Title: Approval to Charles, Camilla wedding
editor - February 12, 2005 08:46 AM (GMT)
Ulster's Protestant clerics give approval to Charles, Camilla wedding
By Alf McCreary
11 February 2005
Senior Protestant church figures in Northern Ireland have given the wedding broad approval.
The Presbyterian Moderator, the Rt Rev Ken Newell, told the Belfast Telegraph: "Christianity accepts that people make mistakes, that some marriages do not work out, and that a lot of pain is involved. This has been part of the experience of the Royal couple, and I wish them every happiness for the future.
"I am glad that they have decided to get married, rather than to continue in a half-hidden relationship."
The former Methodist President, the Rev Jim Rea, said: "The Church supports the institution of marriage. This is a pastoral matter concerning the Prince and Mrs Parker-Bowles, and I have no difficulty whatever in accepting their marriage."
The Church of Ireland Dean of Belfast, the Very Rev Dr Houston McKelvey, said: "Prince Charles and Mrs Parker-Bowles have been regular worshippers who have had to live greatly in the public eye. To my mind the only thing that really matters in this situation is their relationship to God and to each other."
By Alf McCreary
11 February 2005
Senior Protestant church figures in Northern Ireland have given the wedding broad approval.
The Presbyterian Moderator, the Rt Rev Ken Newell, told the Belfast Telegraph: "Christianity accepts that people make mistakes, that some marriages do not work out, and that a lot of pain is involved. This has been part of the experience of the Royal couple, and I wish them every happiness for the future.
"I am glad that they have decided to get married, rather than to continue in a half-hidden relationship."
The former Methodist President, the Rev Jim Rea, said: "The Church supports the institution of marriage. This is a pastoral matter concerning the Prince and Mrs Parker-Bowles, and I have no difficulty whatever in accepting their marriage."
The Church of Ireland Dean of Belfast, the Very Rev Dr Houston McKelvey, said: "Prince Charles and Mrs Parker-Bowles have been regular worshippers who have had to live greatly in the public eye. To my mind the only thing that really matters in this situation is their relationship to God and to each other."
monkey143 - February 12, 2005 02:01 PM (GMT)
:blink: Hunh?!?! :wacko:
editor - February 12, 2005 02:09 PM (GMT)
I'd love to find an interview with the Queen Mother. I did not know the Rotweiler and Charles were tying the knot until I saw this. :tool:
editor - February 13, 2005 09:12 AM (GMT)
ROYAL PASTIMES
Fri Feb 11, 7:59 PM ET Op/Ed - William F. Buckley
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The talk of the wedding planned by the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles seems mostly genial. For a while, royal communicants thought it would not come off; but they were wrong, it seems. After April 8, when the wedding takes place (it would be provincial to say, after the wedding is "consummated"), the Prince of Wales will get on with his duties, married to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall.
William F. Buckley
But when he ascends the throne, he will be Defender of the Faith ("Fidei Defensor") like his mother, the present queen. And indeed like every other British monarch dating back to 1521, when the title was conferred by Pope Leo X on Henry VIII, in appreciation of the king's rejection of Martin Luther's schism. Little did the pope know what the Defender of the Faith would go on to do, but the honorific stayed on through the Protestantization of Great Britain. The full title of the British sovereign once spoke of Emperor of India. The time came, after the war, when decolonization set in. King George VI had to abandon India, but not the Faith.
There are temporal responsibilities, held formally by the crown. Prince Charles, like his mother, will be head of the Church of England. His prospective ascendancy has been troubling because of the marital situation.
In brief, Charles was captivated, in 1970, by Camilla. On meeting him, she said, "My great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather's mistress." But three years later she married Major Andrew Parker Bowles. They had children, but to make it clear that the close friendship survived, the son of that union was christened with Prince Charles serving as godfather. Parker Bowles even accepted the title (if you can bear it) of Silver Stick in Waiting to the prince. Anybody who will do that for the prince will do anything, and indeed Major Parker Bowles was quickly cuckolded, without apparent objection, though he and Camilla eventually got divorced.
Meanwhile, Charles had married Diana, who was soon complaining about her husband's double life. But she of course died in 1997, so that the decks were partly cleared. But Major Parker Bowles didn't die, so that Camilla is a divorced woman with a living husband, and the rules here had been for a very long time rather firm. Kings could sleep around, but not marry divorcees, as Edward VIII discovered, forfeiting his crown.
