefore a King can have a Queen consort (hence the late Queen Mother was known as Queen Elizabeth) but a Queen regnant can't have a King as that would be superior to her own title. Therefore Albert was left as Prince consort and so is Prince Phillip. In both cases they were Princes before their marriage too of course, which just adds to the fun.
Now, if Charles ascends to the throne, his wife could be given pretty much any royal title, Princess consort is what they've settled on more for reasons of taste than of constitutional necessity. The people (as represented by the tabloid press) have decided that Queen Camilla won't do so she'll have to make do with Princess instead.
Personally I couldn't care less, the monarch doesn't really do anything other than be a figurehead, and the monarch's consort is even less important. Charles has performed the primary task required of him: he's given the nation and heir and a spare from his first wife, who he chooses to keep him warm at night is of little consequence.
IF cHARLES WANT O SUCCEED BEING kING HE IS THE cONSTITUATIONAL hEAD OF THE aNGLICAN cHURCH WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN dIVORCE. HE IS DIVORCED. he has not provided much of an example to anyone. Who is paying for her, the taxpayer? She should have no title at all. She should never be Queen of U.K. OR ANYTHING ELSE. iF THEY HAVE GOT TO GET MARRIED WHY CAN THE SECOND IN SUCCESSION TAKE THE THRONE, IF THERE HAS GOT TO BE ONE. None of them are exactly showing an example to anyone.
lmb hi good point, however the whole reason for the anglican church is that it was an alternatyive to the catholic faith and did allow divorse but otherwise agree, and let someone cute on the throne William befor he is a old like his father.
Originally posted by NathanD: I have no issue with the wedding itself, however Lady Parker Bowels, can not become Queen.
Reasons 1) she is catholic, and by the laws of William III all catholics are barred from the throne be it the monach or the consort. 2) and this is a funny one, henry VIII passed a law stating that no monarch can marry a divorse and keep the throne. HAHAHA I know of all the people to say that. 3) The QUeen would not be on the throne if her uncle Edward VII (i think was his name and number) had to abdicate, as he want to marry miss Wallace Simpson, a divorse, now it is only fair that the same rules apply.
The Dept of Constitutional Affairs says different,she will be Queen........and Princess of Wales......oh you can see those Mail readers choking on their toast when that happens
owian as much as i detest the daily mail, it is only fair that consistancy is kept with in the monarchy, otherwise it looses it's moral position of which it does.
Not only does Camilla's cousin win 'who wants to be a millionaire' but now the taxpayer will be looking after this person - I tell thee the world moves in mysterious ways!
