Royal News

A

Anonymous

Guest
anome said:
I've never understood that. The Church of England was founded in order to let the monarch divorce and remarry. And yet we have had to have this long running thing about should he be allowed to marry Camilla, etc.

It's not quite that straightforward. Henry VIII's break with Rome coincided with the spread of the Protestant movement, it did not cause the Protestant movement. Henry VIII still regarded himself as Catholic, and moved between allowing and condemning Protestant 'heresy', almost sending whaterface (Parr? Seymour? I always get them two mixed up) to the Tower because she owned certain Protestant books that he considered (sometimes) banned.

Henry didn't want a Church of England. He wanted to be Head of the Church in England, but he still wanted the Church to be Catholic. At least, most of the time.

Honestly speaking, Henry VIII was rather a bad show, and we'd have probably been much better off as a country if a) Arthur hadn't popped his clogs, or b) Henry hadn't been so addicted to wedding cake. ;)

edit Getting divorced is frowned on in Protestant churches as much as anywhere else. It's also forbidden for divorced people to remarry in church, even if it is Protestant. Of course, that's where there appears to be the difference between high and low Protestant, in that in low churches, it appears the vicar's word is law. Which has always struck me as rather odd. Still... :roll: So that's why there was a stink about Camilla and Charles getting married in a church as well. Hence the legal ceremony followed by the blessing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Current C of E law is outlined below:
Marriage in Church after Divorce (updated February 2003)
On 9 July 2002, the General Synod in an historic vote agreed a way forward on the vexed question of further marriage in church after divorce by supporting the following motion by 269 votes to 83:

"That this Synod

affirm, in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England as set out in Canon B30, that marriage should always be undertaken as a "solemn, public and life-long covenant between a man and a woman";
recognise (i) that some marriages regrettably do fail and that the Church's care for couples in that situation should be of paramount importance; and (ii) that there are exceptional circumstances in which a divorced person may be married in church during the lifetime of a former spouse;
recognise that the decision as to whether or not to solemnise such a marriage in church after divorce rests with the minister (or officiating cleric if the minister is prepared to allow his/her church or chapel to be used for this marriage)
; and
invite the House of Bishops to issue the advice contained in Annex 1 of GS 1449."
Synod then followed this up in November 2002 by formally rescinding the marriage resolutions of the Canterbury and York Convocations (which had exhorted clergy not to use the marriage service in the case of anyone who had a former partner still living). The decision to rescind the resolutions was carried in all three Houses of the General Synod as follows: bishops 27-1; clergy 143-44; laity 138-65.

What does all this mean?

While the July 2002 motion primarily sets out the legal position that already applies, it nevertheless can be said with some justice to represent the mind of the Church of England on this matter. It was moreover arrived at after the Synod had decisively rejected amendments that called for the setting up of panels and the wholesale review of the current legal framework whereby the decision rested with the cleric.

By rescinding the Convocation Marriage Resolutions, the Synod has also removed any inconsistency between the cleric's right in civil law to solemnise further marriages in cases where the former partner is still living - which remains unaffected - and the Church's official exhortations against such marriages. This step was taken - in accordance with the General Synod's Constitution -following separate debates (and votes) in both Convocations and the House of Laity.

These changes do not confer an automatic right on couples to further marriage in church. The House of Bishops has issued Advice to the Clergy (referred to in para (d) of the July 2002 Synod motion and which includes the text of Canon B.30) setting out a number of searching questions that can be asked of couples which are designed to safeguard the Church's doctrine of marriage. While the decision rests with the officiating cleric, he/she has the option of referring cases to the bishop (or his adviser) reflecting their shared responsibility for the cure of souls.

A leaflet for enquirers that includes an explanatory statement and an application form is also available and can also be ordered from Church House Bookshop. Clergy desirous of further information about the handling of cases within their diocese are advised to contact their Diocesan Bishop's Office and / or the Diocesan Family Life and Marriage Education Officer / Committee. It is envisaged that co-ordinated training/CME material for clergy covering both this matter and the planned changes to marriage law in respect of banns and residency will be provided.

Those wanting access to further material on this matter can refer to the following (* available from Church House Bookshop http://www.chbookshop.co.uk ):


The 1999 Marriage Statement from the House of Bishops*
The 2000 Report of the Working Party chaired by the Bishop of Winchester (GS 1361)*
The 2002 General Synod Report from the House of Bishops (GS 1449)*
The Bishop of Winchester's speech to Synod on 9 July 2002 available on http://www.win.diocese.org.uk
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/mcad/
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
34,168
Reaction score
46,391
Points
314
Location
East of Suez
Wasn't Henry VIII's 'divorce' from Catherine of Aragon in actual fact an annulment based debated biblical presidents for marrying one's brother's fianace. (She had been engaged to Prince Harry)?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep. She married Prince Arthur. The problem there was they obtained a Papal dispensation in order to marry in the first place, Catherine being Henry's sister-in-law and thereby forbidden to marry as laid down in Leviticus. And all indications are that Henry was more than happy to marry her. They had what appeared to be a perfect (as far as Royal marriages are) marriage, until Anne Boleyn appeared on the scene, and Henry started thinking with the wrong head. So then asking for an annulment based on the first dispensation being wrong was rather stupid really.

