Thursday, March 01, 2012

The Three Queens


It may be 30 or 40 years hence, but there is likely to come a time when this photograph will be viewed as the first of the 'Three Queens' performing an official engagement. Such coincidence is usually reserved for coronations, weddings and funerals.

88 Comments:

Anonymous Revtel said...

Two perhaps, but three? I doubt that we will ever see a Queen Camilla.
Thank God...

1 March 2012 at 15:56  
Anonymous Tanfield said...

I must say I was doubtful about Camilla at first but as time has gone on and I have seen more of her "in action" (on TV - not in the flesh) the more I have been impressed with her. Whatever the personal background she seems a far more sensible and solid character than her predecessor. As was said at the time of the abdication by the then Attorney-General "the wife of the King is Queen and it would take an Act of Parliament to change that". I doubt if Parliament would have the time or inclination to do this , especially if the current financial/eurozone crisis continues for a long time. Whether Camilla would wish to take the formal Title of Queen or continue as she is now is, of course, another matter.

1 March 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Would the King, the Supreme Head of the Church of England, have to be in communion with the Church he heads?

If so, is a man, albeit a King, living with a divorcee and therefore not married in the eyes of the Church, in communion with the Church? Or, as the Head of that Church, can he change the rules?

Just asking.

1 March 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

...a man, albeit a Pope...not married...as the Head of that Church, can he change the rules?

Just asking.

1 March 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger Pubcrawler said...

Supreme Governor, not Supreme Head. The head is Christ.

1 March 2012 at 17:29  
Blogger Unknown said...

God grant that the one in the middle never become Queen of the UK and the Commonwealth realms; the prospect of such an eventuality is enough to drive this Canadian Loyalist into republicanism. Camilla's being a HRH is already a big step too far. Cranmer has lost his marbles on this one.

1 March 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger Unknown said...

God grant that the one in the middle never become Queen of the UK and the Commonwealth realms; the prospect of such an eventuality is enough to drive this Canadian Loyalist into republicanism. Camilla's being a HRH is already a big step too far. Cranmer has lost his marbles on this one.

1 March 2012 at 17:32  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
May her Majesty queen Elizabeth 11 live long enough that William will be next King. I have no problem with Camilla. She was treated very badly 40 years ago by Charles and those that have the say.
May the 'Defender of all faiths' never get the chance to be so.

1 March 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hmmm. King Charles III as supreme governor. “The lesson today is taken from the koran”. heh heh

1 March 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Dear Mr Dodo

The RCC has been making it up as it goes along since time immemorial.

Since the time of the councils of Trent, and more then likely many years before, The RCC has been inculcating Babylonian mysticism, Roman tradition, and Papist expediency into everything it gotten itself involved with. Which is then as now, every single aspect of material and spiritual existence. What it has often forgotten while embarked on this power grab, is Biblical teaching, most of all that of Jesus Christ contained therein.

Where, pray tell, did Jesus Christ promote the establishment of something as profoundly self-serving, hypocritically materialistic, unbelievably wealthy, cruelly dictatorial, habitually conspiratorial and savagely authoritarian, as The Roman Catholic Church?

Revelation has much to say about it's coming, but as you should very well know, this inevitability is not betrayed in a notably positive light, to say the very least.

1 March 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Cranmer
Mr Dodo,
...a man, albeit a Pope...not married...as the Head of that Church, can he change the rules?
Just asking.


Good Lord, you were quick off the mark there!

You may be better versed in the Canonical law concerning this given your interest in past times and there is some historical precedent.

My quess is that the Pope has to operate within the rules of the Church. So no, he cannot validly change the rules to suit particular circumstances. The sacrament of marriage if validly entered into cannot be annulled.

Which returns us to my initial question:

Would the King, the Supreme Head of the Church of England, have to be in communion with the Church he heads?

If so, is a man, albeit a King, living with a divorcee and therefore not married in the eyes of the Church, in communion with the Church?

1 March 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

And you were slow to respond.

His Grace's question is quite simple, and you have not answered it.

