What will happen to the Church of England after Prince Charles becomes king? Can he be the leader of the church because he is married to a divorced woman, Camilla Parker Bowles? What’ll happen there?
It is gravely concerning. I don’t know the answer. I am hoping mostly that Her Majesty lives to be so old (her heavy drinking mother lived beyond 100) that Charles forgos the throne altogether and the crown passes directly to Prince William. The Prayer Book is quite clear about marriages conducted otherwise ’ than God’s law doth allow’, as Charles will be acutely aware.
However, since 2002, the problem likely doesn’t exist. Charles would submit this form:
And I would bet the application would be given. Sort of a dispensation: Henry would recognize the concept.
But it is possible the real issue would be whether he and Camilla are legally wed. They had a civil wedding, to dodge the dicey publicity of one in Church. But it is by no means clear that Royal wedding can be civil ones, legally.
Thank you, I’ve been pondering that. Because if Charles takes the throne while under an unlawful marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall, it seems as though the church would seem to have a bit of a problem. I wonder why Queen Elizabeth II or Charles never addressed this…
I’m guessing it has been addressed. Just not in the press.
Since the Queen is the head of the church of England, I’m sure all I’s have been dotted.
I am guarding my counsel here. But I think such will turn out to be the case.
As stated, probably already covered, though admittedly, I forgot it was a civil ceremony.
But to part of your signature…
(And wear pants on my waist, yes we still exist)
Hehe, yeah I had that in my signature because here in Rhode Island, it has become normal even for people who appear to be in their 30’s! It disgusts me. But I digress, yeah I have been watching documentaries on the royal family and just took a book out of the library on Diana which had an interview in it with her. Then it dawned on me because not only was it a civil ceremony, it was also to a divorced woman, so it begged me to ask the question I suppose.
Kinda wish you didn’t change your signature!
But back to the subject; Henry did what he wanted, and they changed the line of succession for boy or girl of Will and Kate, so they will adapt yet again and somehow.
Sorry! Haha it was old. I have an impulse to change things a lot. And that whole family has become a mess. The past 25 years must have been the worst for the queen. Scandal after scandal, divorce, death, illicit marriages. Poor Elizabeth…
But doing that required legislation passed by the parliaments of all the Commonwealth Realms. It isn’t exactly a simple undertaking, nothing that can be done on the spot during a succession crisis.
Understood. I didn’t think it was an easy process. Little in politics is. Anywhere, it seems…
It can’t be unlawful for him to marry a divorced woman as it would be to marry a Catholic (not that either are actually illegal, simply that royals who marry Catholics lose their place in line to the throne, which hasn’t happened to Charles with his marriage to a divorcee.)
The hard part in these cases is that everyone has to pass an identical law. If Wikipedia is up to date it seems the new law allowing a firstborn daughter to inherit still hasn’t been passed in all the realms, given that it was agreed to change that law back in 2011, that shows what you’re up against with these issues. Not necessarily politics, but bureaucracy.
Who cares?: I cannot understand the American facination with the English Monarchy. We fought a bitter war in order to be free of the British Royals, and the Episcopal Church seceeded from the Anglican Church in order that the British regent would not be the head of their church.
Some Americans think that bitter war was a mistake, believe it or not. But even if American independence was a good thing, it’s still perfectly reasonable to hold a special affection for the Mother Country.
Jesus Christ is head of the Church. The Queen is merely Supreme Governor.
As for the Succession Bill, this is turning out to be yet another disaster for Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. They are trying to change the law such that the Monarch and those in the line of succession may marry Roman Catholics, as long as any children are brought up in the Church of England. Anyone on this forum knows that this law would make it more or less impossible for a Roman Catholic party to obtain a dispensation to enter such a marriage.
This is what happens when you introduce ideas about ‘equality’ into the Monarchy and makes me wonder at the Left’s real, long-term motives in pushing bills like this through Parliament. The Church is sleepwalking into disestablishment and the Monarchy to sleepwalking into abolition.
It’s a grave matter, I suppose. How can a church go against the Gospel? Jesus is very clear in condemning the divorce. Charles is unworthy to become the head of the church as long as he is with his wife, because he can bring confusion in the world about the Christian teachings.
Help me to understand, if you please. (Not smart in this department.)
Even though Charles was divorced, from Diana, didn’t her death break the marriage contract? I understand the condemming of divorce.
I understand his marriage to Camilla was a civil one, that that’s not upholding the COE , either.
And does Camilla espouse the COE? I am assuming yes.
I don’t think he’s the best man for the job, but that’s my opinion, not knowing the protocols of the COE aside. I do know that Henry went against the Gospel, though.
His marriage to Diana did. Camilla is also divorced. So in the eyes of the church she is still married to the man she is civilly divorced from. Does the COE have the equivalent of our decree of nullity? Maybe she has one and it hasn’t been make public.