Henry never managed to regain that special arrangement he'd had with Catherine with any of his other wives, except partially with Anne of Cleaves, which was not consummated and therefore annulled. Problem being that, in marrying 'commoners' he'd left himself open for his wives to abuse their positions and promote their own family interests, and destroy their family's enemies. It all made for very shaky government indeed. At least marrying members of other Royal families meant that the poor girls knew the deal. Poor old Anne of Cleaves was left well high and dry. As was Catherine of Aragon, except with the added (incredible) complication of a daughter to protect.

David Starkey's "Six Wives" is excellent reading. He makes the past very accessible, not dry at all, and manages to make all the people feel very alive and human.
 

SniperK2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
427
Reaction score
22
Points
34
Thanks Ravenstone, I'm interested in Henry VIII shenanigens , I'll get that.
His grandfather Edward IV also married a ' commoner ' Elizabeth Woodville, to the disgust of his advisors, who wanted him to marry a foreign princess, she apparently did just that, manuevered her family into powerful positions, but she was a fertile woman who gave Edward two sons and a few daughters, one of whom was Henrys mother and her position was secure as long as his was, and she outlived him, anyway. Nothing to do with Charles and Camilla at all, just much more interesting IMHO. :) I suppose after the Wars of the Roses, no-one wanted to see England plunged back into that uncertainty, and it must have been on Henry's mind a lot that he needed a son to ensure the succession peacefully. Interesting times.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
After all the kerfuffle Henry 8th did actually have a son (with Jane Seymour, was it?). However all I have ever heard is that he was a sickly child and died after only a few years as Edward 6th. What was actually wrong with him medically though?
 

SniperK2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
427
Reaction score
22
Points
34
I think it might have been TB, but I'm not sure, I'm sure Ravenstone knows. Things were not easy to diagnose in those days. At least Elizabeth I was a pretty healthy woman who lasted a long time, much though her mother was reviled before and after her death.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,548
Reaction score
676
Points
199
Location
Left, and to the Back
I'm sure Raven knows, but I was under the impression it was syphillis, possibly from his father. (Via his mother, of course.) Can't remember what Starkey said it was on the telly.

And I never claimed that Henry started protestantism. Although I would point out that lumping protestants together like that is a little bit of a simplification. The motives of the Lutherans, and the bishops that talked Henry into the Church of England were in many ways quite different, and the resultant churches are quite different as well.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TB was the official verdict. This months' BBC History magazine suggests that Henry VIII's irrascible behaviour was due to Cushing's Syndrome, and reckons he did not suffer from syphillis. Cushing's Syndrome apparently causes, amongst other things, irritability, depressions, mood swings, paranoia and aggression. Why he is supposed to have had anything medically wrong with him rather than just being an unbearable sod is quite beyond me. ;)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,144
Reaction score
9,243
Points
284
The sort of stuff most of us don't really care about, if we can't afford two bathrooms!
Royal's secret for long marriages

Princess Michael of Kent has revealed the secret of keeping a royal marriage alive - separate bathrooms and bedrooms.
The princess's own marriage of 33 years to the Queen's cousin, Prince Michael, has been the subject of press attention in recent weeks.

But she told an audience at the Hay literary festival that she "got my prince and married him".

The princess is the first royal author at the festival, at Hay-on-Wye.

The 61-year-old princess, born Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz, at Carlsbad in what is now the Czech Republic, said her mother gave her good advice when she married Prince Michael.

"My mother when I married said you must have separate bathrooms and separate bedrooms. That was the only sure way of keeping a marriage alive because it was an invitation as opposed to just being there and that makes it more romantic.

"I have been together with my husband for 33 years. Romance can still be there if you don't see each other brushing your teeth. There's something very nasty about brushing your teeth and then all that flossing."

The princess, Hay's first royal author, said she was in Wales to talk about her new historic work, Cupid and the King, published on 5 June, which details the roles of five royal paramours, including Nell Gwynne and Madame de Pompadour.

The book and her previous work, The Serpent and the Moon, tells what happened when kings were required to marry to ensure the future of their dynasty.

She said that was no longer the case, of course, in Britain where monarchs now marry for love.