Now there lingers the problem of the auspices of the forthcoming marriage. Well, it will be a civil ceremony. Queen Elizabeth is not about to exercise her power to simply repeal the prohibition against marriage to a divorced person. But the surrounding benignity of the whole scene incorporates the archbishop of Canterbury. He has to deny his premises to the couple, but he will have a special Christian service of "prayer and dedication" at St. George's Chapel in Windsor.
The two princelings have joined the chorus of well-wishers, issuing a joint statement: "We are both very happy for our father and Camilla and we wish them all the luck in the future." That's the kind of send-off one might have expected if Charles and Camilla had had an entry in the British Derby.
But "luck" replaces other forms of equipoise, when princes take mistresses, mistresses shed families, queens dither in the matter of royal respectability, titles are contrived -- Princess of Wales, no; Duchess of Cornwall, OK -- and life goes on.
Is it jerky to ask what article of faith is the crown in the business of defending? If the solemnity of marriage isn't an article of faith, what is? Granted that British sovereigns have indulged in wayward romance. It is striking that Henry VIII declined this alternative to marital union. His way of doing it was simply to discard a wife (retire her, or execute her) and take on another wife. So that at least one could maintain that he defended the faith by having only one queen at a time.
The evanescence of practicing Christianity in Europe is in contrast to the huge enrollments in the faith in the Third World. If present trends continue, author Philip Jenkins calculates in his recent book, "The Next Christendom," by 2025 there will be 633 million Christians in Africa, 640 million in South America and 460 million in Asia.
Fri Feb 11, 7:59 PM ET Op/Ed - William F. Buckley
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The talk of the wedding planned by the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles seems mostly genial. For a while, royal communicants thought it would not come off; but they were wrong, it seems. After April 8, when the wedding takes place (it would be provincial to say, after the wedding is "consummated"), the Prince of Wales will get on with his duties, married to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall.
William F. Buckley
But when he ascends the throne, he will be Defender of the Faith ("Fidei Defensor") like his mother, the present queen. And indeed like every other British monarch dating back to 1521, when the title was conferred by Pope Leo X on Henry VIII, in appreciation of the king's rejection of Martin Luther's schism. Little did the pope know what the Defender of the Faith would go on to do, but the honorific stayed on through the Protestantization of Great Britain. The full title of the British sovereign once spoke of Emperor of India. The time came, after the war, when decolonization set in. King George VI had to abandon India, but not the Faith.
There are temporal responsibilities, held formally by the crown. Prince Charles, like his mother, will be head of the Church of England. His prospective ascendancy has been troubling because of the marital situation.
In brief, Charles was captivated, in 1970, by Camilla. On meeting him, she said, "My great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather's mistress." But three years later she married Major Andrew Parker Bowles. They had children, but to make it clear that the close friendship survived, the son of that union was christened with Prince Charles serving as godfather. Parker Bowles even accepted the title (if you can bear it) of Silver Stick in Waiting to the prince. Anybody who will do that for the prince will do anything, and indeed Major Parker Bowles was quickly cuckolded, without apparent objection, though he and Camilla eventually got divorced.
Meanwhile, Charles had married Diana, who was soon complaining about her husband's double life. But she of course died in 1997, so that the decks were partly cleared. But Major Parker Bowles didn't die, so that Camilla is a divorced woman with a living husband, and the rules here had been for a very long time rather firm. Kings could sleep around, but not marry divorcees, as Edward VIII discovered, forfeiting his crown.
Now there lingers the problem of the auspices of the forthcoming marriage. Well, it will be a civil ceremony. Queen Elizabeth is not about to exercise her power to simply repeal the prohibition against marriage to a divorced person. But the surrounding benignity of the whole scene incorporates the archbishop of Canterbury. He has to deny his premises to the couple, but he will have a special Christian service of "prayer and dedication" at St. George's Chapel in Windsor.
The two princelings have joined the chorus of well-wishers, issuing a joint statement: "We are both very happy for our father and Camilla and we wish them all the luck in the future." That's the kind of send-off one might have expected if Charles and Camilla had had an entry in the British Derby.
But "luck" replaces other forms of equipoise, when princes take mistresses, mistresses shed families, queens dither in the matter of royal respectability, titles are contrived -- Princess of Wales, no; Duchess of Cornwall, OK -- and life goes on.
Is it jerky to ask what article of faith is the crown in the business of defending? If the solemnity of marriage isn't an article of faith, what is? Granted that British sovereigns have indulged in wayward romance. It is striking that Henry VIII declined this alternative to marital union. His way of doing it was simply to discard a wife (retire her, or execute her) and take on another wife. So that at least one could maintain that he defended the faith by having only one queen at a time.