You wish to focus on the marriage of the Supreme Governor (not 'Head') of the Church of England while ignoring the plank in the eye of the Roman Catholic Church. Setting aside the invention of mandatory priestly celibacy, the Pope, being a man, presumes to have the authority to amend the Word of God where marriage is concerned. He presumed to 'validly change the rules to suit particular circumstances', viz., he insisted that Henry VIII marry his brother's widow.

Leviticus 18:16 says: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness."

Leviticus 20:21 says: "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing...they shall be childless."

The Pope presumed to waive ('validly') the levitical prohibition for political expediency. What 'rules of the Church' may conflict with the rules of God? And if they should do so, what manner of church is it, and by what authority does its pope lead?

1 March 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Come now Atlas. How does organised Christian religion survive in this wicked self serving world. Allow the Inspector to enlighten you. Organisation and absolute discipline is how. And thanks to the reformation, we can see protestant setups lacking either or both of those two allowing man’s corrupting influence to infiltrate. In other words, some of us are more than happy with the RCC as it is. Come over and enjoy the stability, or remain as you are, semi paranoid and conspiracy obsessed...

1 March 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Cranmer said ...

"And you were slow to respond"

Family matters, dear Sir, always take precedence.

Are we going to rake up past history now and get into another pointless and 'sectarian' squabble?

As you know there are two versions of Henry VIII's first marriage. The sorry affair is not all wholesome. However, by the standards and practices of the time Henry VIII was validly married to Catherine of Aragon.

Did Prince Arthur, at age of 15, during his 20 week marriage to Catherine of Aragon consumate this union thus making it valid?Catherine swore that her marriage to Arthur had not been consummated.

In any event, the Pope had additionally granted a dispensation to overrule the impediment of affinity, perfectly legitimate within Canon Law. This removed all doubt regarding the legitimacy of the marriage.

Henry seemingly declared that his betrothal had been arranged without his consent. Nevertheless, at aged 17, he married Catherine and the two were crowned King and Queen.

Of course once Henry seperatedfrom Rome, a seies of other marriages then ensued and each had a 'valid' ending.

We are now in the 21st Century! Back to Charles as the potential Monarch and the Head, sorry, Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Does the King have to be in communion with the Church of England? If so, given he is living with a divorcee and not married in the eyes of the Church, is he in communion with the Church?

You're not claiming Camilla's marriage is invalid are you? Unconsumated, arranged for political purposes or entered into against her wishes?

And it's Pope with a Capital P and the Church he leads has the authority granted by Christ to loose and bind.

1 March 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good show, that bird. Well batted...

1 March 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Be careful, our host is more than capable of pulling my position apart ... in a polite and erudite manner.

Mr Cranmer

To round it off, Idohave a personal opinion on this.

If the Pope and the Church withheld annulment simply for political reasons, or because they perceived Henry and the English Church as attempting to improperly usurp the authority of the Pope, rather than for valid Canonical reasons, then this was wrong.

We will never know the answer to this in this life. The plain fact is that the affairs of State and the affairs of Christ's Church should be kept seperate insofar as this is possible.

However, Christian Kings, whose authority to reign comes from God and who are crowned by His Church,, should remain in communion with His Church.

1 March 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

His Grace is disappointed to read your response. On the one hand, we are to infer, contra human experience, history and nature, that a man not only failed to consummate his marriage on his wedding night, but that he failed consistently over 20 weeks; and on the other, that Canon Law may indeed override Scripture when the Pope decrees it.

Further, you appear to suggest that the age of 15 is somehow significant, as though you have forgotten that the hormones rage even more fiercely at that age, and that the merest suggestion of impotence is, frankly, irrational.

But further still, you stated that you found His Grace's question 'sectarian', and, to detach yourself from potential offence, you placed the word in scare quotes, leaving the insult hurled but somehow unmeant. Since 'sectarian' is no different from the term 'bigot', and observing your frequent outbursts against other religions upon this blog, please explain why a perfectly reasoned historical and theological question is 'sectarian', but your swipe at both the Church of England and its next Supreme Governor was not.

1 March 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Cranmer

First, the marriage was arranged, Prince Arhur was a sickly and unwell youth at the time and this may have had a bearing on his libido. Catherine swore too it was not consumated. Was she a liar?

I used the term 'sectarian' because 'history' in this matter is not free from attachment to sides in the reformation. Catholics then argued one way; Anglicans another. This still applies today in some quarters and there is no way of resolving it. My view is there was probably fault on all sides.