But referring to her own marriage, she said that under the Royal Marriage Act, members of the British royal family were still banned from marrying Catholics.

She said: "I'm a Catholic, you know, not very good news!"

The princess told the audience that she did not look at the 20th Century in her investigation into royal love.

"Because you see this head on these shoulders, and there is also a place called 'the Tower'. I don't touch the 20th Century."

Consulted medium

She also revealed that she was now looking at writing a novel set in 15th Century France, around the period of Joan of Arc.

"I'm having to make a novel because I can't find enough out about my heroine, who was murdered," said the princess.

She said she had consulted a medium who had given her clues about what the fate of her heroine had been.

Asked by a member of the audience whether her books were available in the libraries, Princess Michael said: "Hmmn! It only costs £10.99." ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5042944.stm
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
While 2 bathrooms etc would be nice, I think that a modification of the royal solution does indeed help. I believe that if two people can retain a bit of mystique with one another (thus no farting etc in front of one another) etc, then it may take a lot longer for 'familiarity to become contempt'.
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,284
Reaction score
2,258
Points
219
GadaffiDuck said:
While 2 bathrooms etc would be nice, I think that a modification of the royal solution does indeed help. I believe that if two people can retain a bit of mystique with one another (thus no farting etc in front of one another) etc, then it may take a lot longer for 'familiarity to become contempt'.

Then those of us who fart on a first date are doomed to a lonely existance..... :shock:

*Sighs wistfully*
 

tastyintestines

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
164
Points
99
Heckler20 said:
GadaffiDuck said:
While 2 bathrooms etc would be nice, I think that a modification of the royal solution does indeed help. I believe that if two people can retain a bit of mystique with one another (thus no farting etc in front of one another) etc, then it may take a lot longer for 'familiarity to become contempt'.

Then those of us who fart on a first date are doomed to a lonely existance..... :shock:

*Sighs wistfully*


For a woman to really love a man, she must also love his gas.

Forgot where I heard that. :twisted:

edit}(Ohh yah, Family Guy)but I bet I quoted it wrong.}edit
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
They really don't :lol: - Soooooo....I try to retain some manners. :D
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
6,022
Reaction score
2,621
Points
239
Location
In a Liminal Zone
Thirty years ago we had a wing goverment, the country suffering brutal cuts, and a Royal Wedding (yes Chas' 'n' Di)

And as history repeats itself.....

...panem et circenses....

The Dail Mail
Tuesday, Nov 16 2010 12PM 8°C 3PM 7°C 5-Day Forecast
Prince William and Kate Middleton are engaged and will marry in 2011

By Nicola Boden
Last updated at 11:51 AM on 16th November 2010
Comments (261) Add to My Stories .

•Couple became engaged in Kenya last month
•William asked her father for her hand
•They will marry in spring or summer

•David Cameron says he's 'delighted' at the news

Prince William and Kate Middleton are engaged and will marry next year, Clarence House announced today.

William, 28, proposed during a holiday in Kenya last month after asking Kate's father for his daughter's hand.

The couple have been together for eight years and Kate had been dubbed 'Waity Katy' amid criticism that she hanging on for a proposal but now her wait is over.

The pair have been together for eight years and have recently been spending much of their time in north Wales where William is a search and rescue pilot.


Their wedding, scheduled for 2011, will be the biggest royal event since the wedding of William's mother and father in the 80s.

Clarence House said: 'The Prince of Wales is delighted to announce the engagement of Prince William to Miss Catherine Middleton.

'The wedding will take place in the Spring or Summer of 2011, in London. Further details about the wedding day will be announced in due course.


'Prince William and Miss Middleton became engaged in October during a private holiday in Kenya.


'Prince William has informed The Queen and other close members of his family. Prince William has also sought the permission of Miss Middleton's father.


'Following the marriage, the couple will live in north Wales, where Prince William will continue to serve with the Royal Air Force.'

It is claimed personnel at Westminster Abbey have been contacted about arranging a royal wedding in the second week of August.

David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband both said they were 'delighted' for the couple.

The Prime Minister was told of the engagement during the Cabinet meeting this morning and relayed it to ministers.


Earlier this month, the Daily Mail exclusively revealed Kate Middleton's parents were guests at a private shooting party on the Queen's Scottish estate.

The move was seen as highly symbolic and an indication that the middle-clas Middleton family were now firmly being welcomed into the royal fold.


It is now clear that Kate and William, who are both 28, were already engaged at the time of the visit to Birkhall, Prince Charles' private residence on the Balmoral estate.


The invitation to Mr Middleton, a former airline despatcher, and ex-air hostess Carole shows the royal family were keen to start off on the right foot as Kate edges to becoming a Princess.

