The Cellar - Dumbo to marry the Rottweiler

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Dumbo to marry the Rottweiler (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=7729)

Dumbo to marry the Rottweiler

I put this in politics instead of current events because although it's not about the American political system, Clarence House has been working HARD on the politics of spin.

Personally I am freaking PISSED that he's going to marry the wench, that the Queen is going to let him, and that the church GAVE IN and said he can still be king if he does. This SUCKS.

Source

Quote:

The announcement would not have been made without the queen's approval, according to Sarah Bradford, a biographer of the monarch.

Quote:

CNN's Richard Quest said that the death of the Queen Mother, Charles' grandmother, had apparently removed the major hurdle to his marriage to Parker Bowles.

Damn right. The Queen Mother would NEVER have stood for this. She's prolly spinning in her grave right now.

Quote:

Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England if he took the throne, and some Anglicans remain opposed to the remarriage of divorcees.

The church is officially neutral on the issue, but former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey recently urged the couple to marry.

Are there NO compromises the church won't make? They change the rules and then try to tell us "God is unchanging". It's repulsive.

I thought the whole point of the Anglican church was to allow remarriage of divorcees?

Well, Charles is no longer married even by Catholic rules, let alone Anglican.

And, sure, the Anglican church was _founded_ on divorce. I'm surprised it's not a sacrement.

Rottweilers are much cuter than Camilla. :3eye:

Quote:

Originally Posted by russotto

Well, Charles is no longer married even by Catholic rules, let alone Anglican.

SHE is.

Quote:

There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before.

Quote:

1957 Act of Convocation- "…in order to maintain the principle of lifelong obligation which is inherent in every legally contracted marriage and is expressed in the plainest terms in the Marriage Service, the Church should not allow the use of that Service in the case of anyone who has a former partner still living".

So up until 2002 Charles could marry because Diana was dead, but Camilla could not because her husband is still alive.

Quote:

2002 General Synod motion, "That this Synod (a) 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"; (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) invite the House of Bishops to issue the advice contained in Annex 1 of GS 1449."

The New, "improved" Anglican Church.

*retch*

Pardon me for asking, but is there a reason you're so lathered up about this? I consider it to be unusually inconsequential, unimportant news.

Well, mostly, I'm pissed that the Anglican Church, faced with declining membership, is changing the rules that God laid down.

Look, there are two ways to go with your religion: either there's a God or not.
If there is a God, then you believe the bible is his infallible word or not.
If the Bible is the infallible, last word, than you choose to mitigate the old testament covenents with the new testament ones, or not.
If you do, then you follow those mitigated rules, or you dont.
If you do, then you can't change the rules because you feel like it.

Which they did.

That's what I have a problem with, number one.

Number 2, is the ruling monarch is the Head of the Anglican Church and be the epitome of that religion. He adulterated with this woman while he was married and admitted it on national television.

If Charles becomes King, ANY respect they may have held as a strictly figurehead monarchy will be gone.

And Dumbo will be king of England. Is that Really the kind of image we want?? At least Elizabeth has a sense of propriety.

If divorce is "just one of a series" of differences, doesn't that also mean it is one difference? One of Henry's ex-wives survived him, so he definitely remarried while he had living ex-wives.

....who cares? I'd be the last person to protect Charles, pompous windbag is a waste of space but is this really that bigger deal?

I just want to go on the record as saying that Diana was remarkably attractive, and that's the limit of my interest in this topic. Thank you.

i thought infidelity was a biblically acceptable reason for divorce.

So Camilla (who I think looks like a poorly used pony, not a Rottweiler) needs to get an annullment. BFD.

(given the lather over this, one would have thought there would have been more discussion about John Kerry, the failure of his first marriage, and his marriage to Tah-Ray-Zah.)

kerry wouldn't have been the first previously married president. i think reagan caught the sh*tstorm on that issue didn't he?

just like kennedy caught flak for being the first catholic

Personally, I think Chaz and Cam deserve each other--what with him wishing to be a tampon up her box and all--quite fitting for the Future King, eh?