I am not a canon lawyer or a theologian, but I think Leviticus (have you read it?) is seen as part of the Mosaic Law replaced by Christ. Not all of it is consistent with the totality of the Bible - unlike, for example, the teachings on homosexuality.

The authority for the Pope to exempt an individual or situation from a law stems from his position as the Vicar of Christ, which implies divine authority as well as jurisdiction.

It's not about overriding scripture - it's about its correct application to particular situations. Didn't Jesus say:
The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath?

Was it a swipe at the future King and the next Supreme Govenor of the Church of England? I certainly believe his marriage poses a succession problem given his position as the Church of England's Supreme Governor.

A few days ago you posted a blog in defence of Christian marriage. Divorce too is contrary to God's intention for marriage signifying as it does the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.

1 March 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Cranmer

"'sectarian' is no different from the term 'bigot'"

I beg to differ. Bigotry often accompanies sectarianism or arises from it, but it does not have the meaning.

The adjective according to an on line dictionary can mean one of the following:

Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
Narrow-minded; parochial.

The noun means one of the following:

A member of a sect.
One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.

It does not automatically follow that a sectarian viewpoint is bigotry. I was using it as an adjective and in the sense of a partisan and/or dogmatic representation of history.

Trust this clears this up.

2 March 2012 at 00:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

And I actually said:
"Are we going to rake up past history now and get into another pointless and 'sectarian' squabble?"

This implies dual responsibility and a difference in opinion. Maybe you're right in suggesting its just on my side. However, I did not state that I found:
"His Grace's question 'sectarian'

2 March 2012 at 00:20  
Blogger Oswin said...

Your Grace: don't go there, that way lies madness, trust me! Dodo is best handled with the shitty end of a pointy stick.

2 March 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin,what a silly comment!

2 March 2012 at 00:54  
Blogger C.Law said...

YG,

you jumped on Dodo rather sharply, implying that because he is an adherent to the RCC he should not comment on the question of whether Prince Charles could serve as the Supreme Governor of the CofE given his marital status.

He has a valid question, which is obviously a matter of concern to others - just look at the first few comments above - and deserves an answer, which you have so far ducked giving.

Your view on this question would be of interest to readers of your blog.

2 March 2012 at 02:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo declared @1 March 2012 17:07 @1 March 2012 19:16 @1 March 2012 21:24 @1 March 2012 23:18 @2 March 2012 00:12 and finally (Phew) @ 2 March 2012 00:20 an undying need for His Grace's unreserved attention and child-like behaviour to receive the verbal scolding.

Dodo fancies Cranmer. La la la.
Dodo fancies Cranmer. La la la.

Must we get OoiG to liaise for you and tell His Grace that you fancy him.

DanJo WILL be jealous! *Sound of ruffled petticoats swishing in the playground*

Ps

This means that if you marry, you maybe required to change religion.*Gasp of horror*

What will the Pope say?

Ernst (Oy vey! Did I really just say all that?) Blofeld


Tiddler on the Hoof?

Ernst:
Well, somebody has to arrange the matches,

Oswin:
She might bring someone wonderful----

Ernst:
Someone interesting----

Oswin:
And well off----

Ernst:
And important, an Archbishop of CofE?---

Matchmaker, Matchmaker,
Make Dodo a match,
Find Dodo a find,
catch him a catch
Matchmaker, Matchmaker
Look through your book,
And make him a perfect match

Apologies to Oswin, for dragging the poor lad into a parody for humourous effect but as they say in Yiddish/Tiddlish ;
A nar git un a kluger nemt.'A fool gives and the clever one takes'. Thank You Dodo!

Tis me birthday and wish all the very best for the coming year to all that love this blog. *Ernst blowing out the veritable prairie fire a top his Cake, whilst making his birthday wish*.


)

2 March 2012 at 02:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have to say that when I use the term 'bigot' I usually mean someone who, when presented with substantial contrary facts or blatant flaws in their arguments prefer to cleave to what are essentially beliefs rather than adjust them to reality, usually with an accompanying outburst of anger.

2 March 2012 at 04:38  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

DanJo;
A valid and useful comment for a change.