The evanescence of practicing Christianity in Europe is in contrast to the huge enrollments in the faith in the Third World. If present trends continue, author Philip Jenkins calculates in his recent book, "The Next Christendom," by 2025 there will be 633 million Christians in Africa, 640 million in South America and 460 million in Asia.
lin1235 - February 14, 2005 08:01 AM (GMT)
Incredible how much pomp and ceremony the Brits can attach to anything...
While I do have a problem with them having an affair while both were still married, on a plain human level I'm glad for them that they can at last get married. They must have wanted this for a long time, and believed it impossible.
While I do have a problem with them having an affair while both were still married, on a plain human level I'm glad for them that they can at last get married. They must have wanted this for a long time, and believed it impossible.
editor - February 14, 2005 09:05 AM (GMT)
Me too. I will never accept her because she was the "other woman", but look how very long they have been together!
boysbach - February 16, 2005 03:51 AM (GMT)
Candy you will have a long wait to see a report by the Queen Mother she is dead but she didn't approve of Camilla.
Interesting you post from Northern Ireland because that would not be typical of the mainland Brits.
There will be no pomp and ceremony for this wedding, nobody is sure at the moment if it will be a legal wedding or not. Seems the rules changed about civil weddings (registry office) but excludes royals in it. And they want to get married in a civil wedding as the Church of England will not allow them to get married because they are divorced.
They could get married but they would not be legally married in the eyes of British law now work that one out if you will, Camilla will be a common law wife only.
Or maybe if anyone speaks against the marriage they will prosecuted under the new blasphmeny laws which are being debated. Europe is trying to make it illegal to say homosexual relationships are wrong and various other things which are against the Bible. One Pastor in Sweden was put into prison for 1 month accused of saying the Bible says homosexual relationships are wrong.
Interesting you post from Northern Ireland because that would not be typical of the mainland Brits.
There will be no pomp and ceremony for this wedding, nobody is sure at the moment if it will be a legal wedding or not. Seems the rules changed about civil weddings (registry office) but excludes royals in it. And they want to get married in a civil wedding as the Church of England will not allow them to get married because they are divorced.
They could get married but they would not be legally married in the eyes of British law now work that one out if you will, Camilla will be a common law wife only.
Or maybe if anyone speaks against the marriage they will prosecuted under the new blasphmeny laws which are being debated. Europe is trying to make it illegal to say homosexual relationships are wrong and various other things which are against the Bible. One Pastor in Sweden was put into prison for 1 month accused of saying the Bible says homosexual relationships are wrong.
editor - February 16, 2005 08:23 AM (GMT)
I knew we could count on our ace reporter to clear things up.
gracie - February 16, 2005 08:36 PM (GMT)
If only it had been approved many years ago, then it would have saved some folks much heartbreak.
boysbach - March 1, 2005 09:24 AM (GMT)
I don't know how much you have kept up with this news, but they are no longer able to get married at Windsor Castle, the Queen and Prince Philip have said they will not attend the wedding. They will have a blessing at the chapel at Windsor castle and the Queen will give a small finger buffet reception. Turns out they have decided to go to Balmoral for their honeymoon but the cottages in the ground have already been booked out to the public so no private honeymoon for them.
editor - March 1, 2005 09:51 AM (GMT)
Thank you so much for the update. I haven't folowed any news for a few days. I am not surprised the Queen is not attending. Finger foods is hardly an approval. LOL
Americans lived for Di news. Even Fergie still gets attention. But never Charles other than his love affair, and that doesn't even seem to hit the gossip columns any more. I wonder how his sons feel about this? Any gossip?
Americans lived for Di news. Even Fergie still gets attention. But never Charles other than his love affair, and that doesn't even seem to hit the gossip columns any more. I wonder how his sons feel about this? Any gossip?
WebTimothy - March 4, 2005 12:39 AM (GMT)
ENGAGEMENT PHOTO
editor - March 4, 2005 08:00 AM (GMT)
:lol: I don't know who comes up with these things, but that was :muha:
editor - March 22, 2005 02:10 PM (GMT)
Ed's note: Sent to me by Boysbach:
It's Queen Camilla as the law stands
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 22/03/2005)
Camilla Parker Bowles will automatically become queen when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne unless there is a change in the law, the Government admitted for the first time yesterday.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs said that to prevent that happening legislation would be needed, no matter what Mrs Parker Bowles wished to call herself when Charles became king.
‘Queen’ Camilla?
A spokesman said: "I think that is probably the case because in all similar circumstances in past royal marriages that is what has happened."
Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state, the spokesman said it would be right to think that "it would require legislation for her not to be queen".
The Prime Minister's official spokesman also indicated that legislation would be required. "The position at the moment is limited to what the title would be on her marriage," he said.
"In terms of any future events, let's wait until future events arise.
However, on the question of whether Mrs Parker Bowles would automatically become queen, the spokesman said he was "not disputing" what had been said.
The controversial issue was raised following Government confirmation yesterday that the marriage would not be morganatic - a union in which Mrs Parker Bowles would have no claim on the sovereign's rights, status and privileges.
Christopher Leslie, the constitutional affairs minister, confirmed the status in a Commons written reply to a question tabled by the Labour backbencher Andrew Mackinlay.
Clarence House has consistently pointed out since the announcement of the engagement on Feb 10 that it was not to be a morganatic marriage, with Mrs Parker Bowles assuming the style HRH the Duchess of Cornwall after the wedding on April 8.
However, Clarence House and the Government appear at odds over the legal status of the title "Princess Consort" which she intends to take when Prince Charles becomes king.
A spokesman for the prince said yesterday: "The advice we have been given is that the wife of the king is known as queen only by convention and not by legal statute. Therefore, it is possible for the Duchess of Cornwall to choose to be known as the Princess Consort rather than queen."
He added: "However, if the government of the day felt legislation were required to clarify the matter, then the renewal of the Civil List Act, which is required at every accession, would provide the opportunity to clarify the legal position. It seems what we all think today is not necessarily the point. It is what people at the time think.
"With any legal situation there are always different views. If the government said that legislation would be needed it would not be a problem. It can easily be done in the Civil List Act. This is something which is a long way in the future, we hope."
Mr Mackinlay added his voice to those claiming that for Mrs Parker Bowles not to become queen automatically would require legislation. "This is unequivocal that she becomes queen when he becomes king," he said.
Mr Mackinlay said that legislation would be needed in 17 parliaments around the world, where the British monarch is head of state, for the change to be made.
"I am perfectly happy for the Prince of Wales to marry whoever he likes but altering the constitution is Parliament's business and this does require an alteration to the constitution," he said.
"It should not be done for one man and one man alone. There are two other things that should be altered: one is the primogeniture rule and the other is the limit on the religious faith of the person who can marry the heir to the throne.
"The Government has said that, among other things, the prince's right to marry is enshrined in the European convention on human rights. Well, these other two limitations are clearly at odds with it."
It's Queen Camilla as the law stands
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 22/03/2005)
Camilla Parker Bowles will automatically become queen when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne unless there is a change in the law, the Government admitted for the first time yesterday.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs said that to prevent that happening legislation would be needed, no matter what Mrs Parker Bowles wished to call herself when Charles became king.
‘Queen’ Camilla?
A spokesman said: "I think that is probably the case because in all similar circumstances in past royal marriages that is what has happened."
Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state, the spokesman said it would be right to think that "it would require legislation for her not to be queen".
The Prime Minister's official spokesman also indicated that legislation would be required. "The position at the moment is limited to what the title would be on her marriage," he said.
"In terms of any future events, let's wait until future events arise.
However, on the question of whether Mrs Parker Bowles would automatically become queen, the spokesman said he was "not disputing" what had been said.
The controversial issue was raised following Government confirmation yesterday that the marriage would not be morganatic - a union in which Mrs Parker Bowles would have no claim on the sovereign's rights, status and privileges.
Christopher Leslie, the constitutional affairs minister, confirmed the status in a Commons written reply to a question tabled by the Labour backbencher Andrew Mackinlay.
Clarence House has consistently pointed out since the announcement of the engagement on Feb 10 that it was not to be a morganatic marriage, with Mrs Parker Bowles assuming the style HRH the Duchess of Cornwall after the wedding on April 8.
However, Clarence House and the Government appear at odds over the legal status of the title "Princess Consort" which she intends to take when Prince Charles becomes king.
A spokesman for the prince said yesterday: "The advice we have been given is that the wife of the king is known as queen only by convention and not by legal statute. Therefore, it is possible for the Duchess of Cornwall to choose to be known as the Princess Consort rather than queen."
He added: "However, if the government of the day felt legislation were required to clarify the matter, then the renewal of the Civil List Act, which is required at every accession, would provide the opportunity to clarify the legal position. It seems what we all think today is not necessarily the point. It is what people at the time think.
"With any legal situation there are always different views. If the government said that legislation would be needed it would not be a problem. It can easily be done in the Civil List Act. This is something which is a long way in the future, we hope."