I'll need a new hat and posh frock...
 

titch

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
5,145
Points
224
sadly i doubt the daily fail will spew their hate onto these benefit cheats. :evil:
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
4,663
Points
264
Middle class?

Thats a bit common, dont you think.

Means they take a manual of ettiquet with them to posh dos.

I doubt this relationship will work
 

linesmachine

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
915
Reaction score
35
Points
49
Kondoru said:
Middle class?

Thats a bit common, dont you think.

Means they take a manual of ettiquet with them to posh dos.

I doubt this relationship will work

....I agree, a clash of cultures could result in tears before bedtime. Saying that, at least she's not a Johnny Foreigner like Harry's bird. I mean to say, do they want to add variety to the royal gene pool?! Absolute rot.
 

Mike_Pratt33

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
624
Reaction score
5
Points
49
The most important question - Do we get a day off work?
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,144
Reaction score
9,243
Points
284
Mike_Pratt33 said:
The most important question - Do we get a day off work?
No good to me if we do - I'm retired!

It might even be worse for me if public transport isn't working! :(
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
33,931
Reaction score
23,328
Points
334
I remember the Charles and Diana wedding as one of the most boring days of my life. There was nothing on TV but that and everyone was expected to watch it. It was excruciatingly tedious. Don't need to watch this new one, though.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
47,599
Reaction score
43,812
Points
334
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
I think the timing is very good, actually.
It has the potential to do good things for tourism.
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,820
Reaction score
2,350
Points
189
And sales of shite memorabilia and other tat which is sold as "valuable collectables".

I have little interest in the Royals (even though this looks to be forced upon us for a while) but I'd be interested in this Kate Thingumy's antecedents. I mean, in days or yore, a certain "pedigree" had to be proved before being good enough to become a member of the royal family. Since the nobility of this land had been sidelined by the Nouveau Riche and Foreign Investors, unless the Royal Family has decided to introduce fresh (or at least non-related) blood into the line, then I wonder how related she is.

I realise there are dusty, traditionalist old fellers, smelling of peppermints and lavender water, who simply must be consulted on the breeding of youthful Royals, regardless of public - and rather plebian - ideals of love, attraction and the classless society.
 

McAvennie

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
1,976
Points
189
Stormkhan said:
I have little interest in the Royals (even though this looks to be forced upon us for a while) but I'd be interested in this Kate Thingumy's antecedents. I mean, in days or yore, a certain "pedigree" had to be proved before being good enough to become a member of the royal family.

Surely it is to be applauded that such ridiculous restrictions are no longer being forced upon the Royal youngsters?
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,670
Reaction score
14,784
Points
314
I can hear the fawning commentary right now...

"And as they leave St.Paul's, the happy couple wave through the barricades to the cheering crowds. As a squadron of unmanned remote surveillance drones fly in formation overhead, the couple and their guests are escorted to the armoured cars where they will be elegantly whisked away to the Palace for an Austerity Tea."
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,960
Reaction score
208
Points
114
'Let Joy be unconfined. Extra water rations and a handful of peanuts and raisins for all.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
'
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
53,978
Reaction score
32,251
Points
314
Location
Eblana
Madam, – I deplore the sexist and anti-republican sentiments behind the headline “Royal wedding on way as patient Middleton finally gets her prince” (Home News, November 17th). Furthermore, if The Irish Times is going to get into the business of “watching” the “royal” family of another country then you might at least get it right. Ms Middleton will not be the first “commoner” to marry the heir to the British throne since Anne Hyde. William is not the heir to the throne – his father is. Furthermore, the last “commoner” to marry an heir to the throne is his mother – in the British way of things she had a courtesy title by virtue of her father’s peerage – Lady Diana – but was legally a commoner herself (incidentally, she never became Princess Diana – she was Princess Charles – as is Camilla).

Ms Middleton may well be the first person (to marry a future British king) whose father is a commoner at the time of the marriage since Anne Hyde, but that is a slightly different thing. (Anne Hyde’s father, Sir Edward Hyde, was subsequently “raised” to the peerage and ultimately became an earl). – Yours, etc,

SÉ d’ALTON,

Palmerston Road, Dublin 6.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index ... 4283626271
 

titch

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
5,145
Points
224
So there is no point moving to Dublin for the duration? I am sick of it already. :evil:
 

Cultjunky

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,915
Reaction score
490
Points
99
What bugs me the most is all the other stuff that would normally make headlines just sailing under the radar. But rising in my 'bugs me' chart is the endless speculation, not reporting, that's going on. FFS, does anyone really need a twenty min segment on where they might tie the knot?

On the BEEB of all places, you'd think it was Orpington. Tsk!
 
Top