2 March 2012 at 07:20  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

It's damned hard trying to blog here in Dubai when so much of the page gets changed in to Arabic!

2 March 2012 at 07:24  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

I'm reminded of the opening of a book on the Stuarts, beginning with Gloriana's funeral ....
Misquoting from memory:
"Very few of those who were present remebered when she had not been Queen, and those that could, did not enjoy that memory"

2 March 2012 at 09:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst
Happy Birthday and may you have many more of them. Wishing you and your family all the best.

You havn't been tiling floors again, have you? Clear signs of solvent influence in your last post!

DanJ0
Isn't the essence of "bigotry" prejudicial obstinancy and intolerance, often accompanied by discrimination and hatred?

Not everything can be proven factually and not all arguments share agreed premises and precepts.

C Law
To be fair, our host's focus was not on the substantive issue of Charles' spiritual position in relation to communion with the Church of England.

His questions focused on the legitimacy of the Pope's decision to permit (or "insist"?) Henry to marry Catherine of Aragon and the grounds for later refusing to annul it.

He also took umbrage at my later use of the word "sectarian" seeing this as equivalent to "bigot".

The real issue of whether Charles' position as future Supreme Govenor of the Church of England is tenable remains unanswered and at some point will have to be addressed unless he stands aside.

2 March 2012 at 10:36  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo,Camilla Parker Bowles was married to a Catholic. It is possible that she could have her marriage annulled by the Pope if this proves to be an impediment to Prince Charles being the head of the C of E.This would make her marriage to Prince Charles her first real marriage.
Princess Michael's first marriage was annulled, also Nicole Kidman. This seems to suggest that if one has a title or influence it might not be difficult to arrange.

2 March 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

E.xtra A.nnoying Blofield + Tiddles 2 March 2012 02:49 Must we get OoiG to liaise for you and tell His Grace that you fancy him.

You Sir, are a bum. The Inspector is no one’s circus dog. {FOLLOWED BY SNORT OF INDIGNATION}

2 March 2012 at 11:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Office of Inspector General said

"The Inspector is no one’s circus dog. "Obviously, Sir, you are not and old Ernst is horrified you thought he implied you a flea bag hound.

Ernst was remembering the girls at junior school who would vigorously push their friends on a 'mission' whilst protesting them not to.

but Ernst can see you in baggy trousers and braces, long curly shoes, red nose and carrying a bucket of water and called IGGO.

Ernst, that chap. oink oink! ;-)

2 March 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida

Hello, welcome back! Written any good poems recently?

Of course you are correct but such an application for annulment would have to be made to the Catholic Church. If successful it would result in the the two children of the couple being regarded as having been born out of wedlock by the Church, though not in the eyes of the civil law.

I do not know the circumstances of either Princess Michael or Nicole Kidman so can't really comment. However, to be granted an annulment by the Catholic Church one of would have to evidence the marriage was always null and void. An annulment is a finding that there was never any actual marriage contracted in God's eyes.

In Catholicism the grounds for nullility are:

Force or grave fear imposed on a person to obtain their consent.
The consent was based on a condition or reservation.
No intention, when marrying, to contract a lifelong relationship.
The intention, when marrying, never to have children.
A serious lack of the discretion necessary to consent to marriage.
Psychological incapacity to fulfill the obligations of marriage.

One wonders if either Camilla or her ex-husband (civil) would be willing or able to prove one of the above.

2 March 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

It seems Ernst is now suggesting you are encouraging me to continue on a path of strife with our host.

2 March 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. Many happy returns, very old chap.

Dodo. Indeed, he reminds the Inspector of those bounders at school who used to shout ‘fight, fight’ in the playground. Often before there was a fight, which he would then hastily arrange by bearing false witness to both soon to be protagonists in quick succession...

2 March 2012 at 12:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

You are a scoundrel! Funny but still a scoundrel.

I'll tell you a tale.

When I was at school we had to write a paper on the reformation. Being a rebellious Catholic I submitted Henry VII and the Pope had been wrong for arranging Arthur's and then Henry VIII's marriages to Catherine of Aragon for political reasons. I believed in love. I also thought the Church could have, if it was of a mind, granted an annulment to Henry VIII because of his youth and the political background to his marriage. I even went so far to suggest that Henry should have embraced Orthodoxy and not Protestantism as that Church does allow second marriages under certain circumstances.