Mr Mackinlay added his voice to those claiming that for Mrs Parker Bowles not to become queen automatically would require legislation. "This is unequivocal that she becomes queen when he becomes king," he said.
Mr Mackinlay said that legislation would be needed in 17 parliaments around the world, where the British monarch is head of state, for the change to be made.
"I am perfectly happy for the Prince of Wales to marry whoever he likes but altering the constitution is Parliament's business and this does require an alteration to the constitution," he said.
"It should not be done for one man and one man alone. There are two other things that should be altered: one is the primogeniture rule and the other is the limit on the religious faith of the person who can marry the heir to the throne.
"The Government has said that, among other things, the prince's right to marry is enshrined in the European convention on human rights. Well, these other two limitations are clearly at odds with it."
editor - April 4, 2005 02:39 PM (GMT)
Prince Charles' Wedding to Be Delayed
20 minutes ago Europe - AP
By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer
LONDON - Prince Charles will delay his wedding by a day to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II on Friday, his office announced Monday.
The heir to the British throne was to have wed Camilla Parker Bowles in a civil ceremony on Friday but instead will represent Queen Elizabeth II at the funeral.
Charles and Parker Bowles made the decision to move the wedding to Saturday after he cut short his Swiss skiing vacation Monday, a spokesman for his Clarence House office said.
Charles returned to attend a memorial service for the pope at London's Westminster Cathedral, which Parker Bowles also planned to attend, the spokesman said. She will not be going to the funeral, the spokesman added.
Charles and Parker Bowles plan to marry in a civil ceremony in the town hall at Windsor, west of London.
Meanwhile, a replica of Parker Bowles' diamond engagement ring went on sale at a British supermarket Monday — and immediately became the chain's fastest selling jewelry item.
Asda is offering copies of the royal ring in sterling silver and emerald-cut cubic zirconia that retail for $34, and as of Monday morning, 30 percent of the 2,500 replicas had been sold, said Asda spokesman Ed Watson.
Parker Bowles' ring formerly belonged to the late Queen Mother Elizabeth and is made of platinum with a square central diamond with three diamond baguettes — rectangular diamonds — on either side.
Asda is also promising an upscale, made-to-order version priced at $54,000. It will be platinum with one 3.8-carat diamond and six others weighing a total of 1 carat.
Justine Reid, Asda's jewelry buyer, said the store has been "inundated with requests from royalists from as far afield as Australia and Japan" for the less expensive replica.
Office clerk Sandra Wall, 50, from Kent county south of London, was one of the first to buy a replica ring Monday at a store in south London.
"I'm a great fan of the royal family," she said. "I think it's great that they are finally getting married. I hope they will be very happy for the rest of their lives."
20 minutes ago Europe - AP
By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer
LONDON - Prince Charles will delay his wedding by a day to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II on Friday, his office announced Monday.
The heir to the British throne was to have wed Camilla Parker Bowles in a civil ceremony on Friday but instead will represent Queen Elizabeth II at the funeral.
Charles and Parker Bowles made the decision to move the wedding to Saturday after he cut short his Swiss skiing vacation Monday, a spokesman for his Clarence House office said.
Charles returned to attend a memorial service for the pope at London's Westminster Cathedral, which Parker Bowles also planned to attend, the spokesman said. She will not be going to the funeral, the spokesman added.
Charles and Parker Bowles plan to marry in a civil ceremony in the town hall at Windsor, west of London.
Meanwhile, a replica of Parker Bowles' diamond engagement ring went on sale at a British supermarket Monday — and immediately became the chain's fastest selling jewelry item.
Asda is offering copies of the royal ring in sterling silver and emerald-cut cubic zirconia that retail for $34, and as of Monday morning, 30 percent of the 2,500 replicas had been sold, said Asda spokesman Ed Watson.
Parker Bowles' ring formerly belonged to the late Queen Mother Elizabeth and is made of platinum with a square central diamond with three diamond baguettes — rectangular diamonds — on either side.
Asda is also promising an upscale, made-to-order version priced at $54,000. It will be platinum with one 3.8-carat diamond and six others weighing a total of 1 carat.
Justine Reid, Asda's jewelry buyer, said the store has been "inundated with requests from royalists from as far afield as Australia and Japan" for the less expensive replica.
Office clerk Sandra Wall, 50, from Kent county south of London, was one of the first to buy a replica ring Monday at a store in south London.
"I'm a great fan of the royal family," she said. "I think it's great that they are finally getting married. I hope they will be very happy for the rest of their lives."