Well! Imagine! I was told in no uncertain terms that Henry VIII made his vows before God, having had his first marriage annuled, and that was that! He had capacity, was King and as King the marriage may well have fulfilled wider interests but this did not make it invalid. As King he had a responsibility to fulfil his duties to the realm and as a Christian his duties to God.

I got a Grade D and me a Grade A student too! Such shame!

Sometimes our host takes me back to this formative moment and reminds me of my history/religious teacher - in reverse.

2 March 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Indeed but one can't help but like the old duffer, DRAT.

I liked the "very old chap". In his case age is way more than a number.

2 March 2012 at 12:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

666 even.

2 March 2012 at 12:22  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Indeed..I have whipped up a few masterpieces of late, Dodo.

It is not apparent to me that you have lustful feelings towards His Grace at all. I think Mr Blofield's comment is very immature.

Thank you for these annulment grounds. I'm going to pass them on to my Catholic friends because I am sure they will find this information useful. I cant believe it is as easy as this. Every married person I know has at least one of these grounds.

2 March 2012 at 12:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida

Ernst is just making trouble. How could I possibly 'fancy' aheap of dusty old ashes?

Now, now, I really doubt that! Believe me, getting through a Catholic annulment process is more difficult than changing the European Treaty! Pope Benedict has also tightened the 'psychological' clause too.

2 March 2012 at 12:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Blofield's comment is very immature.

heh heh !

2 March 2012 at 12:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Crssida

"
It is not apparent to me that you have lustful feelings towards His Grace at all. I think Mr Blofield's comment is very immature."

Cressida my Duckie dear, "parody for humourous effect ". The answer was there all the time. Jumping before being pushed is never good form!

Trust that placates your lust stained indignation?

Ernst 'Strange writer of humourous rhyme?' Blofeld

2 March 2012 at 12:49  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo,people fancy all kinds of strange things these days.I read about a man who fell in love with a parking meter.No, it was not Ernst..Would that be a mortal sin?

Ernst,my indignation is unstained and I am not your Duckie dear.Besides I don't like the way you are man handling that cat!

2 March 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida
Falling in love with a parking meter would not be a mortal sin in itself - an objective disorder most certainly. Acting on the impulse would be (and quite dangerous too, I should think).

We live in interesting times!

Ernst
Now that the nature of your affection for tiddles has been questioned, it does lead one to consider this in a fresh light. The seed has been sown.

2 March 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Seed germinating. Tiddles sits at and on Blofeld’s right hand, which is not healthy for man nor cat...

2 March 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Please don't tempt me to tease Ernst! It'll end in tears and we'll be accussed on being a tag-team by 'you know who' and his recently found chums.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to keep a low profile just now.

2 March 2012 at 15:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @15:11 : An interesting use of the term ''keeping a low profile'' - swamping the blog with your own, rather than counterfeit, postings? ;o)


Ernst: wat cheor canny lad; Happy Birthday! :o)

2 March 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin, Dodo and OoiG

Cheers, me bonny lads.

"''keeping a low profile'' - swamping the blog with your own, rather than counterfeit, postings? ;o)" *sniggers* but enjoying the puns and 'titter's' today. Ooooh!

Much gratitude for your warm wishes.

Ernsty

2 March 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin, no comment.

2 March 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

Only mildly disappointed that no birthday wishes forthcoming from 'His Nibs'.

He must be raking it in with that simonious advertising malarkey, the old skinflint.

Even did my bit by following links to energy company and advised they could save Ernst 120 squid..not to be sniffed at in this current financial environment, you will agree.

The bounders then told Ernst if he had loft and cavity wall insulation the 120 squid was in the bank.
Err HELLO. IT'S A BLOOM'N CRATER!

However from this bad, good came in that Ernst discovered he could take advantage of Feed In Tariffs (Well advised by that man Francisco Scaramanga and for putting in that massive battery of solar panels.)
However even good and bad were in this.

Good News;
Ernst will be raking it in (Eat you heart out YG, Ernst hasn't got to sell his sould for Caesar's droppings) and has promised to pay in full the 50p tax rate, no quibbles, Gideon lad and give most to help UK with an altruistic smile across his chops.

Bad News;
Energy Swindlers will be raking it in as Bleed'n Johnny Foreigner that own said companies will be benefiting off the back of Ernst' foresight. BLAST!

Ernst. Two wrongs do not make it right.

2 March 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Just realised Camilla is beginning to look like that high street menace, ‘Cider Woman’

2 March 2012 at 20:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I want to know what Boris is smirking at. Is he on a promise?

2 March 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

But why did it have to be on a trip to the family grocers!

2 March 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Family Florist more like - even the Royals are feeling the pinch and are reduced to selling posies.

2 March 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This week has seen two seperate posts addressing doctrine of marriage and reception of Communion within the Church of England.

The first, a guest post by the Rev'd Julian Mann posed the question whether someone who presents partake of the Holy Communion ought not to be admitted in a state of " ... grave and open sin without repentance".

The second queried whether Bishop’s were demonstatrating a "manifest lack of integrity" in disregarding the "polity and doctrine of the church (on marriage) in which he is a senior leader”.

My question: Should our Monarch, the Supreme Govenor of the Church of England, be in Communion with the Church?

If so, is Charles, living with a divorcee and not licitly married, in Communion with his Church? If not, can he ascend the Throne and at the same time retain his position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

3 March 2012 at 11:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Yes.

3 March 2012 at 15:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Within the terms of the Church of England's own teachings and doctrines?

3 March 2012 at 15:35  
Blogger Oswin said...

Yes.

3 March 2012 at 16:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Waiting ...? :o) Tee hee.

3 March 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Thought you might be.

Just how can that be squared with Church of England's Canon Law on marriage, even allowing for the General Synod's resolution in 2002 to accept "exceptional circumstances" in which a divorced person may be married in church during the lifetime of a former spouse?

3 March 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Sola Scriptura:

"And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery."

3 March 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

Nowt to do with ''exceptional circumstances'' or 2002, for that matter; it has been allowed, for some considerable time, at the discretion of the officiating clergy. Todays, 'formalisation' tidies up a few loose ends, is all.

What a day for you to ask that particular question eh? Lovely jubbly! :o)

3 March 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Question:
Can Charles, living with a divorcee and not married in the eyes of the established church, ascend to the Throne and retain his position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

Answer:
No.

4 March 2012 at 15:04  
Blogger Oswin said...

You mean as a consequence of their 'civil' marriage, rather than the 'divorce' bit? Easily arighted, I should think; but should it require a further ceremony, then I don't know; an interesting point.

Charles chose not to appear as if they had ''scrabbled around (his words) looking for an agreeable priest'' - so they chose the civil path, as you know. Had they done so, then following the recent Synod vote, there would be no problem; notwithstanding the caterwauling it might have caused at that time, of course.

Perhaps then a second ceremony is required, unless the original Church 'blessing' counts?

Anyone any ideas?

4 March 2012 at 16:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

No, I mean both. He is living with a divorcee and is not married.

Even within the terms of the Church of England's own generous 'guidelines' concerning second marriages Charles and Camilla could not be properly married. Though I quess they might have find a 'liberal' Bishop somewhere to perform such a ceremony.

The situation is as clear today as it was in 1936.

4 March 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"Anyone any ideas?"

One option: Charles relinguishes the crown.

Second option: Disestablishment and Republicanism.

I mean, even if the Church of England is disestablished how can he and Camilla be crowned King and Queen by the Church?

4 March 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: don't attempt use me as a trampoline for your silly Jesuit bleatings. What is it that you fail to understand concerning the new ruling? As I intimated earlier, the question of a 'remarriage' is a detail only; I was merely speculating upon the nature of said detail.

4 March 2012 at 19:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

You started this interchange so don't go getting all frosty now!

The 'new ruling' is basically unbiblical, conforming the Church to the world. It is arguable that it required a change in Canon Law. However, that's a Church of England problem.

Specifically re are two points in the guidelines that it's hard to see a way around.

Would the new marriage give rise to hostile public comment, cause scandal or undermine marriage?
(Possible to get around given public views about marriage and the Church of England's liberal approaches)

Was the relationship to be solemnised a direct cause of the breakdown of the first marriage?
(Impossible to get around given the history of Charles and Camilla)

4 March 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo : ''frosty'' moi? All you need to know is that we ain't never going back to Rome; so draw in your horns and belay the loaded, accusative questions, and you'll be just fine. Failing that, there's always Blackfriars Bridge. :o)

5 March 2012 at 01:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin, who's asking you to 'come home'?

I'm just asking questions as a British subject who is interested in a looming Constitutional crisis.

I also have an interest as a Christian in the way the Established Church is playing fast and loose with marriage in allowing vicars to do their own thing.

5 March 2012 at 01:53  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: ''I'm just asking...'' guffaws! Yeah, sure you are, you slithery wee Jesuit you. Naughty bad Dodo, hoping to add his half-ounce of tinder to the imagined pile eh?

Thank you, but no; no constitutional crisis today, ta very much.

5 March 2012 at 02:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin:
The fact that there might not be a Constitutional crisis should Charles ascend to the Throne shows how far the Church of England and this nation has departed from Christianity since 1936.

Both Monarchy and Church will loose all credibility.

5 March 2012 at 11:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: thank you again, you've confirmed one of three possible scripts that I thought you might offer. I do however appreciate the brevity, very considerate of you. Sir Isaac Pitman would be proud of you! :o)

5 March 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You're very welcome.

Out of interest - what were the other two possible scripts?

5 March 2012 at 15:00  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: basically they amounted to the same thing, the variation being the route etc. I surmised there would be no direct mention of 'Rome' as we'd earlier dispensed with that probability.

Perhaps we might save time and employ rubber, library-type stamps, for future use; allowing that we could condense further, to about seventy characters max'... a bar-coded response even?

By the by, did you catch the recent Venus-Jupiter conjunction?

5 March 2012 at 15:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin, middle of the month for the closest conjunction - try not to let Atlas know with all his "as above, so below" predispositions.

The issue of Charles and Camilla isn't a Rome v Canterbury issue. It's about the future credibility of institutions and I should think traditional Anglo-Catholics would be reflecting on this.

5 March 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: as per your last paragraph: and here was me thinking the issue was about YOU 'putting in' the Jesuit boot, when and where applicable, no?

Don't answer; you have your soul (not sole) to consider.

5 March 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin: sometimes one doesn't have to mention the obvious logic of a situation - or even consider it - and it doesn't have to be a sectarian, oops, partisan position.

Please don't tell me these issues haven't crossed your mind.

5 March 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Oswin said...

Yes.

5 March 2012 at 22:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Really? I'm very surprised. Then, to think about them actually leads one to uncomfortable options.

6 March 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: I said ''Yes'' - the issues had crossed my mind; but I didn't say I that I agreed with you.

6 March 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Sorry ...

So you're staying with the old 'via media' (for now) which has never really been a 'middle way'. It's more a way of avoiding resolving the inherent contradictions between two opposing theologies - catholicism and protestantism.

Seems to me these differennces are coming to a head over marriage/divorce, ordination of woman/active homosexuals and homosexual relationships/marriage.

All we really need now is a homosexual future King who wants his partner crowned King or Queen, by an active lesbian Archbishop, and we'll have the full set of issues to confront!

6 March 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger Oswin said...

I really cannot be arsed, so just imagine I've composed a list, of Popes, and their particular foibles...

6 March 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

If you did I might well agree with you about them! The "particular foibles" of sinful men is not the same as their behaviour being accepted or permitted by the Church.

6 March 2012 at 21:09  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: I'd never put you in that position! However, I accept what you say in part, but only in part... the C-of-E, as previously stated, already allowed for remarriage in church.

As to ''sinful men'' - well better a few sinners repenting, than a good man lost, because of some petty, and ungodly intransigence.

7 March 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: I'd never put you in that position! However, I accept what you say in part, but only in part... the C-of-E, as previously stated, already allowed for remarriage in church.

As to ''sinful men'' - well better a few sinners repenting, than a good man lost, because of some petty, and ungodly intransigence.

7 March 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So good you posted twice!

I do agree with your final statement. However, no good man is ever really lost and as Paul said all things work together for God's purposes.

7 March 2012 at 20:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older